philo said:
I gave you more credit than that. Your post comes off as completely uninformed
Porygon said:You don't know if it will use minimal instances, thats just the thought at the moment.
Yes we do. That has always been the case. You very obviously don't understand the current state of the game to think something like that could change now.
And what stage of development is it dumb to argue for something you believe is better than anything that could likely be developed?
Now...and the last 2 or 3 years since we have been past the point of making any drastic changes like you are suggesting. As has been mentioned multiple times by Kilsin.
Have we seen any raiding content?
Yes
Have we even heard about the supposed "mechanics" that will magically allow for an open world game to remain competitive while somehow now allowing 1 or 2 guilds to control everything?Yes, we were just discussing some of the things VR has talked about in regards to this. Whether you like the answer means nothing.
We've heard such little information regarding endgame.End game has never been the focus of Pantheon but VR has talked about raiding dozens of times. They have talked about raid size and dynamic raid scaling. We have seen a raid zone and a raid boss. We know raid zones will have multiple atmosphere effects that you can't max out your acclimation to. We should have a general understanding of the direction they are going.
We've already seen aspects that lean towards potential instances, having a bosses door close behind you is just another way to separate the outside world from the party or parties engaging the mob.
That door closing mechanic was 1 thing brad talked about specifically in order to avoid instancing. It solves some of the problems that instancing is meant to solve.
You have to realize that saying the game should utilize instancing at this point of development is so completely ridiculous that we just can't have a conversation if you think that is even remotely an option.
I'm not shocked at your response but I'm definitely shocked at how you decided to try and get your point across
Again, we've had many significant changes to many key systems since things were announced. There's no reason to think that instancing or whatever mechanic they are coming up with will somehow escape the microscope of change/balance/whatever you want to call it. You merely think it's concrete because you would prefer that to be the case.
We have had so little in terms of information about the endgame. That for you to come across how you are is absolutely absurd. We saw 1 raid zone and 1 raid boss with barely any information provided. Their focus may not be on endgame. But if a game launches without it being setup properly it would be a complete failure.
And personally, I don't care to have a conversation regarding instancing, I brought it up because it was relevant to the discussion at hand. I've already given many examples of how systems can be abused and alot of the downfalls to systems besides instancing.
Minimal instancing can easily turn into massive istancing if a system that is put into place fails to work during testing stages. For you to think that something is locked in years before a games release is, and I mean no disrespect, simply idiotic.
The funny thing about all of this. Is that I'm going to play pantheon regardless of what system they decide to use. I know I will be in the top guild on my server. The top guild almost always directly benefits from anything that isn't instancing. My arguement for instancing is because I want pantheon to live a long healthy life at all stages of the game. If lesser guilds are kept out of progressing. It's going to cause problems, its going to cause turnover, which diminishes the overall health of the game.
Stop thinking on a personal level and start thinking on a community level. Isn't that what the whole idea of this group based, hardly any soloing, community driven game is about.
Porygon said:Stop thinking on a personal level and start thinking on a community level. Isn't that what the whole idea of this group based, hardly any soloing, community driven game is about.
To make something clear, I'm not anti instancing. I've argued for it a few times at least. All of the info I'm repeating that you think is my personal opinion is what we have been told or shown by VR. We are so far past the time in development where a decision to switch to instancing could be made. You haven't been keeping up to date on what we have been told. Again, if you think anything other than very minimal instancing is still a possibility at this stage we can't have a conversation because it's not happening. But then that's the second time I've had to mention it and you are still talking about instancing like it's an option so I don't know. I guess I just stop responding to the nonsense.
philo said:But also, instancing or lockout type of systems have always been something VR has wanted to avoid for a number of reasons. It's just not the vision for this game.
True open world games come with both positives and negatives. Each of us has to decide what type of game we want to play. You can't have your cake and eat it to.
Curious as to the latest information about this, as a brief forum search shows posts by both aradune and kilsin promoting the vanguard style system of lockouts as well as sharding which is similar to instancing. I don't see how its not the vision for the game when the creator promotes the idea and kilsin as well. You can have an open world with lockouts like vanguard did and it was fine for the players and devs in that game. It was the upgraded solution to everquest where you were gated by the difficulty of the encounters instead of batphone zerging and spawn control being the difficulty of the game.
Sharding has been discussed. VR has said they would not be utilizing shards/picks/mirrored zones.
Lockout timers/ghost mechanics have been discussed. It has not been talked about recently (in the last couple years). I don't remember them having a definitive answer like they did with sharding though. There were comments at one point that they didn't want to use lockout timers but I feel like that was something they "talked around" a bit. Unsure if their viewpoint has changed? It hasn't been mentioned in an official capacity by Joppa recently.
I'm not expecting many new, advanced systems at this point. We all need to understand the state of things. We may still make it to release if they push forward with the core systems and they get a publisher. They have been cutting or postponing "non-essential" systems the last couple years like caravan and mentor etc.
We aren't at the stage where core systems or design ideology is going to change.
So just to be clear, you have no idea what the system that will be put in place will be. You have no recent information regarding said system. The only thing you have is an acknowledgement that minimal instances will be used.
Minimal could equal only raid instances. I would consider that minimal.
Youre just assuming what you want to go along with your arguement, as will anyone until we get concrete information. If you choose not to replay, I couldn't care less, but stop with the strong armed responses that insinuate something is set in stone when it's clearly not.
Again, Joppa stated in a stream they wouldn't use shards. It's not my job to keep you updated on information we have been given.
Maybe part of the problem is you are focusing on raids when it encompasses so much more? If we get there you are probably going to be disappointed. There isn't going to be a ton of raid content to focus on after release. Sure there will be some but there won't be enough to sustain a serious raiding guild. As far as quantity comparison, Kunark or less might be a good way to think about it?
It will be a new, group focused game that is offering some multi group raid content. Don't expect there to be enough content to sustain full time raiding. I think we all need to temper our expectations sometimes.
They have specifically talked about ways to avoid the high end bottleneck that most games become where everyone is at the lvl cap and raiding...but then that is getting off topic.
I remember hearing of a Server- was it Povar? where all the top raiding guilds set up rotations for open world contested content so everyone could get a shot, even made room for newly formed guilds in the rotation and there as no issue and griefing and such was also policed by the people as led by example from the top end players.
Made me think the server was in California, some nirvana valley commune where all the people would go out to watch the sunset in their dashiki's and didn't know acid reflux was a disease ("I...didn't know") like the people in that commercial.
Sorry. When a company says open world competitive game, I thought it was obviously talking about raiding. Almosy every game has non raiding open world competition lol. In regards to quantity, I would actually be more than happy with a "kunark" amount of raids at launch. I assumed there would be less, but that doesn't change anything. If there's only 1 raid boss. It just makes it that much easier to control.
Sharding isn't the same as instancing, sharding is typically referring to creating a copy of a zone to combat overpopulation. Similar to the /picks in current EQ TLPs.
I watch almost every official stream that VR releases, and I haven't gathered a definitive answer for what the mechanics will be, if I missed a forum post or an interview on another platform than I do apologize. If you wanna point me to the content I'll gladly watch it.
Manouk said:I remember hearing of a Server- was it Povar? where all the top raiding guilds set up rotations for open world contested content so everyone could get a shot, even made room for newly formed guilds in the rotation and there as no issue and griefing and such was also policed by the people as led by example from the top end players.
Made me think the server was in California, some nirvana valley commune where all the people would go out to watch the sunset in their dashiki's and didn't know acid reflux was a disease ("I...didn't know") like the people in that commercial.
This has happened before on several servers. That main thing about it is that it's either enforced by GMs. Or the top guild is that one that agrees to the rotation. Like, if the 4th best guild says hey guys let's do a rotation. Noone cares. But when the guild that has the most to lose does, it's a different story. Whenever it's been tried on an EQ TLP, the top guild usually designs it so that they are able to still kill a majority of the mobs. But some other guilds will get a shot every once in a while. It's like tossing drops of water on a group of people dying of thirst. It only satiates them for a short while.
Interesting article today on this topic. Covers things like camps, pnp, griefing, keying/flagging bottlenecks, instancing, and the consequences of RMT.
" Being at a camp first or how long you were camping something didn’t matter. Someone could come along and take it from you because Daybreak doesn’t acknowledge camps. Everything in the game is a DPS race. If you kill it first, it’s yours, according to Daybreak’s Play Nice Policy. What a stark change from rules and etiquettes established many years ago. One can understand with a possible lack of resources for Guide and GM support, Daybreak doesn’t want its Customer Support mired in the trials and tribulations of toxic camps "
...
The power guilds blocked other guilds’ progressions by hoarding the camps or kill-stealing the spawns. "
vjek said:Interesting article today on this topic. Covers things like camps, pnp, griefing, keying/flagging bottlenecks, instancing, and the consequences of RMT.
" Being at a camp first or how long you were camping something didn’t matter. Someone could come along and take it from you because Daybreak doesn’t acknowledge camps. Everything in the game is a DPS race. If you kill it first, it’s yours, according to Daybreak’s Play Nice Policy. What a stark change from rules and etiquettes established many years ago. One can understand with a possible lack of resources for Guide and GM support, Daybreak doesn’t want its Customer Support mired in the trials and tribulations of toxic camps "
...
The power guilds blocked other guilds’ progressions by hoarding the camps or kill-stealing the spawns. "
Sometime in Dec. 2020.
The Daybreak Game Company will be acquired by EG7 Global, following a deal announced earlier today that's worth $300 million (cash and debt-free).
So someones out of the loop with that article.
zewtastic said:
Sometime in Dec. 2020.
The Daybreak Game Company will be acquired by EG7 Global, following a deal announced earlier today that's worth $300 million (cash and debt-free).
So someones out of the loop with that article.
Daybreak Games still exists, its just owned by a different company... unless youre implying something else? I read the article and am unsure what else you would have been referencing.
Fun topic that gets rehashed every year. I'm going to share my piece and if details bore you feel free to skip to the two-line TL;DR at the end:
I'd like to see Pantheon offer a "Spirit of the Game" that doesn't conflate competition with griefing. It doesn't really make sense to hold both positions at once. It's been stated many times that Pantheon will be an open-world game with finite resources that can and will be hotly contested. Kill-stealing should not be a valid term if the game is to offer fun/healthy competition. By recognizing that term, the idea of fun/healthy competition has already been undermined. What exactly does "hotly contested" mean? It sounds like multiple parties contesting the same resource, and that's fine. At the same time, if there aren't clear rules and guidelines that all players agree to, there will be countless scenarios where "hotly contested" means nothing more than having a "villain" and a "victim." GMs shouldn't have to babysit the "Spirit of the Game." This is how it's described by the International Olympic Committee:
"There are no referees; the players are solely responsible for following and enforcing the rules. Competitive play is encouraged, but never at the expense of respect between players, adherence to the rules, and the basic joy of play. Spirit of the Game is the mindful behaviour practiced by players worldwide prior to, during and after a game. It encompasses attitudes and skills such as good knowledge and application of the rules, fair-mindedness, safe play, and spatial awareness, clear and calm communication, and positive and respectful attitude towards teammates, fans, and opponents, in a mutual effort to protect the basic joy of play."
If we ever get to a point where one player feels they are "fairly competing" against another player who views their actions as "griefing" -- the competitive element of the "Spirit of the Game" has been compromised. This is a really sensitive topic because on one end of the spectrum we have seen an acknowledgment that the game is open-world and that resources can and will be hotly contested. On the other end of the spectrum it has been suggested that if someone consistently ruins the fun of another player, they will no longer be welcome to play Pantheon. "Ruining the fun" of another player is extremely subjective. That isn't a good premise to operate off of, in my opinion. It's far better to create rules and guidelines that ensure fair play and promote fun/healthy competition rather than making people feel like they have to walk on eggshells. It's quite obvious that some folks absolutely despise competition. There are other folks who enjoy it. When these two player types meet in the open world, it's highly probable that we'll see a "villain vs victim" scenario unfold. One player will feel like they are competing fairly while the other person feels that their fun is being ruined. How are these disputes generally resolved? By a GM that needs to come in, analyze the situation, and render a verdict. I think this is an uncomfortable situation for all three parties and it can be avoided by establishing rules and guidelines that clearly define the "Spirit of the Game."
This topic came up a while back on the "Play Nice Policy" thread. I asked Kilsin if training and kill-stealing would be considered a serious breach or a frivolous claim. Here was his response:
"Kill stealing and Training are very different.
Kill stealing is not a serious offence, every mob in the game is free for anyone to attack, if someone was waiting there first then you have to either choose to apply some game etiquette or not, it is not a reportable offence and a GM will not bother with such reports unless it is malicious or in combination with other offences like abuse etc.
Training can be accidental so it would come down to each situation and be judged case by case, if someone is running for their lives and you get caught up it is not their fault nor is it a reportable offence but if someone intentionally trains you and in some cases repeatedly, then yes, that is a breach of the guidelines and will incur punishment, most likely a warning if it is the first offence.
We have been very clear though and stand by our statement: "Repeated griefing and harassment will become a Customer Service issue. If a player consistently ruins the fun and entertainment of other players he or she will no longer be welcome to play Pantheon.""
How exactly do you define "game etiquette" in this situation? Both player types will likely have very different thoughts. The non-competitive player would probably want/expect the competitive player to move on to a different location rather than invading their space. The competitive player would probably want/expect the non-competitive player to accept that they are playing an open-world game, where competition is inherent, and where finite resources can and will be hotly contested. These views are clearly at odds with each other but when it really comes down to it, both stances are effectively "ruining the fun" for the other player. This is a classic example where "kill credit" would end up being conflated with "kill-stealing." What exactly is kill-stealing? If it's true that "every mob in the game is free for anyone to attack" then there is no such thing as ownership, which thus rules out "stealing" as a valid term.
This is where VR really needs to hunker down and decide on whether or not there will truly be a fun/healthy view on competition, and define the "Spirit of the Game." There should be clearly defined rules and guidelines that all players agree to follow when they log into the game. It shouldn't be implied that a competitive player is being a douche or lacking in game etiquette if they contest a "contested resource." By doing that, it basically portrays that player as a villain and reinforces the "victim" mentality. In other words, you don't really get to hold both positions at once. You can't promise fun/healthy open-world competition while also implying that everybody gets to pick and choose when/if they are a willing participant. That's begging for trouble and will undoubtedly result in countless tickets. Even in the example that Kilsin provided ... he stated that kill-stealing is not a "serious offense." That basically implies that it is an "offense" ... it's just not serious. But if that offense is somehow malicious or abusive, then it becomes a CS issue. Well ... if another player views "competition" as something that is ruining their fun, that opens up the door for them to claim that they are being griefed by another player.
It is my opinion that the "Spirit of the Game" should not recognize "kill-stealing" as a term. If VR wants to create content that is meant to be accessible rather than contested, they can very easily do that, while still preserving the open-world experience. The recipe for that was discovered back in Vanguard. Kill-stealing and content denial should absolutely be abolished as ancient relics and historical lessons that should be leveraged as a learning experience from previous games. Content should be classified as either "contested" or "accessible" -- this shouldn't be a matter of perspective, it should be a matter of fact. Doing this is essential if we want "fair play" to be defined. If VR wants to enforce camps then they should be crystal clear in their desire to do so. If VR wants to assign "ownership" of an NPC to any given player, it should be handled clearly and concisely with irrefutable in-game mechanics that aren't subject to interpretation or perspective. If VR wants to embolden the "victim mentality" then they should label competitive players as douches and griefers. If they want to promote fun/healthy competition, which is something Kilsin said "We want more than anything" -- they need to create a world that is conducive to that style of play.
This topic has been debated back and forth for several years now. Joppa mentioned during a stream that Pantheon is being designed with "eyes wide open" when it comes to how players will interact in the open world. Unfortunately, there are more questions than there are answers when it comes to solving some of the perceived issues of open-world gaming. There are two opposing sides when it comes to this debate and pairing these players together in an open-world game will most certainly lead to "unwanted" competition. In other words, it's no longer competition at that point. If a player decides that they absolutely despise competition and want nothing to do with it in Pantheon, competition essentially becomes "conflict" for that player. If another player contributes toward said conflict, that will likely be perceived as an attempt to grief. Is that what we want? I hope not.
At the end of the day, I hope VR delivers a world where competition can actually be embraced as an inherent aspect of playing in an open-world MMO. I totally understand that some folks don't enjoy competition and that further reinforces the need for VR to be completely transparent in regards to what they ultimately envision "fun/healthy competition" to be, and what kind of rules/guidelines they will have in place to help facilitate it. I remember back in the good old days when multiple groups would be willing to contest the same resource for extended periods of time. If the other group got the coveted drop, it was considered good sportsmanship to cheer for them. That's what I consider "game etiquette" when all players accept that competition is an inherent aspect of the "Spirit of the Game."
Let's discuss the impact of competition, and why it should be viewed as fun and healthy rather than being a taboo concept. If we take a look at the natural world around us, it's easy to see that competition is everywhere, and like it or not, the human species is not exempt from the natural world. Some people seek to eliminate competition because they view it as anti-social behavior. I believe the opposite to be true. Competition causes people to raise their expectations, become more creative, and overcome obstacles that are preventing success. It doesn't matter whether or not someone wants conflict; it is going to be inevitable at times. It puts players in a position where they will have to choose the philosophy that they align themselves with and that shouldn't be viewed as a bad thing. Competition invokes the best out of us as long as players are following the rules.
We shouldn't be trying to suppress competition; we should be embracing it as a source of inspiration and motivation. Rather than players simply occupying a space in a group, they would become a member of a team. Friendly rivalry can be a great source of positive interaction. It pushes players to perform at their best and can be an amazing catalyst for teamwork and social bonding. When players are viewed as team members rather than commodities, and healthy competitors rather than invasive parasites, we can truly embrace the idea that competition is fun and healthy rather than being a potential source of anti-social or grief-inducing behavior. Competition is viewed as negative when players overemphasize the concept of winning. Rather than being able to enjoy the "Spirit of the Game" they focus more on the bad feelings of losing or not getting what they want. This is where rivals are painted as villains and the idea of suppressing competition becomes so prevalent.
Rather than looking at competition objectively, or as something that invokes expansion and growth, some people would rather avoid conflict altogether. Unfortunately, that mentality is something that I am in strong disagreement with. It's that mentality that leads to instancing. As far as MMOs are concerned, this is where competition shifted away from "hotly contested resources" and more towards the e-sports nonsense that we see with current WoW. Rather than players sharing a world, sharing space, and vying for the same resources ... they get their own little dimension and competition eventually evolved into a concept of who can do what first. This, of course, removes players from the world and is more conducive to server vs server rivalries, reputation, and competition. Again ... it is my opinion that these negative feelings toward competition are exactly what lead to instancing in the first place. If anybody reads the forum or Discord they will see plenty of clamoring for instancing. Some people have a very low tolerance for competition and that's when it essentially becomes a source of conflict.
It is for that reason that I think it's imperative that VR has the final say on what content should be competed for and what content should be made accessible. It's obviously a bad idea to gate epic quest rewards behind contested content. This was probably the main source of "content denial" in EQ. Players would advance through their epic quests and then the final step would require them to kill something that only spawns once per week. That is a recipe for disaster. The underlying reason is that all of the work that went into the epic quest, prior to that final step, was basically for naught. If the final update is the least accessible then the potential satisfaction of completing the quest will feel both extremely close and terribly far away at the same exact time. If other players are preventing someone from having a chance to complete their quest, of course they are going to get frustrated. This is a situation where players were forced into an unhealthy bottleneck that pitted all players against each other and eventually leads to strong feelings of resentment and the emergence of content denial and suppression of competition.
In the end, I think it's important that Terminus is built with a "mixed bag" approach. Some content should be accessible, some should be semi-contested, and some should be fully contested. Rather than allowing players to determine the contested/accessible ratio, VR can control it from the background. They can leverage all of their experience over the years and alleviate the contention of stressful bottlenecks. They can provide a balance of all three content types which would eliminate kill-stealing and content denial while also providing a platform for fun/healthy competition to thrive. All of these "issues" can be solved quite easily by utilizing the ghost/lockout system from Vanguard. Rather than having a generic set of numbers that apply to all content, it would be up to VR to manually determine the rate of accessibility or competition that they desire for each mob. It's really that simple. These variables can be adjusted with minimal effort which provides flexibility and adaptability based on content consumption trends. Perspective is extremely important here and this is an area where some guidance and order would go a long way. If you leave it up to the players it will inevitably lead to conflict that should probably have been avoided in the first place.
Establish the rules that govern fair play, share the vision of what the "Spirit of the Game" looks like, and then custom tailor the content so that both competitive and non-competitive players are represented. I want to see a melting pot world where the vast majority of players can play in peace and harmony and where competition can actually be fun and healthy. That clearly isn't going to happen on its own but if the world is designed with this ideology in mind, I do believe that it can be achieved. I have been a long-standing and firm believer that Pantheon is truly going to evolve the genre. If VR can create an open-world PVE MMO that strikes a balance of contested/accessible content that sees the player base embracing friendly competition as a positive interaction, that would speak volumes. We have all seen what happens when a melting pot of players can't tolerate each other because of philosophical differences.
At the end of the day ... most people will be playing the game to have fun. It's up to VR to offer a product that appeals to the various player demographics and personalities. There should be a range of motivators (these should extend beyond competitive and non-competitive; they should include all player types that have been identified in the Richard Bartle / Nick Yee MMO player studies) that allows each play style to find their calling without having to segregate people or condemn our differences. We should embrace our diversity because it's the key to making a world feel authentic and alive! Terminus should be a world that allows players to make it their virtual home, where living vicariously through their characters they can derive enjoyment and satisfaction from playing the game.
It doesn't matter whether you win or lose ... it matters how you play the game. I think people get too caught up in the idea of each and every contest counting as a game in and of itself where there is a winner and a loser. The reality is that the "game" in the context of a persistent online MMO world stretches way beyond these chance encounters and interactions with other players. Whatever happened to good sportsmanship? It's absolutely inevitable that players are going to lose battles from time to time but it's important to play the game with heart, passion, and conviction. If players lose a battle they need to be reminded that it's no time to whine and complain. You don't sit there and vilify the other team. If you end up losing out on a spawn it's not the end of the world.
Players need to reconceptualize what fun/healthy competition means in an MMO and understand that it's not about winning or losing. It's about being a fun person to be around in social spaces. Sometimes you'll win and sometimes you'll lose ... but it's all about how your character is perceived in these social interactions. If you're a sore loser then other people aren't going to want to play with you. If you show good sportsmanship then you'll be an attractive candidate as a friend and be able to participate in more games, and thus get more satisfaction and fulfillment out of playing the game with others. It's really telling that adding a fun/healthy competitive element to the "Spirit of the Game" is such a fleeting concept in MMOs. We all saw what happened with the instance boom. It caught on just like participation trophies did but I think it's about time to put an end to infantilization in our gaming.
Let's consider this old blog entry that discussed competition and instancing from Brad McQuaid: GamerGod - Brad McQuaid on Instancing! by (archive.org)
Here are the parts that really resonate with me:
"Then let me touch on a controversial topic that is definitely related: entitlement to content vs. opportunity to experience content. This is hotly debated, has been, and will be. Because, really, nobody is right except when speaking for only them. The reality is there are, in this case, two types of people: those who want to play a game where they are entitled to experience everything, obtain everything, etc. merely because they pay the fee and put some time in, though it had better be time in allotments and at a frequency that works with the rest of their lives. And then there are those who want more of a challenge and don’t mind indirect competition and finite resources and realize, that unless they really try hard, they’re not going to achieve everything, or see everything – but they also think that’s fine – in fact, arguably, it makes the world more real – you can’t see every square foot of the real world, after all – and you always need something to dream about, or another goal to head towards."
"Is competition always bad, or like so many things in life, only bad if there is too much of it? And is it possible that we figure out better ways in general, of making advancement, even with competition, more fun? I say we have to. Death to the boring grind!"
"Stickiness. Retention. By eliminating or severely reducing competition, player advancement accelerates – access to items that help you advance your player are not limited by other players seeking them as well, either legitimately or by griefing. By making items easier to get, human nature dictates that at least a lot (most?) of people will find they value these items less, that their sense of accomplishment and attachment to a virtual character or item is diminished. People tend to value things they had to work for more than things they obtained more easily, or for no real effort. Yes, even in a game that’s purpose is to entertain – that doesn’t get you out of having to deal with and acknowledge (and if possible, even harness) human nature. And you can like or dislike this aspect of human nature, but I submit it’s not going away any time soon (see Lenin, Stalin, and other’s attempts at truly changing what makes us tick – not so successful, to say the least). What you can choose, however, and with more choices every day, is which MMOG you want to play relative to how much it fights against or, on the other hand, embraces human nature. Yeah, that’s a provocative way to put it, but I think it’s accurate. Some people want human nature in entertainment, while others play games to escape aspects of humanity they’d rather not deal with. To some virtual worlds are a great way to study humanity – to others, they are to be avoided at all costs."
I want to play in a virtual world built by a company that understands how competition and human nature can enhance stickiness, retention, accomplishment, and attachment. I embrace human nature over social engineering, hand-holding, and infantilization.
Porygon said:zewtastic said:
Sometime in Dec. 2020.
The Daybreak Game Company will be acquired by EG7 Global, following a deal announced earlier today that's worth $300 million (cash and debt-free).
So someones out of the loop with that article.
Daybreak Games still exists, its just owned by a different company... unless youre implying something else? I read the article and am unsure what else you would have been referencing.
New company, new policies. Apparently you have never worked for an organization that was bought by another one. Everything changes. Executives, managers, policies, rules.
I have experienced it, and it happened while I was in the game industry, twice. Everything changes.
You all realize that much of this debate could be minimized if not eliminated completly with just a few simple choices by VR: 1) Make the world as large as possible filled with as much content as possible; 2) Limit the PC population such that there is more content than what can be simultaneously consumed; 3) Ensure that fast travel of large numbers of people across long distances is impossible.
Why was content, especially raid content so hotly contensted? Because there was so little of it and guilds could move 100+ people complely across the world with little effort. Group level content was highly contested because, as we leveled up, we were funneled into fewer and fewer zones that were (on a square footage viewpoint) very small as well. Add to this that named mobs were the only content anybody really wanted to do further reduced the amount of content.
If VR repeats this in Pantheon then, absolutely yes, the toxicity between guilds will become quite heated. So, VR, listen up and learn from past mistakes or you are bound to have history repeat itself in your game...and you will not be prepared to handle it.
Vandraad said:You all realize that much of this debate could be minimized if not eliminated completly with just a few simple choices by VR: 1) Make the world as large as possible filled with as much content as possible; 2) Limit the PC population such that there is more content than what can be simultaneously consumed; 3) Ensure that fast travel of large numbers of people across long distances is impossible.
Why was content, especially raid content so hotly contensted? Because there was so little of it and guilds could move 100+ people complely across the world with little effort. Group level content was highly contested because, as we leveled up, we were funneled into fewer and fewer zones that were (on a square footage viewpoint) very small as well. Add to this that named mobs were the only content anybody really wanted to do further reduced the amount of content.
If VR repeats this in Pantheon then, absolutely yes, the toxicity between guilds will become quite heated. So, VR, listen up and learn from past mistakes or you are bound to have history repeat itself in your game...and you will not be prepared to handle it.
I don't hink it will be a problem. Look how massive the Caverns of Amberfaet are.
oneADseven said:Fun topic that gets rehashed every year. I'm going to share my piece and if details bore you feel free to skip to the two-line TL;DR at the end:
I'd like to see Pantheon offer a "Spirit of the Game" that doesn't conflate competition with griefing. It doesn't really make sense to hold both positions at once. It's been stated many times that Pantheon will be an open-world game with finite resources that can and will be hotly contested. Kill-stealing should not be a valid term if the game is to offer fun/healthy competition. By recognizing that term, the idea of fun/healthy competition has already been undermined. What exactly does "hotly contested" mean? It sounds like multiple parties contesting the same resource, and that's fine. At the same time, if there aren't clear rules and guidelines that all players agree to, there will be countless scenarios where "hotly contested" means nothing more than having a "villain" and a "victim." GMs shouldn't have to babysit the "Spirit of the Game." This is how it's described by the International Olympic Committee:
"There are no referees; the players are solely responsible for following and enforcing the rules. Competitive play is encouraged, but never at the expense of respect between players, adherence to the rules, and the basic joy of play. Spirit of the Game is the mindful behaviour practiced by players worldwide prior to, during and after a game. It encompasses attitudes and skills such as good knowledge and application of the rules, fair-mindedness, safe play, and spatial awareness, clear and calm communication, and positive and respectful attitude towards teammates, fans, and opponents, in a mutual effort to protect the basic joy of play."
If we ever get to a point where one player feels they are "fairly competing" against another player who views their actions as "griefing" -- the competitive element of the "Spirit of the Game" has been compromised. This is a really sensitive topic because on one end of the spectrum we have seen an acknowledgment that the game is open-world and that resources can and will be hotly contested. On the other end of the spectrum it has been suggested that if someone consistently ruins the fun of another player, they will no longer be welcome to play Pantheon. "Ruining the fun" of another player is extremely subjective. That isn't a good premise to operate off of, in my opinion. It's far better to create rules and guidelines that ensure fair play and promote fun/healthy competition rather than making people feel like they have to walk on eggshells. It's quite obvious that some folks absolutely despise competition. There are other folks who enjoy it. When these two player types meet in the open world, it's highly probable that we'll see a "villain vs victim" scenario unfold. One player will feel like they are competing fairly while the other person feels that their fun is being ruined. How are these disputes generally resolved? By a GM that needs to come in, analyze the situation, and render a verdict. I think this is an uncomfortable situation for all three parties and it can be avoided by establishing rules and guidelines that clearly define the "Spirit of the Game."
This topic came up a while back on the "Play Nice Policy" thread. I asked Kilsin if training and kill-stealing would be considered a serious breach or a frivolous claim. Here was his response:
"Kill stealing and Training are very different.
Kill stealing is not a serious offence, every mob in the game is free for anyone to attack, if someone was waiting there first then you have to either choose to apply some game etiquette or not, it is not a reportable offence and a GM will not bother with such reports unless it is malicious or in combination with other offences like abuse etc.
Training can be accidental so it would come down to each situation and be judged case by case, if someone is running for their lives and you get caught up it is not their fault nor is it a reportable offence but if someone intentionally trains you and in some cases repeatedly, then yes, that is a breach of the guidelines and will incur punishment, most likely a warning if it is the first offence.We have been very clear though and stand by our statement: "Repeated griefing and harassment will become a Customer Service issue. If a player consistently ruins the fun and entertainment of other players he or she will no longer be welcome to play Pantheon.""
How exactly do you define "game etiquette" in this situation? Both player types will likely have very different thoughts. The non-competitive player would probably want/expect the competitive player to move on to a different location rather than invading their space. The competitive player would probably want/expect the non-competitive player to accept that they are playing an open-world game, where competition is inherent, and where finite resources can and will be hotly contested. These views are clearly at odds with each other but when it really comes down to it, both stances are effectively "ruining the fun" for the other player. This is a classic example where "kill credit" would end up being conflated with "kill-stealing." What exactly is kill-stealing? If it's true that "every mob in the game is free for anyone to attack" then there is no such thing as ownership, which thus rules out "stealing" as a valid term.
This is where VR really needs to hunker down and decide on whether or not there will truly be a fun/healthy view on competition, and define the "Spirit of the Game." There should be clearly defined rules and guidelines that all players agree to follow when they log into the game. It shouldn't be implied that a competitive player is being a douche or lacking in game etiquette if they contest a "contested resource." By doing that, it basically portrays that player as a villain and reinforces the "victim" mentality. In other words, you don't really get to hold both positions at once. You can't promise fun/healthy open-world competition while also implying that everybody gets to pick and choose when/if they are a willing participant. That's begging for trouble and will undoubtedly result in countless tickets. Even in the example that Kilsin provided ... he stated that kill-stealing is not a "serious offense." That basically implies that it is an "offense" ... it's just not serious. But if that offense is somehow malicious or abusive, then it becomes a CS issue. Well ... if another player views "competition" as something that is ruining their fun, that opens up the door for them to claim that they are being griefed by another player.
It is my opinion that the "Spirit of the Game" should not recognize "kill-stealing" as a term. If VR wants to create content that is meant to be accessible rather than contested, they can very easily do that, while still preserving the open-world experience. The recipe for that was discovered back in Vanguard. Kill-stealing and content denial should absolutely be abolished as ancient relics and historical lessons that should be leveraged as a learning experience from previous games. Content should be classified as either "contested" or "accessible" -- this shouldn't be a matter of perspective, it should be a matter of fact. Doing this is essential if we want "fair play" to be defined. If VR wants to enforce camps then they should be crystal clear in their desire to do so. If VR wants to assign "ownership" of an NPC to any given player, it should be handled clearly and concisely with irrefutable in-game mechanics that aren't subject to interpretation or perspective. If VR wants to embolden the "victim mentality" then they should label competitive players as douches and griefers. If they want to promote fun/healthy competition, which is something Kilsin said "We want more than anything" -- they need to create a world that is conducive to that style of play.
This topic has been debated back and forth for several years now. Joppa mentioned during a stream that Pantheon is being designed with "eyes wide open" when it comes to how players will interact in the open world. Unfortunately, there are more questions than there are answers when it comes to solving some of the perceived issues of open-world gaming. There are two opposing sides when it comes to this debate and pairing these players together in an open-world game will most certainly lead to "unwanted" competition. In other words, it's no longer competition at that point. If a player decides that they absolutely despise competition and want nothing to do with it in Pantheon, competition essentially becomes "conflict" for that player. If another player contributes toward said conflict, that will likely be perceived as an attempt to grief. Is that what we want? I hope not.
At the end of the day, I hope VR delivers a world where competition can actually be embraced as an inherent aspect of playing in an open-world MMO. I totally understand that some folks don't enjoy competition and that further reinforces the need for VR to be completely transparent in regards to what they ultimately envision "fun/healthy competition" to be, and what kind of rules/guidelines they will have in place to help facilitate it. I remember back in the good old days when multiple groups would be willing to contest the same resource for extended periods of time. If the other group got the coveted drop, it was considered good sportsmanship to cheer for them. That's what I consider "game etiquette" when all players accept that competition is an inherent aspect of the "Spirit of the Game."
Let's discuss the impact of competition, and why it should be viewed as fun and healthy rather than being a taboo concept. If we take a look at the natural world around us, it's easy to see that competition is everywhere, and like it or not, the human species is not exempt from the natural world. Some people seek to eliminate competition because they view it as anti-social behavior. I believe the opposite to be true. Competition causes people to raise their expectations, become more creative, and overcome obstacles that are preventing success. It doesn't matter whether or not someone wants conflict; it is going to be inevitable at times. It puts players in a position where they will have to choose the philosophy that they align themselves with and that shouldn't be viewed as a bad thing. Competition invokes the best out of us as long as players are following the rules.
We shouldn't be trying to suppress competition; we should be embracing it as a source of inspiration and motivation. Rather than players simply occupying a space in a group, they would become a member of a team. Friendly rivalry can be a great source of positive interaction. It pushes players to perform at their best and can be an amazing catalyst for teamwork and social bonding. When players are viewed as team members rather than commodities, and healthy competitors rather than invasive parasites, we can truly embrace the idea that competition is fun and healthy rather than being a potential source of anti-social or grief-inducing behavior. Competition is viewed as negative when players overemphasize the concept of winning. Rather than being able to enjoy the "Spirit of the Game" they focus more on the bad feelings of losing or not getting what they want. This is where rivals are painted as villains and the idea of suppressing competition becomes so prevalent.
Rather than looking at competition objectively, or as something that invokes expansion and growth, some people would rather avoid conflict altogether. Unfortunately, that mentality is something that I am in strong disagreement with. It's that mentality that leads to instancing. As far as MMOs are concerned, this is where competition shifted away from "hotly contested resources" and more towards the e-sports nonsense that we see with current WoW. Rather than players sharing a world, sharing space, and vying for the same resources ... they get their own little dimension and competition eventually evolved into a concept of who can do what first. This, of course, removes players from the world and is more conducive to server vs server rivalries, reputation, and competition. Again ... it is my opinion that these negative feelings toward competition are exactly what lead to instancing in the first place. If anybody reads the forum or Discord they will see plenty of clamoring for instancing. Some people have a very low tolerance for competition and that's when it essentially becomes a source of conflict.
It is for that reason that I think it's imperative that VR has the final say on what content should be competed for and what content should be made accessible. It's obviously a bad idea to gate epic quest rewards behind contested content. This was probably the main source of "content denial" in EQ. Players would advance through their epic quests and then the final step would require them to kill something that only spawns once per week. That is a recipe for disaster. The underlying reason is that all of the work that went into the epic quest, prior to that final step, was basically for naught. If the final update is the least accessible then the potential satisfaction of completing the quest will feel both extremely close and terribly far away at the same exact time. If other players are preventing someone from having a chance to complete their quest, of course they are going to get frustrated. This is a situation where players were forced into an unhealthy bottleneck that pitted all players against each other and eventually leads to strong feelings of resentment and the emergence of content denial and suppression of competition.
In the end, I think it's important that Terminus is built with a "mixed bag" approach. Some content should be accessible, some should be semi-contested, and some should be fully contested. Rather than allowing players to determine the contested/accessible ratio, VR can control it from the background. They can leverage all of their experience over the years and alleviate the contention of stressful bottlenecks. They can provide a balance of all three content types which would eliminate kill-stealing and content denial while also providing a platform for fun/healthy competition to thrive. All of these "issues" can be solved quite easily by utilizing the ghost/lockout system from Vanguard. Rather than having a generic set of numbers that apply to all content, it would be up to VR to manually determine the rate of accessibility or competition that they desire for each mob. It's really that simple. These variables can be adjusted with minimal effort which provides flexibility and adaptability based on content consumption trends. Perspective is extremely important here and this is an area where some guidance and order would go a long way. If you leave it up to the players it will inevitably lead to conflict that should probably have been avoided in the first place.
Establish the rules that govern fair play, share the vision of what the "Spirit of the Game" looks like, and then custom tailor the content so that both competitive and non-competitive players are represented. I want to see a melting pot world where the vast majority of players can play in peace and harmony and where competition can actually be fun and healthy. That clearly isn't going to happen on its own but if the world is designed with this ideology in mind, I do believe that it can be achieved. I have been a long-standing and firm believer that Pantheon is truly going to evolve the genre. If VR can create an open-world PVE MMO that strikes a balance of contested/accessible content that sees the player base embracing friendly competition as a positive interaction, that would speak volumes. We have all seen what happens when a melting pot of players can't tolerate each other because of philosophical differences.
At the end of the day ... most people will be playing the game to have fun. It's up to VR to offer a product that appeals to the various player demographics and personalities. There should be a range of motivators (these should extend beyond competitive and non-competitive; they should include all player types that have been identified in the Richard Bartle / Nick Yee MMO player studies) that allows each play style to find their calling without having to segregate people or condemn our differences. We should embrace our diversity because it's the key to making a world feel authentic and alive! Terminus should be a world that allows players to make it their virtual home, where living vicariously through their characters they can derive enjoyment and satisfaction from playing the game.
It doesn't matter whether you win or lose ... it matters how you play the game. I think people get too caught up in the idea of each and every contest counting as a game in and of itself where there is a winner and a loser. The reality is that the "game" in the context of a persistent online MMO world stretches way beyond these chance encounters and interactions with other players. Whatever happened to good sportsmanship? It's absolutely inevitable that players are going to lose battles from time to time but it's important to play the game with heart, passion, and conviction. If players lose a battle they need to be reminded that it's no time to whine and complain. You don't sit there and vilify the other team. If you end up losing out on a spawn it's not the end of the world.
Players need to reconceptualize what fun/healthy competition means in an MMO and understand that it's not about winning or losing. It's about being a fun person to be around in social spaces. Sometimes you'll win and sometimes you'll lose ... but it's all about how your character is perceived in these social interactions. If you're a sore loser then other people aren't going to want to play with you. If you show good sportsmanship then you'll be an attractive candidate as a friend and be able to participate in more games, and thus get more satisfaction and fulfillment out of playing the game with others. It's really telling that adding a fun/healthy competitive element to the "Spirit of the Game" is such a fleeting concept in MMOs. We all saw what happened with the instance boom. It caught on just like participation trophies did but I think it's about time to put an end to infantilization in our gaming.
Let's consider this old blog entry that discussed competition and instancing from Brad McQuaid: GamerGod - Brad McQuaid on Instancing! by (archive.org)
Here are the parts that really resonate with me:
"Then let me touch on a controversial topic that is definitely related: entitlement to content vs. opportunity to experience content. This is hotly debated, has been, and will be. Because, really, nobody is right except when speaking for only them. The reality is there are, in this case, two types of people: those who want to play a game where they are entitled to experience everything, obtain everything, etc. merely because they pay the fee and put some time in, though it had better be time in allotments and at a frequency that works with the rest of their lives. And then there are those who want more of a challenge and don’t mind indirect competition and finite resources and realize, that unless they really try hard, they’re not going to achieve everything, or see everything – but they also think that’s fine – in fact, arguably, it makes the world more real – you can’t see every square foot of the real world, after all – and you always need something to dream about, or another goal to head towards.""Is competition always bad, or like so many things in life, only bad if there is too much of it? And is it possible that we figure out better ways in general, of making advancement, even with competition, more fun? I say we have to. Death to the boring grind!"
"Stickiness. Retention. By eliminating or severely reducing competition, player advancement accelerates – access to items that help you advance your player are not limited by other players seeking them as well, either legitimately or by griefing. By making items easier to get, human nature dictates that at least a lot (most?) of people will find they value these items less, that their sense of accomplishment and attachment to a virtual character or item is diminished. People tend to value things they had to work for more than things they obtained more easily, or for no real effort. Yes, even in a game that’s purpose is to entertain – that doesn’t get you out of having to deal with and acknowledge (and if possible, even harness) human nature. And you can like or dislike this aspect of human nature, but I submit it’s not going away any time soon (see Lenin, Stalin, and other’s attempts at truly changing what makes us tick – not so successful, to say the least). What you can choose, however, and with more choices every day, is which MMOG you want to play relative to how much it fights against or, on the other hand, embraces human nature. Yeah, that’s a provocative way to put it, but I think it’s accurate. Some people want human nature in entertainment, while others play games to escape aspects of humanity they’d rather not deal with. To some virtual worlds are a great way to study humanity – to others, they are to be avoided at all costs."
I want to play in a virtual world built by a company that understands how competition and human nature can enhance stickiness, retention, accomplishment, and attachment. I embrace human nature over social engineering, hand-holding, and infantilization.
Very well said!
Sunglare said:Vandraad said:You all realize that much of this debate could be minimized if not eliminated completly with just a few simple choices by VR: 1) Make the world as large as possible filled with as much content as possible; 2) Limit the PC population such that there is more content than what can be simultaneously consumed; 3) Ensure that fast travel of large numbers of people across long distances is impossible.
Why was content, especially raid content so hotly contensted? Because there was so little of it and guilds could move 100+ people complely across the world with little effort. Group level content was highly contested because, as we leveled up, we were funneled into fewer and fewer zones that were (on a square footage viewpoint) very small as well. Add to this that named mobs were the only content anybody really wanted to do further reduced the amount of content.
If VR repeats this in Pantheon then, absolutely yes, the toxicity between guilds will become quite heated. So, VR, listen up and learn from past mistakes or you are bound to have history repeat itself in your game...and you will not be prepared to handle it.
I don't hink it will be a problem. Look how massive the Caverns of Amberfaet are.
I saw a lot of empty space with nothing in it, a lot of stupid climbing to empty hallways. I'm talking about actual content people want to stop at and camp for extended periods of time. An empty hallways or one with a few trash mobs you just blow through to get to a named doesn't count. People will want to set up XP spots where named mobs spawn. Like in that dwarf castle..that will be a camp spot.
oneADseven said:Fun topic that gets rehashed every year....
As always, a very thoughtful post, oneADseven and I agree with much, but also I'm not wholly with some assertions based on your personal competitive preference. Everyone does it, of course, as do I. It's often not intended to come out as any kind of statement of fact, but sometimes it seems that way.
Where I disagree (and my bias!) should be obvious from my summary of points below. I try not to assert I know "the truth" and call anyone "wrong", but sometimes it's difficult hehe.
I find it an interesting topic in many ways and I'm slowly coming to conclusions I think are well formed, if still, of course, just my opinion.
Bell Curve
I think there's a bell curve of player representation when it comes to competitive play. There are a few at one end who apparently can only enjoy games when beating others. There are a few at the other who simply can't bear it. There are most people who, to some extent, either put up with it as 'normal', or who don't mind much, or both. Some who enjoy it sometimes and not other times.
One or the other
A game doesn't have to be one or the other. It doesn't have to be half competitive and half not so much. All encounters could vary in approach over time or by a player choice. To have half competitive and half more accessible sounds fair, but actually competitive types would end up with 100% of content available (since non-competitive might seem less interesting, but not a barrier) and non-competitive types would end up with 50% being unpleasant and effectively excluded.
You don't have to be 'competitive' to enjoy competition
I think most people would enjoy competitive play if it was fun, fair and unforced.
Fun, fair and unforced (the three Fs)
In pretty much any example of even the most competitive of 'games' (team sports, etc) there are lots of rules/guidelines/policies and even leagues to ensure the game is a fair match up. Games aren't fun or even interesting if they aren't at least roughly fair. As for forced, I'm struggling to even think of another example of a game that forces competition on the unwilling. Other than MMORPGs!
PvE Ideals
I think competition is neither an ideal or a necessity of either open world or of PvE. For PvE, it is almost the antithesis. For open world, it is a side-effect that some enjoy and some do not. Open world PvE is a co-operative shared experience and competition will only definitely enhance that for those that enjoy competition. For others it *might* be fun, but it can often be a distraction or a detraction, minor or major.
Definitions
A dictionary definition of competition is "winning or gaining by defeating or establishing superiority over others".
Wikipedia's first sentence is "Competition arises whenever two or more parties strive for a common goal which cannot be shared: where one's gain is the other's loss (an example of which is a zero-sum game)"
Winners and losers
The point is that competition is, by definition, at the expense, to some extent, of others. If those others aren't willing, or the competition isn't fair, competition is negative for at least half of the 'competitors'.
Non-competitive situations, of course, are not at anyone's expense.
Challenge
I think some people, when they see the word 'competitive', especially in regard to an MMORPG, read 'challenging'. I want to make the distinction and the point that there is not necessarily any correlation. Something does not have to be competitive to be challenging. Climbing a mountain can be extremely challenging with no competitive element whatsoever. Neither does adding competition necessarily add challenge.
Mountaineering Analogy
I've struggled for a real life analogy to competition within MMORPGs. MMORPGs are very unusual and different as a situation. I'm going to use a team climbing a mountain.
When a team climbs a mountain they undertake a huge challenge. They can challenge themselves to pretty much any degree by what equipment they choose and what mountain they attempt.
Is that mountaining challenge 'better' with competing team? Does time pressure improve the mountaineering challenge or does it add a pressure external to or even detrimental to the mountaineering challenge?
Is that mountaineering challenge 'better' if only one team can get to the top and the others waste their time?
Is that mountaineering challenge 'better' with a competing team that sabotages or blocks your team?
If you enjoy mountaineering and you've come to do some mountaineering, does a competition make that 'better'?
Competitive types
I suggest that 'competitive types' - at one end of the bell curve, would say, yes, they love competitive activities and adding competition, no matter the activity, makes it better and more challenging. Non-competitive types, at the other end, would say, no, competition always ruins an activity where its not fundamental and they don't like activities where it is.
I suggest that, for most people, the competition is undesirable when it strays into sabotage and a zero-sum game and is non-consentual; when it stops being fun, fair and/or unforced. Where it detracts or distracts from the actual activity they want to do.
Competition is natural
Yeah, yeah, in real life you see it everywhere. But is it fun? Is it a game? 'Sometimes', is perhaps the answer, but even then, it needs the 3 F's.
One thing is clear from the modern epitome of recreational competition - team sports - no one is forced to play. And when they are (at school?) it is not fun for those being forced.
As for rules/guidelines/policies? Well, they define the games. Objectives *and* what you can and can't do to achieve them. They would be impossible without being carefully documented. Fundamentally, in combination with things like leagues, they make the games fair, because otherwise they are not interesting or fun to play or watch. There are certainly rules to avoid aspects that might escalate into conflict, because that, of course, detracts from the game itself.
Even in a game like Ice Hockey, where a considerable amount of leeway is given to quite violent behaviour, there is a sin bin because they know that, if games devolved into brawls, there would essentially be no ice hockey.
Feeling competitive? Why not PvP?
I realise that maybe a lot of competitive types arguing here do intend to play PvP and that kinda makes a lot of the arguments a nonsense and perhaps PvP servers should not have PNP and even have different mechanics to the monster encounters that support free-for-all competition.
On PvP servers, you of course have the ultimate competitive recourse: to kill the opposition. Heck, you can even kill your group after they've helped you get what you wanted *shrug* couldn't be any more competitive, surely?
For those competitive types that don't want to play PvP, I wonder what their motivation is for being happy to compete with people that often don't want to and often isn't fair?
So what's your subjective and personal conclusion?
It may not sound like it, but I actually feel 'in the middle'.
I think competition does not always make things better. I think it can easily distract and detract from the enjoyment, skill and challenge of an activity (unless, of course, it is fundamental *to* the objectives of the activity). I think in past MMORPGs it has much more often been a negative experience than a positive, though not always in a big way.
Where oneADseven and I agree (I think) is...
I think competition can be enjoyable, even in an activity where it isn't fundamental. I think if it's fun, fair and unforced it could be a great addition to a PvE MMORPG. Though I think it is not *needed* or *necessary* and certainly not an *ideal* for a PvE MMORPG, I would like to see it included, given the three Fs.
I wish VR would be more forthcoming on this issue, if only to avoid conflict amongst players (ironic, given this thread is kinda all about that...)
@disposalist Another well said post. As I read through 1AD7's post initially, the ideas you have laid out so clearly ran through my head as well and the competition only really works if you have the 3 F's. The real rub comes in how do you keep the competition fair in an open world game where characters of different levels can "compete" for the same objectives.
I also want to highlight your last statement:
"I think competition can be enjoyable, even in an activity where it isn't fundamental. I think if it's fun, fair and unforced it could be a great addition to a PvE MMORPG. Though I think it is not *needed* or *necessary* and certainly not an *ideal* for a PvE MMORPG, I would like to see it included, given the three Fs.
I wish VR would be more forthcoming on this issue, if only to avoid conflict amongst players (ironic, given this thread is kinda all about that...)"
This would go a long way in helping the community come to terms with this challenging topic.
While I want to appreciate the sentiment behind the 3 F's, I don't really agree with the premise being used for "unforced." If someone wants to sell Breastplate X for 1,000g and someone else decides they want to sell it for 990g, one could call that "forced competition." The original player may not have wanted to deal with another player competing with them on price but such is reality when you're playing an open-world game with shared space and shared resources. The original player should have to accept that competition is an inherent aspect of play when they enter the game world ... otherwise, you have a scenario where they're just a victim and the competing player is a villain forcing their way onto them. We have to avoid enabling this victim mentality at all costs, IMO.
disposalist said:You don't have to be 'competitive' to enjoy competition
I think most people would enjoy competitive play if it was fun, fair and unforced.
Fun, fair and unforced (the three Fs)
In pretty much any example of even the most competitive of 'games' (team sports, etc) there are lots of rules/guidelines/policies and even leagues to ensure the game is a fair match up. Games aren't fun or even interesting if they aren't at least roughly fair. As for forced, I'm struggling to even think of another example of a game that forces competition on the unwilling. Other than MMORPGs!
What multiplayer game doesn't have competition? I cannot think of a single multiplayer game that doesn't have competition outside of Portals 2. Diablo and the RPGs like have obvious competition with loot drops and even just getting to the locations first.
Group PVE games that track points like Warframe, destiny, borderlands etc all have competition on earning points. My kills are your loss.
Survival games are not MMOs and their PVP goes so far as to stealing your stuff when you are out of game. They are certainly unwilling pvpers.
You completely over look the second F. Who is going to decide fair? Two lvl 50 players of the same class and same masteries won't be fair since one of them has a more powerful sword. You talk about finding a game that is forced like an MMO, show many any game that is fair. Even chess is not fair, white goes first and wins 5% more often. Trying to mandate VR makes things fair is beyond worrying. Any PVP is inherently unfair as someone will have faster hand eye control, a better PC, network connection, etc. Fair is an impossiblity.
disposalist said:Winners and losers
The point is that competition is, by definition, at the expense, to some extent, of others. If those others aren't willing, or the competition isn't fair, competition is negative for at least half of the 'competitors'.
Non-competitive situations, of course, are not at anyone's expense.
How do you remove competition without removing other people? If the rules you make up turn the competition into focusing on which group gets there first it is still in the game. You still have the camp someone else wants. You won the zero sum game. What about those who say, how is it "fair" if the camp was given to you by your friend? Your social network shouldn't give you an advantage at getting the camp. If you want a strict removal of all "forced" competition play games that are instance only, they are as close as you will get, but there will still be forced competition between you and others of your role. You may play poorly so no one wants to group with you. That is forced competition even in an entirely instanced world.
disposalist said:Mountaineering Analogy
I've struggled for a real life analogy to competition within MMORPGs. MMORPGs are very unusual and different as a situation. I'm going to use a team climbing a mountain.
Shopping. It is a forced competition. It is the same supply and demand. There are only so many resources making it a zero sum game. Look at the common shortages, if everyone buys the toilet paper and leave you with none why should you be forced to lose and come back later? You didn't ask for competition.
disposalist said:Competitive types
I suggest that 'competitive types' - at one end of the bell curve, would say, yes, they love competitive activities and adding competition, no matter the activity, makes it better and more challenging. Non-competitive types, at the other end, would say, no, competition always ruins an activity where its not fundamental and they don't like activities where it is.
I suggest that, for most people, the competition is undesirable when it strays into sabotage and a zero-sum game and is non-consentual; when it stops being fun, fair and/or unforced. Where it detracts or distracts from the actual activity they want to do.
Bell curves don't work that way. By your own logic on how bellcurves work it would be equally valid to say "for most people, the competition is desirable..." It is obvious there are the two polar sides, but you can't say its a bell curve then claim "most" of the people in the middle of the competition vs no competition curve. Also there are tons of games designed for no competition for most desired camp locations. They threw away the open world exactly for people like you.
disposalist said:Feeling competitive? Why not PvP?
I realise that maybe a lot of competitive types arguing here do intend to play PvP and that kinda makes a lot of the arguments a nonsense and perhaps PvP servers should not have PNP and even have different mechanics to the monster encounters that support free-for-all competition.
On PvP servers, you of course have the ultimate competitive recourse: to kill the opposition. Heck, you can even kill your group after they've helped you get what you wanted *shrug* couldn't be any more competitive, surely?For those competitive types that don't want to play PvP, I wonder what their motivation is for being happy to compete with people that often don't want to and often isn't fair?
Hate competition? Why not instances? You have dozens of games with instances that literally remove the competition from the game closer to the level you want.
As for a real answer, PVP devolves into murderhobo mindsets too often. You can't work with the majority to punish the odd murder hobo because their goals are only chaos and PVP. If they lose they just go harass others. On a PVP server you can only lose against these players. A hundred people searching for a rogue killing low levels for "fun" is the rogue winning and having fun.
On a PVE server when a group or a guild go too far the masses can push back. They can punish the players and guilds themselves. Only players can make reputation matter, but Devs can help by blocking name changes and forcing alts to have a surname. Don't simply gain immunity for your crimes by playing an alt. The community in dungeon can police the dungeon when people get out of line. Band together and solve your own problems. A dozen people telling the PVE group to respect the norms or earn nothing actually works. Shame actually works. Don't try to ban shaming other players because it is not "nice"
oneADseven said:While I want to appreciate the sentiment behind the 3 F's, I don't really agree with the premise being used for "unforced." If someone wants to sell Breastplate X for 1,000g and someone else decides they want to sell it for 990g, one could call that "forced competition." The original player may not have wanted to deal with another player competing with them on price but such is reality when you're playing an open-world game with shared space and shared resources. The original player should have to accept that competition is an inherent aspect of play when they enter the game world ... otherwise, you have a scenario where they're just a victim and the competing player is a villain forcing their way onto them. We have to avoid enabling this victim mentality at all costs, IMO.
I'm not suggesting that *all* aspects of competition should be somehow made to be utterly fair or fun or be completely eradicated if it can't be optional. Not sure I've ever heard someone be seriously upset about someone else offering a better trade price than them. Not sure anyone would think of that as unfair or forcing anything.
As I've regularly said, I wouldn't want to "throw out the baby with the bathwater" with draconian rules or restrictive mechanics. There are of course aspects of an open world that are technically competitive, but because they are relatively benign, or even generally viewed positively, they are more than 'worth it' to maintain that open world feel.
It's not an all-or-nothing, black-or-white issue, of course.
What I *am* suggesting is that competitive gameplay is not an ideal to shoot for in a PvE game. It is a side effect of the open world, not a reason for it and certainly not the epitome of it. It is not something that is intrinsically 'better' for all aspects of a PvE game.
Yes, a victim mentality is unhelpful and can be problematic. So is the mentality that it's always ok to do what you enjoy at the expense of someone else's enjoyment just because the game allows it. Nevermind the mentality that might suggest that is not only 'ok' but is somehow the 'best' way to play.
There are many ways to organise things to minimise conflict and toxicity. You've even suggested a lot of them yourself. A mixture of rules, guidelines, policies and some innovative not-too-restrictive mechanics could work great. Open world maintained. PvE emphasised. Hopefully 'healthy' competition included. Doesn't have to be 100% fun, fair and unforced, but certainly could try more than previous MMORPGs have.
Jobeson said:disposalist said:You don't have to be 'competitive' to enjoy competition
I think most people would enjoy competitive play if it was fun, fair and unforced.
Fun, fair and unforced (the three Fs)
In pretty much any example of even the most competitive of 'games' (team sports, etc) there are lots of rules/guidelines/policies and even leagues to ensure the game is a fair match up. Games aren't fun or even interesting if they aren't at least roughly fair. As for forced, I'm struggling to even think of another example of a game that forces competition on the unwilling. Other than MMORPGs!
What multiplayer game doesn't have competition? I cannot think of a single multiplayer game that doesn't have competition outside of Portals 2. Diablo and the RPGs like have obvious competition with loot drops and even just getting to the locations first.
Group PVE games that track points like Warframe, destiny, borderlands etc all have competition on earning points. My kills are your loss.
Survival games are not MMOs and their PVP goes so far as to stealing your stuff when you are out of game. They are certainly unwilling pvpers.
Great examples. Portal 2 is of course a fantastic co-op 2 player game and it would not benefit at all from there being another team fouling up or blocking your efforts at all.
In Diablo, if you get someone hogging the loot or rushing at the expense of your tactics, I would not play with them.
In those group FPSs, people attempting to kill more than you is hardly a problem and I don't give a crap about the stats. In Battlefield, that I play a lot, it actually *can* be a problem for the game when players play for their stats at the expense of the team effort, for example, trying to get the 'best' KD even if it means ignoring the objectives. Thankfully, the devs encourage team, squad, co-op objectives play much more than personal stats. It's one of the reasons I like it much more than other shooter games.
Jobeson said:You completely over look the second F. Who is going to decide fair? Two lvl 50 players of the same class and same masteries won't be fair since one of them has a more powerful sword. You talk about finding a game that is forced like an MMO, show many any game that is fair. Even chess is not fair, white goes first and wins 5% more often. Trying to mandate VR makes things fair is beyond worrying. Any PVP is inherently unfair as someone will have faster hand eye control, a better PC, network connection, etc. Fair is an impossiblity.
You make my point again, thanks.
In Battlefield, and most multiplayer shooters, they attempt to balance the teams based on the experience and performance stats of the players. Sometimes that doesn't work due to people quitting and joining and switching and the match is a completely one-sided, unenjoyable and worthless, yes. They do try though. If they didn't it would be awful.
Battlegrounds in PvP have level ranges to try and make it fair/interesting. They too would be awful otherwise.
Free-for-all PvP is sometimes level restricted somewhat. When it isn't you get pointless ganking and it is awful, yes.
So, yes, many games do attempt fairness because it's awful without it. I'm not saying how VR might do that - I appreciate it is difficult and might not be possible, but that would be a reason to not allow the activity you are trying to make fair, not to just allow it even though it's awful.
Jobeson said:disposalist said:Winners and losers
The point is that competition is, by definition, at the expense, to some extent, of others. If those others aren't willing, or the competition isn't fair, competition is negative for at least half of the 'competitors'.
Non-competitive situations, of course, are not at anyone's expense.How do you remove competition without removing other people? If the rules you make up turn the competition into focusing on which group gets there first it is still in the game. You still have the camp someone else wants. You won the zero sum game. What about those who say, how is it "fair" if the camp was given to you by your friend? Your social network shouldn't give you an advantage at getting the camp. If you want a strict removal of all "forced" competition play games that are instance only, they are as close as you will get, but there will still be forced competition between you and others of your role. You may play poorly so no one wants to group with you. That is forced competition even in an entirely instanced world.
As I've said, I'm not saying competition has to be removed, we just need to realise it isn't an ideal to be epitomised in a PvE game. It needs careful design and guidance around it to avoid a real mess.
Jobeson said:disposalist said:Mountaineering Analogy
I've struggled for a real life analogy to competition within MMORPGs. MMORPGs are very unusual and different as a situation. I'm going to use a team climbing a mountain.
Shopping. It is a forced competition. It is the same supply and demand. There are only so many resources making it a zero sum game. Look at the common shortages, if everyone buys the toilet paper and leave you with none why should you be forced to lose and come back later? You didn't ask for competition.
Good example. Again, you prove my point. The objective of shopping is *so* not competition. There may be aspects that are sometimes effected by competition if we want an open market in which to shop, but we don't look at the competitive bits as 'good' and we certainly don't want to add more of them or want 'competitive shopping' to be a thing.
Yes, shopping is like a PvE game in that we go shopping with our friends to enjoy the experience and any competition is a side-effect we don't enjoy, not a fun aspect to be accentuated or encouraged, but to be minimised, mitigated and, at best, endured.
Jobeson said:disposalist said:Competitive types
I suggest that 'competitive types' - at one end of the bell curve, would say, yes, they love competitive activities and adding competition, no matter the activity, makes it better and more challenging. Non-competitive types, at the other end, would say, no, competition always ruins an activity where its not fundamental and they don't like activities where it is.
I suggest that, for most people, the competition is undesirable when it strays into sabotage and a zero-sum game and is non-consentual; when it stops being fun, fair and/or unforced. Where it detracts or distracts from the actual activity they want to do.Bell curves don't work that way. By your own logic on how bellcurves work it would be equally valid to say "for most people, the competition is desirable..." It is obvious there are the two polar sides, but you can't say its a bell curve then claim "most" of the people in the middle of the competition vs no competition curve. Also there are tons of games designed for no competition for most desired camp locations. They threw away the open world exactly for people like you.
Yeah, they do work that way. X-axis goes from very competitive to very uncompetitive. Y-axis is number of people. The flat ends of the bell are the uber-competitive and the ultra-uncompetitive. The huge majority in the middle are some mixture that may or may not enjoy some aspects of competitiveness.
I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest those in the middle wouldn't want to be forced into the kind of competition that involved sabotage or 100% zero sum and might prefer competition to be more fun, fair or unforced. I'm saying they might well enjoy competition, if it's not too nasty. That sound quite 'middle' and 'unextreme' to me. Whereas the uber-competitive don't care how nasty it gets, it's all fine and the ultra noncompetitive don't want any competition no matter how benign.
As for "They threw away the open world exactly for people like you". Lol.
Jobeson said:disposalist said:Feeling competitive? Why not PvP?
I realise that maybe a lot of competitive types arguing here do intend to play PvP and that kinda makes a lot of the arguments a nonsense and perhaps PvP servers should not have PNP and even have different mechanics to the monster encounters that support free-for-all competition.
On PvP servers, you of course have the ultimate competitive recourse: to kill the opposition. Heck, you can even kill your group after they've helped you get what you wanted *shrug* couldn't be any more competitive, surely?For those competitive types that don't want to play PvP, I wonder what their motivation is for being happy to compete with people that often don't want to and often isn't fair?
Hate competition? Why not instances? You have dozens of games with instances that literally remove the competition from the game closer to the level you want.
Nope, not idealising competition does not mean "I want instances". Is that what they call a straw man? And what has that to do with PvP?
Jobeson said:As for a real answer, PVP devolves into murderhobo mindsets too often. You can't work with the majority to punish the odd murder hobo because their goals are only chaos and PVP. If they lose they just go harass others. On a PVP server you can only lose against these players. A hundred people searching for a rogue killing low levels for "fun" is the rogue winning and having fun.
On a PVE server when a group or a guild go too far the masses can push back. They can punish the players and guilds themselves. Only players can make reputation matter, but Devs can help by blocking name changes and forcing alts to have a surname. Don't simply gain immunity for your crimes by playing an alt. The community in dungeon can police the dungeon when people get out of line. Band together and solve your own problems. A dozen people telling the PVE group to respect the norms or earn nothing actually works. Shame actually works. Don't try to ban shaming other players because it is not "nice"
I disagree. PvP is exactly like PvE, but the players can kill each other. That's all. Same open world with the same issues and competitive aspects, but with the ultimate competition of killing each other when the contention gets too much. It has all the competitive aspects of PvE, plus the most challenging one of all: other players. It trumps all ineffectual 'shaming' with actual in-game consequence, sanctioned by the game rules.
As opposed to PvE, where you have to either have to just grit your teeth and take it or whine and moan or indulge in some silly pseudo-PvP finding ways to irritate, block or inconvenience your way to 'justice' lol.
I don't enjoy PvP as a game mode and I don't think 'vigilante' justice would avoid toxicity, but when it comes to community policing, at least it's honest and effective.
Like I say, I find it weird that people say they want 'competition', but, oh, no, not the ultimate competition where I might have to take on people who actually *want* and *expect* to compete and enjoy 'contention' and there are actual in-game consequences to upsetting people.