Jobeson said:As has been said dozens of times in the past on this thread. The Play nice Policies are not about hacking the games or screaming racial slurs or threats in a chat, even intentionally training players are hardline rules that fall under the TOS or what have you.
Play nice policies are about enforcing sharing. A single guild can't raid every week because they have to give other people a turn from time to time. If its primetime and you have a camp I want, I can force a GM to arbitrate a "compromise" and force you give up the camp to my group. The people who use the PNP the most will be the ones taking back the ideal camp every day knowing people wont file the paperwork. PNPs are things that the vast majority of gamers fully ignore because they take the fun out of the game. It doesn't matter your group waited two hours for the camp to open up before going in. You are the sucker, you waited instead of arbitrated! (I am way too proud of this line)
Do you want a GM to force you to group with someone who wants the loot you are camping with your friends? Even if you hate the person they can say do it or give up the camp.
If I wanted to kill your faction's vendor that you and a dozen people are using along with a guard or two in that outpost all day I can do so. It is just "faction grinding." However if you try to stop me by buffing the NPCs you can be banned because RP has no place in the RPG when it comes to player interactions.
Most of the EQ PNP was about abuse/harassment/disruption, so not sure where you get that stuff isn't part of a PNP.
Play nice policies are more about establishing a base expectation/level of respect and depending on the game environment some level of sharing.
In your example you are assuming something like a camp exists at all, which it does not without any sort base expectation of sharing/respecting other players or groups. It's primetime and you and your friends work your way to a location you want to level in that also has a named spawn with loot you desire, well that's too bad because three friends who are higher level than you just showed up and they are killing everything in the area forcing you out. Tough. Repeat similar situations at any location that holds any value. This is far more likely to drive all but the most hardcore to leaving, their time isn't valued and they are pushed out of many activities by a "might makes right" or "survival of the fittest" atmosphere.
stellarmind said: hmm yea most pvp mmogs have rules in place, but it's up to the community to report them. sometimes u wonder how some ppl aren't banned and how others get banned so quickly. *streamer* favortism and *connected* players its funny to see this happen in mobas or fps, battle royales, when both sides start talking smack and neither of parties report lol. respecc right there lol. ahh i love the pvp community even if we are a bunch of mud raking savages hehe.
I will say that someone that plays on a PvP server will most likely enforce their own justice on someone rather than report them. But, things like rules against racial slurs and that type of behavior are a form of PnP. I think they are important to the overall health of a game. I have seen games get dragged down when there is no enforcement of those rules. The games reputation is important (just like a players) and if a game gets labeled as toxic by the community it is hard to overcome that.
If VR did police a server pnp, how expensive would it be?
The goal for the hired representatives would be to punish about half of all reported violations of the PnP, in a way that we see that punishment happen, or at least know it happened. The exact punishment itself doesn't matter, much, so long as it is consistent.
I myself would like a camps-included PnP if it is doable. I honestly wouldn't mind if the number of punishments was more like 10%. Just a chance to get caught is certainly meaningful enough to cause action, people buy lottery tickets after all. The comfort would be that someone who violates over and over again will eventually get caught. Everyone else will hopefully not want to risk their account, money, and time spent, on a suspension/ban.
I doubt you would need more than 1 representative at any given hour to meet such a lax expectation, maybe 2. Even if the pnp covers camps.
_________________________
To meet that expectation, I estimate we'd need to cover anything between $3 and $7 in our subscription per month.
A WoW subscription totals $14.99 per month.
They do have enforcers, but if they didn't you could say the price goes up to $18-$22 per month.
__________
That being said, this is just some stuff I threw together and I have no idea how enforcing a pnp works.
It is my hope that, someone with experience in the field, feels inspired to come in and call me an idiot, then give realistic numbers, and perhaps help save us all from this horrible conversation.
_____________________my sources_____________________________
https://www.salary.com/research/salary/listing/in-game-support-representative-salary
Let's just say...20 an hour assuming the 40 hour work week.
Assuming 8 hours a day, you'd need 3 representatives, to cover a full 24 hour day, then there's those 2 extra days for the full 7 days, and it's all really complicated, so let's just crunch that:
$20 an hour, 24 hours/day for 30 days is $14,440 per month.
dividing that by 5,000 for a 5000 sub server population (WoW is typically between 6k-10k) means that if you have 1 support representative working every hour of every day for a 5k server the subscription cost goes up by $2.88.
A $30 an hour/8 hours/5 days manager, per server, is about $1.00 to the sub cost. Whether you'd need a manager for every server pnp team is debatable.
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf
Basically, Seeing people get punished is our main deterrent to crime.
https://nypost.com/2018/09/25/a-shocking-number-of-us-murders-went-unsolved-last-year/
They say about 40% of murders went unsolved in 2018. As most Americans still seemed to be deterred from murder in 2019, I guess it's a good number.
stellarmind said: with a well trained ai i could probably cut the human cost and expedite the process probably by a factor of 10. probably. i'm no math man XD that 40% unsolved could literally be 4%. just need to replace more humans.
If there was a like button, I'd press it.
Nevertheless, well said=).
Iksar said:Most of the EQ PNP was about abuse/harassment/disruption, so not sure where you get that stuff isn't part of a PNP.
Play nice policies are more about establishing a base expectation/level of respect and depending on the game environment some level of sharing.
In your example you are assuming something like a camp exists at all, which it does not without any sort base expectation of sharing/respecting other players or groups. It's primetime and you and your friends work your way to a location you want to level in that also has a named spawn with loot you desire, well that's too bad because three friends who are higher level than you just showed up and they are killing everything in the area forcing you out. Tough. Repeat similar situations at any location that holds any value. This is far more likely to drive all but the most hardcore to leaving, their time isn't valued and they are pushed out of many activities by a "might makes right" or "survival of the fittest" atmosphere.
The bulk of the rules in EQs PNP existed before the PNP and they continue to exist in games without a pnp. The only thing unique to the pnp is the idea of paying the devs to police sharing.
You are absolutely correct the pnp is what defines what a camp is. Rules of Conduct or Terms of service do not go into forcing sharing. PNP can define or illdefine the rules that make a camp. They can define how long you can hold a camp. They can define who you have to share with. They can define the order you must share in. They can define how long you can leave named spawns up for without taking action. Does evacing constitute abandoning a camp? What if they evac in response to a train? What if one person FDs in the camp but the rest have to fight their way back for 15 minutes. What if the FD person is AFK? PNP can define how they want you to invite LFG players if they want and it would fit perfectly within the idea of a play nice policy, don't be mean to the LFG. PNP is about policing player interactions. It is why they are so rare these days, most games do not have them.
If your idea of playing an RPG is to constantly file paperwork to take what you want from other players, I find it hard to believe you are not going to put up with the handful of horrible people. Also it would be first come first serve based on the rules they have said so far, just like virtually every MMO out there. Tagging creatures instead of a DPS race.
Reputation matters or so VR keeps saying. We shall see if reputation has any value when you don't have the power to resolve issues with people in game.
IMO VR rules should apply to things that are reasonably specific. "Be polite" cannot possibly work and will take endless customer service time. Do not steal camps is almost as bad. Precisely what is a camp? Is it acceptable to have a "camp" for mobs that are needed for a quest so that people that have completed the quest or don't have it can monopolize the mobs just for kill xp or drops or even griefing? What constitutes possession of a camp? Can a guild hog a camp for hour after hour or even day after day and have VR enforce this? What warnings are needed by the camp "owners" to infringers? Surely if someone wanders past and pulls mobs without even knowing that others are there to claim a "camp" that is not grounds for any punishment.
ON the other hand, rules that focus on people *trying* to hurt others rather than simply playing to benefit themselves in ways that some would consider rude is a different matter. It may be hard to prove - but it often can be proven. If I train you on purpose, trying to hurt you not trying to escape a bad pull, that should be grounds for sanction and if repeated perhaps banning. If I follow you around for hours interfering with your pulls and obviously targeting you, not just competing in the same area. that should be ground for sanction and if repeated perhaps banning.
The time of customer service should be spent on serious things that aren't often merely questions of how many angels dance on the head of a pin - as is often the case with rules pertaining to camps.
I must admit I have serious doubt that self regulation only based on reputation will work as it appears that more and more people just don't care about reputation.
First of all I'd like to make a clear difference between competitive players that are driven by the quest of power and real toxic players that are driven by the will of ruining other players experience without consequences and that especially do not have the guts to go on PvP servers.
As I can understand competitive players that are reluctant to be limited or frustrated by what they can consider being a lack of content, I cannot understand or forgive the other ones.
So basically, I think that these 2 types of player experiences have to be adressed differently :
In order competitive players not being frustrated, the answers are :
- specific raid zones with very hard challenge to make them busy enough not to have to go in easier zones to compete with less hardcore players.
- massive mid level content to reduce competition where the most populated categories of players can hunt.
- limited fast travel to reduce the jump from boss to boss farm
Considering real toxing players, it is more tricky :
- I think that system based on report and automatic treatment without a human being part of the process just won't work. Just have to watch on how it turn on social networks, toxic people now work as a pack and know how to use the system to make their victims even more victims by being unfairly banned. So basically, I fear that these players can only be handled with a bunch of human GMs and a relentless and merciless policy. The problem is giving to the players and GMs tools that are relevant both to report and evaluate the situation.
- the old report command is necessary to handle insults, and I do believe that there should be zero tolerance for insults and result in an automatic 24h hours account ban, and maybe aggravated each time it happens. I know though that some players like to use provocation to be insulted and report, but the right answer is to report them also and let GM decide, not to give them what they want.
- transfering toxic player to PvP server is funny, forbiding them access to PvE servers is funnier, adding them a coward flag is even more funnier, and I guess it could be an interesting hobby for PvPers.
Rules of engagement and property on loot and xp is the most tricky issue to handle :
I like the FTE (First To Engage) rule cause it makes predictable who gets loot and xp. The problem to handle is the guys that snipe the first damage to get FTE flag and there are 2 cases : if he is able to kill the mob, if he is not and counts on the fact the victims continues to hit to make the job for him. If the guy get FTE flag and is able to kill the mob, I see no big problem, it may be rude but ok, reputation can handle this. If he gets the FTE flag and not able to kill the mob, an idea could be to give the possibility to the victims to quickly cancel their engagement, for example the leader of the group could get a button to do it, and it would clean aggro on the mob, heal the mob from the amount of damages made by his group and let the bad guy painfully die.
I'm not fan of MDD (Most Damage Done) rule, even if I understand it is to limit the powerleveling, I'm I right ? But let's give the mix FTE / MDD a chance.
Khendall said:Rules of engagement and property on loot and xp is the most tricky issue to handle :
I like the FTE (First To Engage) rule cause it makes predictable who gets loot and xp. The problem to handle is the guys that snipe the first damage to get FTE flag and there are 2 cases : if he is able to kill the mob, if he is not and counts on the fact the victims continues to hit to make the job for him. If the guy get FTE flag and is able to kill the mob, I see no big problem, it may be rude but ok, reputation can handle this. If he gets the FTE flag and not able to kill the mob, an idea could be to give the possibility to the victims to quickly cancel their engagement, for example the leader of the group could get a button to do it, and it would clean aggro on the mob, heal the mob from the amount of damages made by his group and let the bad guy painfully die.
I'm not fan of MDD (Most Damage Done) rule, even if I understand it is to limit the powerleveling, I'm I right ? But let's give the mix FTE / MDD a chance.
Many games with a FTE rule have a secondary rule stating the target must do half or more of the damage to the mob. I prefer the FTE mix that rewards no one. Stealing a spawn and trying to run it across zone to your camp would get you no loot. At that point a conversation with the group and guild leader will often get them dropped from the group and sometimes kicked or given warnings from the guild.
When the guild won't act to correct the behavior that is when you start the hate campaign against said guild. Invite everyone to contest every camp their guild takes as their guild doesn't believe in or respect camps. Make sure others are informed of why. People have the power to enforce rules in game if they simply don't roll over. Be active, make reputations matter.
Jobeson said:Many games with a FTE rule have a secondary rule stating the target must do half or more of the damage to the mob. I prefer the FTE mix that rewards no one. Stealing a spawn and trying to run it across zone to your camp would get you no loot. At that point a conversation with the group and guild leader will often get them dropped from the group and sometimes kicked or given warnings from the guild.
When the guild won't act to correct the behavior that is when you start the hate campaign against said guild. Invite everyone to contest every camp their guild takes as their guild doesn't believe in or respect camps. Make sure others are informed of why. People have the power to enforce rules in game if they simply don't roll over. Be active, make reputations matter.
So... your answer to people breaking the PNP is to...break the PNP...again all this proves is that it doesn't work. Your solution to someone or some group not following it, is to stoop to their level and be just as terrible as they are? What's stopping them from using that same PNP then, to turn it all around on you and tell GMs that you targeting their group for no reason and that you are harassing them for no reason other than a simple mistake? Let me reiterate, your solution to toxic player behavior, is to become the very same toxic players? That makes absolutely no sense at all; and just because you say you are doing it to make reputation matter, doesn't absolve you from any reprocaution of breaking said PNP you all want so bad.
BeaverBiscuit said:I myself would like a camps-included PnP if it is doable.
I would like you to define 'a camp' such that everyone will agree to it. Only then would I accept into a PnP.
Note: Joppa has said, many times now, in steams in in Discord, that 'camps' do not exist and will not exist. The only mob(s) that you can claim as yours are those that you are actively engaged in fighting or have under some form of crowd control. That's it. So if my group sees your group fighting a mob and a 2nd mob nearby is under crowd control but the boss mob is there with nobody attacking it? We can waltz right past you and kill it and you can't say a darn thing about it. We didn't killsteal it, we didn't take it from you..none of that..because your group wasn't actively engaged with it.
Khendall said:I'm not fan of MDD (Most Damage Done) rule, even if I understand it is to limit the powerleveling, I'm I right ? But let's give the mix FTE / MDD a chance.
Guess what? We do get a mix. MDD is for all group level content and FTE is for raid content. This has been confirmed time and time again by Joppa and others. Lets see if that decision gets refactored or not.
Vandraad said:So if my group sees your group fighting a mob and a 2nd mob nearby is under crowd control but the boss mob is there with nobody attacking it? We can waltz right past you and kill it and you can't say a darn thing about it. We didn't killsteal it, we didn't take it from you..none of that..because your group wasn't actively engaged with it.
My biggest hesitation with this game is that they do nothing and have a FFA/might makes right/take what you want style open world, knowing that we will never have EQ style respected camps again unless it is either hard coded or clearly ruled upon via PNP or something similar.
A game where most any named/rare spawn locations are just a nightmare of people stepping all over one another to get what they want, anyone elses time/efforts be damned. Where there is no leveling with groups through a dungeon enjoying progression up the "camp" chain of various rare spawns as you raise levels because most useful/valuable rare spawn areas are just a mess of players who have outleveled or outgeared the area that are engaged in hours long standoffs waiting for a pop. Beyond the intial wave of players on a fresh server the experience breaks down entirely.
Vandraad said:So if my group sees your group fighting a mob and a 2nd mob nearby is under crowd control but the boss mob is there with nobody attacking it? We can waltz right past you and kill it...We didn't killsteal it, we didn't take it from you..none of that..because your group wasn't actively engaged with it.
Of course the trash mobs on the way to the named don't count as a claim on the boss. Does this need to be said? Yes of course.
OCastitatisLilium said:So... your answer to people breaking the PNP is to...break the PNP...again all this proves is that it doesn't work. Your solution to someone or some group not following it, is to stoop to their level and be just as terrible as they are? What's stopping them from using that same PNP then, to turn it all around on you and tell GMs that you targeting their group for no reason and that you are harassing them for no reason other than a simple mistake? Let me reiterate, your solution to toxic player behavior, is to become the very same toxic players? That makes absolutely no sense at all; and just because you say you are doing it to make reputation matter, doesn't absolve you from any reprocaution of breaking said PNP you all want so bad.
I am the one arguing not to have PNP so what PNP is being broken in a world without PNP? In a world without PNP the players enforce their own common law. It is how reputation works. Look at real life. If a bigot works at a store you don't call the cops, you call their boss and get them fired. If their boss is protecting them then you bring it up with the patrons. You ruin their business. You don't just say, "it's not illegal to discriminate against that group of people. They don't have legal protection any more so its fine. I am so glad we have laws to tell us what is right and wrong." Perhaps you do though I guess, because otherwise you would be stooping to their level!?!?
What kind of monster stoops to their level and discriminates against a group they dont like? Well at least you can log in and be an "adventurer" Playing in a game where you refuse to stoop to the level of the evil bandit and never get in a fight, never save any of the towns folk under attack, perhaps if you wrote a ticket to the GM they would do something.
If there is a PNP a griefer will use the PNP and be above reproach more than you will stop their behavior. They just write up a ticket and say well they are in the right based on the PNP camp guidelines, so you are now avidly trying to steal their camp and of course they reported you, enjoy your ban. They have the law on their side.
philo said:Vandraad said:So if my group sees your group fighting a mob and a 2nd mob nearby is under crowd control but the boss mob is there with nobody attacking it? We can waltz right past you and kill it...We didn't killsteal it, we didn't take it from you..none of that..because your group wasn't actively engaged with it.
Of course the trash mobs on the way to the named don't count as a claim on the boss. Does this need to be said? Yes of course.
You know that and I know that, but there is a sizeable subset of the playerbase that would argue to a GM that the boss was KS'd because and I'll quote from previous arguments I've heard from this exact scenario as a GM in EQ1: "We were about to engage it" or "We were actively clearing to the boss". Boss or not, named or not, the argument from these people is the same: "We've been camping these mobs for hours and they just showed up and starting taking them."
I applaud VR for taking a stance that camps do not exist, that only the mobs you are currently engaging or have under crowd control are 'yours'. I just wonder if they have the courage to keep it that way. Sure, some people will take advantage of such a stance but, to be blunt, they would do it even if the PnP said it shouldn't be done. This just takes a load off what few CS people VR will have, letting them tackle the more important issues.
Vandraad said:BeaverBiscuit said:I myself would like a camps-included PnP if it is doable.
I would like you to define 'a camp' such that everyone will agree to it. Only then would I accept into a PnP.
Note: Joppa has said, many times now, in steams in in Discord, that 'camps' do not exist and will not exist. The only mob(s) that you can claim as yours are those that you are actively engaged in fighting or have under some form of crowd control. That's it. So if my group sees your group fighting a mob and a 2nd mob nearby is under crowd control but the boss mob is there with nobody attacking it? We can waltz right past you and kill it and you can't say a darn thing about it. We didn't killsteal it, we didn't take it from you..none of that..because your group wasn't actively engaged with it.
A camp to me is an area around a valuable resource in a game that you work to manage, so that you can gather that valuable resource. Whether the resource is experience, money, a node, or a specific drop, It doesn't matter. Whatever specifically you started camping that spot for.
I'm not terribly worried if you agree with my definition of a camp. If the gms disagree with me, and it significantly hampers my ability to play the game in a way I want to, I move on to a game I can play the way I want to. Doing what you want is what games are for, in my opinion.
Thank you for Joppa's opinion, I respect him a great deal. Even so, I can "say a darn thing about it", because Joppa is not me, and does not control whether or not I hold a subscription to Pantheon.
Vandraad said:philo said:Vandraad said:So if my group sees your group fighting a mob and a 2nd mob nearby is under crowd control but the boss mob is there with nobody attacking it? We can waltz right past you and kill it...We didn't killsteal it, we didn't take it from you..none of that..because your group wasn't actively engaged with it.
Of course the trash mobs on the way to the named don't count as a claim on the boss. Does this need to be said? Yes of course.
You know that and I know that, but there is a sizeable subset of the playerbase that would argue to a GM that the boss was KS'd because and I'll quote from previous arguments I've heard from this exact scenario as a GM in EQ1: "We were about to engage it" or "We were actively clearing to the boss". Boss or not, named or not, the argument from these people is the same: "We've been camping these mobs for hours and they just showed up and starting taking them."
I applaud VR for taking a stance that camps do not exist, that only the mobs you are currently engaging or have under crowd control are 'yours'. I just wonder if they have the courage to keep it that way. Sure, some people will take advantage of such a stance but, to be blunt, they would do it even if the PnP said it shouldn't be done. This just takes a load off what few CS people VR will have, letting them tackle the more important issues.
I don't consider fighting trash mobs very exciting, thus it is work. It is not a bad sort of work, so long as it pays off, because work makes people like their rewards better.
The trash mobs on the way to the boss mob certainly count as claim on it. It is why they are there, you earn the right to fight the boss mob by killing the trash mobs.
Spawn times also serve this purpose. It makes you work to get the mob you want.
If this isn't the case, then let's just remove trash mobs and long spawn times altogether, because they serve no purpose.
So long as there continues to be trash mobs and long spawn times, I will continue to consider my camp mine, because I literally work for it. My work is mine, to use or give as I wish.
Vandraad said:Khendall said:I'm not fan of MDD (Most Damage Done) rule, even if I understand it is to limit the powerleveling, I'm I right ? But let's give the mix FTE / MDD a chance.
Guess what? We do get a mix. MDD is for all group level content and FTE is for raid content. This has been confirmed time and time again by Joppa and others. Lets see if that decision gets refactored or not.
Yep, I knew it, read it upper in this topic.
I'd give it a chance, even if I admit I'd prefer the mix being in the rule itself and not in a switch between the rules depending on the situation.
When such rules are defined, it is a good exercise to do as if you're a bad guy and imagine how you could abuse the system. For example group MDD, I could imagine a group of 2 or 3 wiz that decides to follow a traditional balanced group and burst attack all their targets, they would probably nearly KS 80-90% of targets, is it authorized or not ? Could they be punished ? Example raid FTE, a whole raid decides to follow another one while they are cleaning the way to a boss, they don't fight, just follow, and while the cleaning raid is pulling the last trashes before the boss, they engage the boss, get the FTE flag and kill it, is it authorized or not ? Could they be punished ?
It's some kind of crash test, but it could be interesting to use this method to collectively create an "open PNP" by compiling the situations and for each one asking the community what is ok and what is not ok.
The most confusing part about this entire discussion is that we have seen time and time again how this will all play out. If anyone played on Sleeper/Combine, Fippy, or Ragefire/lockjaw you've already seen what happens when open world targets are able to be contested. And that was with a "pnp" in effect. Granted by that time the Gms were very laid back and would only step in for the most egregious circumstances, but nevertheless we have a road map to how this is going to play out.
There's going to be 1 guild per server that is more devoted (hardcore) than the others who will hit max level faster and begin to kill and lock down the endgame content.
We've also already seen how to solve this problem and allow for extremely healthy servers for years to follow (instances for raid content). Now I'm not going to open that can of worms, because it's been beat to death and I'm well aware that a majority of the people on these forums are adamantly against it because they feel it takes away from the game somehow. The healthiest eq tlps by far have been the ones with instances. The amount of drama that was eliminated was insane. Granted you will still have aholes who are determined to .are other groups mad. But no guild was able to prevent another guild from raiding when or what they wanted.
Without a system to limit who or what is able to kill what bosses, or a set in stone mechanic (like wow where a mob would become tagged by whoever attacked it first) youre always going to have issues such as dps races, killstealing, and poopsocking. A new game doesn't change how people have been playing mmos. And pantheon won't either.
And to reiterate, if you think community policing will do anything. You are extremely naive.
For most of my pc multiplayer games I keep a list of immature players. It helps me remember to write things down. I sometime check before joining a group. Or I check after someone starts to act or speak in a manuer that I find displeasing. I'll start another for sure when I get into PRoTF. Maybe a Google doc shared. Some of you I'm sure I will grant edit access and we can keep a list. If the server gets too populated with those types, then on to step two.
StoneFish said:For most of my pc multiplayer games I keep a list of immature players. It helps me remember to write things down. I sometime check before joining a group. Or I check after someone starts to act or speak in a manuer that I find displeasing. I'll start another for sure when I get into PRoTF. Maybe a Google doc shared. Some of you I'm sure I will grant edit access and we can keep a list. If the server gets too populated with those types, then on to step two.
This is fine, and worked well in 1999 (arguably). But all this does now is provide a small group of players a list of people they dont want to group with. That doesnt stop the griefing from happening to others, and wont stop likeminded players from forming guilds that dont really care what theyre members are doing (within reason).
stellarmind said: lifes too short to make a list. just kill them >=D
I wasnt sure what you meant, so I went back and read a few of your posts on this thread, and just a couple things to point out. PNP has nothing to do with RPing, on strict RP servers, youre free to RP however you want, the thing is, because of the general population of people that play on these servers, youll quickly end up just being cast out, and people wont interact with you.
RPing on a standard server is not typically something that happens on a wide scale, which is why PNPs dont care if youre RPing or not, RPing would just be an excuse for someone to train, KS, ninja and ultimately grief players without punishment.
Finally, as I mentioned before, PvP doesnt solve the issues at hand. In a majority of situations, the people that cause these issues are typically better geared than the majority of the server. The "unwritten rule" is just that youre able to be killed if you piss someone off, it doesnt fix the problem. If you end up on a server with the top guild running rampant, and griefing, theres not alot that can be done. Ive played on PVP servers on various games, and all it adds is another aspect to the game, it doesnt solve the problems caused by griefing.
Vandraad said:philo said:Vandraad said:So if my group sees your group fighting a mob and a 2nd mob nearby is under crowd control but the boss mob is there with nobody attacking it? We can waltz right past you and kill it...We didn't killsteal it, we didn't take it from you..none of that..because your group wasn't actively engaged with it.
Of course the trash mobs on the way to the named don't count as a claim on the boss. Does this need to be said? Yes of course.
You know that and I know that, but there is a sizeable subset of the playerbase that would argue to a GM that the boss was KS'd because and I'll quote from previous arguments I've heard from this exact scenario as a GM in EQ1: "We were about to engage it" or "We were actively clearing to the boss". Boss or not, named or not, the argument from these people is the same: "We've been camping these mobs for hours and they just showed up and starting taking them."
I'll be honest Van, when you said that I didn't believe it. You would have to have only played instanced games and had almost no open world game experience to think that...and then this happened 2 posts down:
The trash mobs on the way to the boss mob certainly count as claim on it. It is why they are there, you earn the right to fight the boss mob by killing the trash mobs.
People who have only played mmos after Wow released are going to have a very eye opening experience I think. To not even have this basic understanding that you have to have a mob engaged to have a official "claim" on it is laughably inexperienced imho.
I think most of us expect camp checks to become the socially accepted norm (even if VR doesn't officially) ...but then I know many players don't even have experience using camp checks. (I had a conversation once where someone thought I was talking about crowd control when I said CC).
Porygon said:We've also already seen how to solve this problem and allow for extremely healthy servers for years to follow (instances for raid content).
VR has discussed multiple ways they are going to handle this without instancing.
One way is the door locks behind the players as soon as someone enters the area (which is very similar to instancing in the end where players basically have a private area to fight a mob...unless 2 raids all step through at the same time).
Another thing they have mentioned to alleviate some of this is the infamy system which, among other things, will allow guilds to spawn their own boss mobs.
We will see how it plays out. It wont be as cut and dry as instancing but this has been discussed plenty. Brad definitely thought there were creative work arounds to the issue.