stellarmind said: oiiii dont bring pvp into this if u arent gonna be pvping
That's kinda what I said, though the conversation had moved sideways to the nature of competition
stellarmind said:>:( just send us ur trash players we'll take good care of them and teach them manners >:D as long as ur pve problems dont come knocking on pvp servers im gud :) lez gooooooo murder hobooooiiiissssssssssss
Wouldn't you agree that PvP is just PvE + the greatest competitive challenge a human can face? Another human?
Maybe, as a PvPer, you can shed some light on why some 'competitive' folks don't want to do PvP?
A lot of competitive people also really enjoy pvp. Pvp is really just pve on crack. When you're at the higher levels of pvp it's all about execution. You know what the other player CAN do. And you should anticipate what they WILL do. In most cases thats the same as engaging in pve. This is easily proven by watching any high level pvper, they can essentially commentate exactly what the opponents are going to do.
Obviously players could have something up their sleeves or do something completely out of left field. But that's really a rare case. When I attack players with my rogue in wow, I know and anticipate what they will counter with and I'm prepared for it.
Idk why people specifically don't like pvp. But im sure it's the same reasons as why some people don't like soloing, or don't like raiding. Just preferences.
disposalist said: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.
In battlefield they use in game mechanics to set limitations on who you play against. Yet you are in a thread demanding a nanny supervises and regulates player interactions. Resolving the dispute against a player using a grenade launcher or whatever you feel is unfair. Game mechanics can and should resolve the issue from a Dev point of view. Player interactions and reputation can resolve it from an in game etiquette. You want both of those to take a back seat to GMs having endless tickets for using game mechanics.
disposalist said: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.
You are here literally asking for competition to be a two party consent through a play nice policy. You want to have "forced" competition removed from the game. What competition do you believe will exist in the game if there is no forced competition? If there is no unfair competition? There are single player games you couldn't even play with that criteria due to their online records being forced competition.
disposalist said: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.
People literally starve to death over shopping, over trade. There are wars fought over resources. Feel free to pretend the 11 year old slave who made the shoes isn't losing in this competition. Pretending the vegies you buy are not made with water recently denied to people dying of thirst does make shopping a happier experience. Is the only acceptable competition the ones that are out of sight?
disposalist said: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.
You are on the extreme side of not wanting competition man. You literally are pushing for the ban on forced competition. We couldn't even have an auction house with your idea. You are claiming the moderate people all agree with you. You are saying moderate MMO players are unhappy with zero sum competition for a game whose selling point has been open world and making reputation meaningful again. There will be no reputation if the GMs enforce the rules you want as there will be virtually no player interactions unless you get individual loot tables as a shared loot table puts you in a zero sum game. I think its clear we are on the opposite sides of the competition curve which is why me claiming them as being pro competition makes just as much sense. You think the people are with you when they are flocking here in droves for an open world game like those of the past.
disposalist said:Feeling competitive? Why not PvP?
...
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:
Hate competition? Why not instances?
I thought the format was a clear giveaway, perhaps I should have bolded it.
disposalist said: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.
PVP in most MMOs is gurrilla warfare not competition. Murderhobos literally cannot lose by the design of the game in virtually every MMO. If there is no way to win then there is no way to have competition let alone calling it the "ultimate competition." They stealth around and wait to add another notch to their belt, ambush a player and run away. You will almost never find the murder hobo out in the wild because all they do ambush new or weakened players. In games with instances you will literally never find them in the wild so Pantheon will have a small leg up against the murderhobo. Eve sort of addressed this, but left some massive holes in the system, like alts voiding all faction punishments. In Eve the guards would kill murderhobos 24/7 after ruining their faction through murdering players. A few would beat the clock to kill someone before guards would show up, but it was very difficult and usually meant they die even if they kill you. Death had a monitary loss in Eve as well. Deaths having a penalty meant killing the murderhobo actually had something of value coming out of it. Murderhobos lost something by being hunted by 10,000 people. It was a great aid to keeping them out of the core locations for the most part.
Open world pvp is fantastic when competition actually exists. You risk starting a war by being evil. You have alliances of thousands of players working together to shut down said war after seeing the evidence. War itself has a cost attached to it so you don't just want to jump in for fun. What you say and do matters. People start to trust you, literally risk hours of their time by helping you knowing you would do the asme for them. That is not the pvp server you will find in Pantheon or any of the common MMOs. Common MMO PVP push consequence free murder for fun. Most MMOs literally incentivise the murderhobos to exist.
PVE in most MMOs has a clear way to win against players unlike the PVP counterpart. There is actual competition over a clear target, something of value. The competition brings endless people and guilds together for shared interests. Creating what some might call a "community."
Jobeson said:
In battlefield they use in game mechanics to set limitations on who you play against. Yet you are in a thread demanding a nanny supervises and regulates player interactions. Resolving the dispute against a player using a grenade launcher or whatever you feel is unfair. Game mechanics can and should resolve the issue from a Dev point of view. Player interactions and reputation can resolve it from an in game etiquette. You want both of those to take a back seat to GMs having endless tickets for using game mechanics.
Endless tickets? How many is that, exactly?
I've already made a point here that when people see you enforcing the rules, it causes them to be less likely to break the rules. Even if you only enforce against half of the rule breakers.
So these endless tickets...how many? After half of them are enforced, how many keep coming in?
1 $20 an hour guy, 24 hours a day, for a 5000 man server is +$2.88 to the subscription cost, + a little more for benefits and manager time (so like $3.50).
How many of these guys at once do you propose are needed to deal with half of these "endless tickets"?
Don't get me wrong. I liked Disposalist's posts, but I also liked OneADseven's. Doing things like making rare spawns have several spawn locations, weakening high level players, and making quest mobs spawnable, can create healthy competition. VR can go either direction and make an excellent game.
I merely want to point out that it is far from impossible to have a PnP, and enforce it. So that all of the niche who says: "I want an open world but protection from (camp-related) competition", subscribes to Pantheon.
________
Brad's statement that brought us all in, about a niche of old school mmo players who feel left out of current mmos, unfortunately covers a wide variety of people.
I myself do not trust Pantheon quite enough that it will create pve, 3 f's, competition that is fun 80% of the time or more. For example, lots of what we've seen doesn't seem to leave room for multiple camps for the same rare spawn.
Hence I count myself in a "enforced pnp" crowd. I'm more than happy to pay a few extra dollars a month for a game that has ready customer service to support the game being played the way it is supposed to... Without needing mechanics I don't like, such as instances, to do it for them.
Those who like competition can find it outside of the camp I maintained for hours (but not too many hours-there is always an upper limit to every good thing).
Again, If VR chooses the competition route, and exceeds my expectations, that's fine. I'll definately play Brad's legacy at least for a little while to find out if they do. If VR goes the open world+enforced PnP route that's fine too. I'd personally like to see a stronger stance on camps in Pantheon than community policing.
Jobeson said:disposalist said: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.
In battlefield they use in game mechanics to set limitations on who you play against. Yet you are in a thread demanding a nanny supervises and regulates player interactions. Resolving the dispute against a player using a grenade launcher or whatever you feel is unfair. Game mechanics can and should resolve the issue from a Dev point of view. Player interactions and reputation can resolve it from an in game etiquette. You want both of those to take a back seat to GMs having endless tickets for using game mechanics.
No, not what I said. You said fairness is impossible, I said in Battlefield, they use historical stats to ensure fairness and all competitive games try to ensure fairness in some way. I imply Pantheon could or should be no different. They will use a combo of not-too-restrictive mechanics, rules and guidelines to achieve fairness. This will reduce tickets, not increase them. Having restrictive mechanics would ruin the open world. Having no guidelines would lead to excessive /reports. I think I've been clear.
Jobeson said:disposalist said: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.
You are here literally asking for competition to be a two party consent through a play nice policy. You want to have "forced" competition removed from the game. What competition do you believe will exist in the game if there is no forced competition? If there is no unfair competition? There are single player games you couldn't even play with that criteria due to their online records being forced competition.
As I literally said, I wouldn't expect or want *all* competition to be 100% fun fair and unforced, I would just want that to be an aim and wouldn't want competition to be something to shoot for at the expense of the actual game. PNP doesn't have to eradicate competition, it could be the guidance that facilitates people to have healthy competition. The aim of PNP would not be to 'stop competition' it would be to stop competition *becoming unpleasant or toxic*.
Once again, when I say "fun, fair and unforced" I don't mean 100% of all three for all aspects. If competition if fun and fair enough, why would anyone worry about having to do it? If it isn't 100% then VR might want to think about not forcing it through mechanics or through PNP or whatever is best for the game and players.
Again, I think I've already been clear.
Jobeson said:disposalist said: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.
People literally starve to death over shopping, over trade. There are wars fought over resources. Feel free to pretend the 11 year old slave who made the shoes isn't losing in this competition. Pretending the vegies you buy are not made with water recently denied to people dying of thirst does make shopping a happier experience. Is the only acceptable competition the ones that are out of sight?
I didn't ignore that at all, I said you made my point and you continue to. Yes, competition can be terrible. Shopping is not. The world really should try and stop competition from having such terrible effect on the world, but related to Pantheon and the issue at hand: attempting to stop competition ruining the shopping experience is hardly a bad thing for shoppers any more than stopping competition from ruining Pantheon would be a bad thing for players.
Jobeson said:disposalist said: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.
You are on the extreme side of not wanting competition man. You literally are pushing for the ban on forced competition. We couldn't even have an auction house with your idea. You are claiming the moderate people all agree with you. You are saying moderate MMO players are unhappy with zero sum competition for a game whose selling point has been open world and making reputation meaningful again. There will be no reputation if the GMs enforce the rules you want as there will be virtually no player interactions unless you get individual loot tables as a shared loot table puts you in a zero sum game. I think its clear we are on the opposite sides of the competition curve which is why me claiming them as being pro competition makes just as much sense. You think the people are with you when they are flocking here in droves for an open world game like those of the past.
You must not be reading what I've written. It's not black-and-white. It's not all-or-nothing. There is some competition that is tolerable or even enjoyable without much tweaking needed. There is some that is not and needs maybe a little more mechnics without ruining the open world but definitely needs guidelines to help avoid trouble and mass /reports.
I do enjoy competitive games, but much prefer the emphasis on co-op and shared experience that open world PvE should idealise. I am not competitive about some aspects that other players can be, but most are reasonably benign so don't matter. I haven't enjoyed the more extreme examples of competition in historic MMORPGs much and, in my experience, most players are at best tolerant and usually don't enjoy those things either. Doesn't mean they should be 100% fun, fair and unforced or be eradicated. Just means VR should at least acknowledge the issues and *attempt* to address them or give guidelines to help *us* handle them nicer.
Jobeson said:disposalist said:Feeling competitive? Why not PvP?
...
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:Hate competition? Why not instances?
I thought the format was a clear giveaway, perhaps I should have bolded it.
Yeah, you were trying to imply that PvP is related to competition no more than not wanting comptetition is related to instancing?
I disagree, is all. Not wanting to experience the bad side-effects of competition does not demand instancing. PvP is very competitive.
You go on to explain how PvP in Eve is great for competition and community, so you made my point, no?
But you're saying PvP in historic MMORPGs isn't good enough competition for competitive types? *shrug* Ok. I don't like PvP, but then I don't particularly enjoy competitive gaming in MMORPGs at all, so it's hard to understand why a competitive type wouldn't prefer PvP.
I said I don't understand. I still don't.
Jobeson said:disposalist said: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.
PVP in most MMOs is gurrilla warfare not competition. Murderhobos literally cannot lose by the design of the game in virtually every MMO. If there is no way to win then there is no way to have competition let alone calling it the "ultimate competition." They stealth around and wait to add another notch to their belt, ambush a player and run away. You will almost never find the murder hobo out in the wild because all they do ambush new or weakened players. In games with instances you will literally never find them in the wild so Pantheon will have a small leg up against the murderhobo. Eve sort of addressed this, but left some massive holes in the system, like alts voiding all faction punishments. In Eve the guards would kill murderhobos 24/7 after ruining their faction through murdering players. A few would beat the clock to kill someone before guards would show up, but it was very difficult and usually meant they die even if they kill you. Death had a monitary loss in Eve as well. Deaths having a penalty meant killing the murderhobo actually had something of value coming out of it. Murderhobos lost something by being hunted by 10,000 people. It was a great aid to keeping them out of the core locations for the most part.
Open world pvp is fantastic when competition actually exists. You risk starting a war by being evil. You have alliances of thousands of players working together to shut down said war after seeing the evidence. War itself has a cost attached to it so you don't just want to jump in for fun. What you say and do matters. People start to trust you, literally risk hours of their time by helping you knowing you would do the asme for them. That is not the pvp server you will find in Pantheon or any of the common MMOs. Common MMO PVP push consequence free murder for fun. Most MMOs literally incentivise the murderhobos to exist.
PVE in most MMOs has a clear way to win against players unlike the PVP counterpart. There is actual competition over a clear target, something of value. The competition brings endless people and guilds together for shared interests. Creating what some might call a "community."
I'm pretty sure PvP, even with nothing more added than being switched on, would have all the PvE content still there. All the same 'ways to win', just with the option of killing players added. I'm pretty sure they play exactly the same game PvE people do as well.
It's a tad rough to assume everyone in PvP MMORPGs is a 'murder hobo' trying to get ganking kicks any more than everyone in PvE MMORPGs is a bully trying to deny others content, but let's say they are. If Pantheon PvP had a similar setup to Eve, all the competitive types should go there, then?
There are gankers and whatnot, yes, and I don't like that either. I don't play PvP in MMORPGs because I find that happens a lot and that it appears to be tolerated. But there are baddies in PvE too, doing whatever they can to get their kicks in frustrating, silly, pseudo-PvP ways. The difference is, it historically is more difficult to take action to retaliate. In PvP you just get friends to come over and kill them. You need friends. In PvE you get friends to come over and engage in silly, frustrating, counter pseudo-PvP. Same, but PvP, as I say, seems a load more honest and direct in some ways. You don't get bullies exerting their power at others' expense knowing there is very little recourse and hiding their bullying 'within the rules'. In PvP they behave 'badly' and must accept there can be direct consequence.
Of course, if there are adequate guidelines, then they won't be acting strictly 'within the rules' so there *is* recourse, which is what this thread is really about.
This is why I say maybe PvP is fine without PNP, but PvE most definitely is not.
TL;DR: I've been pretty clear. If you don't agree, that's fine.
disposalist said:But you're saying PvP in historic MMORPGs isn't good enough competition for competitive types? *shrug* Ok. I don't like PvP, but then I don't particularly enjoy competitive gaming in MMORPGs at all, so it's hard to understand why a competitive type wouldn't prefer PvP. I said I don't understand. I still don't.
I'm going to share the quotes from Brad in my original post again as they will hopefully shine a light on the feeling that many players are chasing:
oneADseven said:"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."
PVE competition really isn't all that farfetched of a concept. The quotes that I shared are part of the same blog entry that is referenced on the "Instanced Dungeon" Wikipedia page. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instance_dungeon ) -- "Despite its advantages, instancing in MMOGs has been criticized. Brad McQuaid, lead designer of Everquest and Vanguard Saga of Heroes (both of which did not feature instancing at launch), wrote an essay in 2005 arguing that instances can negatively affect the game's community, virtual economy, churn rate and other factors." Another way to look at things is this ... a lot of players want to play a PVE-focused game where other players are still considered to be part of the environment. We want the core gameplay loop to revolve around the traditional open-world PVE experience and that includes shared space with others, hotly contested resources, meaningful reputation, etc. Brad also mentioned how "too much competition" could be a bad thing and I don't think it's unreasonable to use that as a reference point on why some players prefer PVE competition over PVP competition. Like Porygon said, it could very well be a matter of preference.
disposalist said: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.
Except we know that won't be the case in Pantheon. It has been stated for years that PVE/PVP servers will each have their own tuning when it comes to balancing so it is absolutely untrue that things will be the "exact same" but with PVP turned on. You're going to see way more rogues, way more necromancers, way more monks, etc. Objectives will be different. The death penalty will likely be different. Intentional training is glorified. For all intents and purposes, we don't really know what to expect when it comes to PVP with Pantheon. There isn't even a PVP sub-forum where these things can be openly discussed. Many players understand that Pantheon is first and foremost an open-world PVE-focused game and there are certain gameplay elements that are directly attached to that. Competition for resources is part of that. It may not be the most "Ultimate Competition" that can possibly be achieved but for many players, it could be their favorite kind. I don't need EXTREME HIGH-VOLTAGE mountain dew or ULTIMATE JACKED 3D doritos to enjoy mountain dew or doritos.
disposalist said:This is why I say maybe PvP is fine without PNP, but PvE most definitely is not.
Again, consider the quotes from Brad McQuaid. There are two different player types here: those who want "entitlement to content" and those who want an "opportunity to experience content." It's really that simple. I am squarely in the latter camp. There is no need to try and turn this into a PVE/PVP issue. It's an open-world / instancing issue built on a foundation of PVE. It has been stated repeatedly over the course of several years that camps won't be enforced in Pantheon. Maybe there will be a special server(s) that enforces camps as part of a PNP but that most definitely should not be a thing across the board for all PVE servers.
oneADseven said:There are two different player types here: those who want "entitlement to content" and those who want an "opportunity to experience content." It's really that simple. I am squarely in the latter camp.
Come on, you know it's not that simple and it's pretty insulting to be characterised as wanting "entitlement to content" just because one thinks the conflict that often occurs from contention is undesirable and could be calmed by PNP.
Also, it's not a feeling of 'entitlement' to want my skill and knowledge of the game to provide the opportunity to experience content, not having to beat other players in pseudo-PvP squabbles.
oneADseven said:There is no need to try and turn this into a PVE/PVP issue
I wasn't really meaning to do that. It was just thoughts related to 'competition'. I guess I understand competitive types don't always want 'that kind' of competition. Still not sure why, but, yeah, it's not entirely relevant.
oneADseven said:It's an open-world / instancing issue built on a foundation of PVE. It has been stated repeatedly over the course of several years that camps won't be enforced in Pantheon. Maybe there will be a special server(s) that enforces camps as part of a PNP but that most definitely should not be a thing across the board for all PVE servers.
I don't think I've ever mentioned camps, but I get that those are one of those things that other games have controversially decided upon. I don't suggest they, specifically, are necessary or that Pantheon PNP would be anything like Everquest PNP or any other game's PNP.
That other games have chosen rules, mechanics or PNP that some might think is detrimental to the open world is possible. I'm not suggesting what flavour would be appropriate for Pantheon, just that VR should know what would be appropriate and to have none would be a massive missed opportuniy to reduce toxicity and GM/CS /reports.
I guess, of course, people will keep picking examples of where other games haven't been successful and maybe that is an indicator of what can go wrong, but if we are to assume Pantheon can't do right what others have done wrong, why are we here at all?
@ Dispo and Jobeson
Don't try to compete against 18d7 on who can make the longest TLDR post. You don't stand a chance ;)
disposalist said:stellarmind said: oiiii dont bring pvp into this if u arent gonna be pvpingThat's kinda what I said, though the conversation had moved sideways to the nature of competition
stellarmind said:>:( just send us ur trash players we'll take good care of them and teach them manners >:D as long as ur pve problems dont come knocking on pvp servers im gud :) lez gooooooo murder hobooooiiiissssssssssssWouldn't you agree that PvP is just PvE + the greatest competitive challenge a human can face? Another human?
Maybe, as a PvPer, you can shed some light on why some 'competitive' folks don't want to do PvP?
PvP in my opinion is a side game , it distracts from the content I enjoy killing dragons , gods or other big baddies...
Also everyone knows when a guild server firsts or world firsts a mob , no one gives a **** when you kill Bob.
disposalist said:Come on, you know it's not that simple and it's pretty insulting to be characterised as wanting "entitlement to content" just because one thinks the conflict that often occurs from contention is undesirable and could be calmed by PNP.
Also, it's not a feeling of 'entitlement' to want my skill and knowledge of the game to provide the opportunity to experience content, not having to beat other players in pseudo-PvP squabbles.
Seems fair enough to me to claim that those who care not about other players and desire only to satisfy their own wants are the ones that feel "entitlement to content." The "I want this and I want it now. I will try to take this, others be damned."
Unfettered open "competition" is survival of the fittest and leads to poor overall community and I'd even say gameplay. The best memories for me from EQ were largely from the leveling progression, going through areas/dungeons and slowly working up from camp to camp (often camps had a named/rare mob(s)) until finally the excitement of reaching high enough level to get into one of the top camps for an area.
This pretty much goes entirely out the window in a FFA/survival of the fittest (highest level/most geared wins), as any rare/named mobs of any value become places one does not even attempt to group at since higher level players (solo or otherwise) completely edge out any group trying to do content at the intended levels. Where trying to "compete" means doing nothing but sitting with itchy trigger fingers waiting over a spawn location/area for hours on end just for a small chance at a chance at a drop, not really fighting other mobs so you don't get caught in battle when a pop happens.
You end up spending far far more of the gameplay loop not actually playing, especially as you get higher in level into what tends to be more worthwhile loot.
Players that join after the intial wave at release (or after a new server is launched) will be getting completely stomped on by higher level players, the excitement of dungeon progression highly diminished and many rare/named mobs simply being something you only come back to when you outlevel them enough to not need a group.
Only time will tell what VR will or won't do. It's one of the biggest/most frequent questions they have had over the years in regards to how they plan on having an open world game in the modern era and not have it turn into a toxic nightmare.
disposalist said:Come on, you know it's not that simple and it's pretty insulting to be characterised as wanting "entitlement to content" just because one thinks the conflict that often occurs from contention is undesirable and could be calmed by PNP.
Also, it's not a feeling of 'entitlement' to want my skill and knowledge of the game to provide the opportunity to experience content, not having to beat other players in pseudo-PvP squabbles.
In the context that was being discussed, it really is that simple. Again, consider the quotes that were being referenced and focus on these two lines specifically: "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." You either view competition with other players as something that adds to the experience or something that detracts from it. You have used the words "distract" and "detract" multiple times which makes it pretty clear where you stand. The "content" doesn't exist in a vacuum if we're talking about an open-world game -- players are part of the environment/content. You call it pseudo-PVP, I call it shared space and shared resources.
disposalist said: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.
I think this logic could be spun around just as easily. I find it weird that people say they want "open-world", but, oh, no, not a real open-world where I might have to deal with other players who actually want and expect to deal with other players -- other players do exist as part of the equation and for better or worse, there are consequences for that reality. It's not a matter of "Player vs AI content in a vacuum" -- If players pursue things of value in a social space, whether cooperatively or competitively (especially both at the same time), it's completely natural to expect them to produce differential outcomes. Again, other players are part of the environment. There are countless ways that players can interact with each other and that absolutely includes competition. Competition is inherent when you have shared space and shared resources -- for those who view that as a problem, instances were created as a solution. Instancing removes the "shared space and shared resources" variables and offers "Player vs AI content in a vacuum" on a silver platter for those who enjoy that sort of thing.
disposalist said:I don't think I've ever mentioned camps, but I get that those are one of those things that other games have controversially decided upon. I don't suggest they, specifically, are necessary or that Pantheon PNP would be anything like Everquest PNP or any other game's PNP.
Here are some examples from this thread:
disposalist said:I disagree. The player coming into a 'camp' and attempting to KS with no attempt to negotiate whatsoever has been rude and selfish. Or perhaps he did it once when the campers weren't really on in and the campers blew up at him, in which case the campers were being rude and selfish and should have talked to him first and would have discovered it an innocent mistake and come to some arrangement. Or perhaps the campers said nothing until the interloper KSed several times and then reported him for 'repeated interference', in which case the campers are being rude and selfish again, because they 'entrapped' him - they should have spoken up and talked earlier.
disposalist said:With a PNP that describes the concept of (amongst many other things) camps and how you might share etc, players have a framework in which to approach the problem and come to an agreement and bad-feelings and GM/CS action is much less likely to be needed.
disposalist said:Also, you seem worried about focus on raids. Who said PNP is just for raids? Actually, I think it's very important PNP cover everyday grouping and adventuring as much as raids, since it's what the majority of players do. I had much more problematic situations while camping with groups than with raiding in EQ.
If we break things down to the lowest level, that quote from Brad really speaks volumes. There are two sides when it comes to this controversial topic and a PNP that defines camps/camping isn't going to change anything other than painting the two sides into categories of "nice" and "not nice." If some people get what they want, it's only going to further enable the victim mindset by creating an official reference point of some sort that conflates competition with bullying or toxicity. One side doesn't view competition with other players as a distraction, detraction, or something that is otherwise "not nice." It is viewed as an inherent aspect of open-world play and something that will enhance the overall experience by offering positive contributions to feelings of attachment/accomplishment. The other side views the same set of interactions and consequences as negative.
Iksar said:Seems fair enough to me to claim that those who care not about other players and desire only to satisfy their own wants are the ones that feel "entitlement to content." The "I want this and I want it now. I will try to take this, others be damned."
Seems fair enough to quote Gordon Wrinn back when he announced the PNP for EQ since you have referenced it countless times when it comes to defining/enforcing camps with a PNP.
Gordon Wrinn said:"Like any society, each person has the ability to place his or her mark upon it. The vast majority of people in our society do their best to insure that their mark is positive, by abiding by the laws that we, much like the government, bring forward. Some of you choose to become pinnacles of honor, dignity and respect in your individual communities by forming guilds, promoting honorable actions by your members, and by supporting EverQuest on your web-sites.
Also like any society, we have our underbelly, a relatively small number of people who live to prey upon the honorable. It is frequently the goal of these people to see to their desires, no matter the effect of their actions upon others around them. They are the ones who claim ownership of servers, zones, or spawns, and cause or threaten harm to anyone who does not share their disregard and contempt. They are the ones who live, not to enjoy the game with everyone else, but to enjoy at everyone else’s expense."
Yikes. I'm sure that statement fueled quite the SJW movement in EQ. From that point on, players were either a pinnacle of honor or a member of the contemptuous underbelly. I hear all this talk about social constructs and meaningful reputation ... just look at the impact something like that would make! How exactly did competition work in Everquest? It sounds like a confused hot mess with an identity crisis. I'd love to see the "laws" that were established prior to that statement ... you know, just for context.
The really funny thing is that you can read that phrase two different ways. Let me get this right ... someone gets to location X, and then they feel that the camp now belongs to them. In other words, they want to see to their desires, no matter the effect they have on other people who might show up later. They want to claim ownership of that camp/spawn, and report anyone who would dare challenge their authority. That doesn't sound like a situation where they are enjoying the game with everyone else. It sounds like they want to do their own thing ... in their own private little bubble ... with no regard to what anyone else thinks or wants. And if they do things this way ... they get the satisfaction of feeling like they embody the idea of being a "pinnacle of honor." Classic. That's probably right around the same time that "contesting a resource" evolved into "griefing" or "kill-stealing" in EQ. How did that work out?
I view this assessment as fair:
Kilsin said:Porygon said:Someone coming into your "camp" and killing your mobs is not griefing or malicious. You might not like it, but it's not against any rule.
If they stay there and you compete with them for 5 hours and lose all mobs, that's still not griefing or malicious.
I assume what he means is that if someone comes and ks's you, then you leave and that person follows you around ks'ing everything you touch.. that's when it becomes griefing and malicious.
You have to put personal feelings aside and look from a logical perspective. Is said person preventing you from playing the game... no. You have the ability to walk away. If you do, and they continue harassing you, that's when theres a problem.
Spot on, Porygon, thank you :)
Others want to change that stance. Let's take that same logical situation and redefine it as having pinnacles of honor who were bullied by a contemptuous underbelly. Let's take competition and turn it into a crime because someone doesn't like it.
Those mobs need to be locked to the monk , if he FDs , the mobs then reset and he is safe. If he fails , the mobs procede to kill him and him alone since there engaged and locked to him.
The named is engaged and the other party finishes the encounter and they look at the monk and link the loot.
The point of the FTE system is to avoid these situations entirely and prevent this type of game play in the first place.
oneADseven said:disposalist said:Come on, you know it's not that simple and it's pretty insulting to be characterised as wanting "entitlement to content" just because one thinks the conflict that often occurs from contention is undesirable and could be calmed by PNP.
Also, it's not a feeling of 'entitlement' to want my skill and knowledge of the game to provide the opportunity to experience content, not having to beat other players in pseudo-PvP squabbles.
In the context that was being discussed, it really is that simple. Again, consider the quotes that were being referenced and focus on these two lines specifically: "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." You either view competition with other players as something that adds to the experience or something that detracts from it. You have used the words "distract" and "detract" multiple times which makes it pretty clear where you stand. The "content" doesn't exist in a vacuum if we're talking about an open-world game -- players are part of the environment/content. You call it pseudo-PVP, I call it shared space and shared resources.
disposalist said: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.
I think this logic could be spun around just as easily. I find it weird that people say they want "open-world", but, oh, no, not a real open-world where I might have to deal with other players who actually want and expect to deal with other players -- other players do exist as part of the equation and for better or worse, there are consequences for that reality. It's not a matter of "Player vs AI content in a vacuum" -- If players pursue things of value in a social space, whether cooperatively or competitively (especially both at the same time), it's completely natural to expect them to produce differential outcomes. Again, other players are part of the environment. There are countless ways that players can interact with each other and that absolutely includes competition. Competition is inherent when you have shared space and shared resources -- for those who view that as a problem, instances were created as a solution. Instancing removes the "shared space and shared resources" variables and offers "Player vs AI content in a vacuum" on a silver platter for those who enjoy that sort of thing.
disposalist said:I don't think I've ever mentioned camps, but I get that those are one of those things that other games have controversially decided upon. I don't suggest they, specifically, are necessary or that Pantheon PNP would be anything like Everquest PNP or any other game's PNP.
Here are some examples from this thread:
disposalist said:I disagree. The player coming into a 'camp' and attempting to KS with no attempt to negotiate whatsoever has been rude and selfish. Or perhaps he did it once when the campers weren't really on in and the campers blew up at him, in which case the campers were being rude and selfish and should have talked to him first and would have discovered it an innocent mistake and come to some arrangement. Or perhaps the campers said nothing until the interloper KSed several times and then reported him for 'repeated interference', in which case the campers are being rude and selfish again, because they 'entrapped' him - they should have spoken up and talked earlier.
disposalist said:With a PNP that describes the concept of (amongst many other things) camps and how you might share etc, players have a framework in which to approach the problem and come to an agreement and bad-feelings and GM/CS action is much less likely to be needed.
disposalist said:Also, you seem worried about focus on raids. Who said PNP is just for raids? Actually, I think it's very important PNP cover everyday grouping and adventuring as much as raids, since it's what the majority of players do. I had much more problematic situations while camping with groups than with raiding in EQ.
If we break things down to the lowest level, that quote from Brad really speaks volumes. There are two sides when it comes to this controversial topic and a PNP that defines camps/camping isn't going to change anything other than painting the two sides into categories of "nice" and "not nice." If some people get what they want, it's only going to further enable the victim mindset by creating an official reference point of some sort that conflates competition with bullying or toxicity. One side doesn't view competition with other players as a distraction, detraction, or something that is otherwise "not nice." It is viewed as an inherent aspect of open-world play and something that will enhance the overall experience by offering positive contributions to feelings of attachment/accomplishment. The other side views the same set of interactions and consequences as negative.
Iksar said:Seems fair enough to me to claim that those who care not about other players and desire only to satisfy their own wants are the ones that feel "entitlement to content." The "I want this and I want it now. I will try to take this, others be damned."
Seems fair enough to quote Gordon Wrinn back when he announced the PNP for EQ since you have referenced it countless times when it comes to defining/enforcing camps with a PNP.
Gordon Wrinn said:"Like any society, each person has the ability to place his or her mark upon it. The vast majority of people in our society do their best to insure that their mark is positive, by abiding by the laws that we, much like the government, bring forward. Some of you choose to become pinnacles of honor, dignity and respect in your individual communities by forming guilds, promoting honorable actions by your members, and by supporting EverQuest on your web-sites.
Also like any society, we have our underbelly, a relatively small number of people who live to prey upon the honorable. It is frequently the goal of these people to see to their desires, no matter the effect of their actions upon others around them. They are the ones who claim ownership of servers, zones, or spawns, and cause or threaten harm to anyone who does not share their disregard and contempt. They are the ones who live, not to enjoy the game with everyone else, but to enjoy at everyone else’s expense."
Yikes. I'm sure that statement fueled quite the SJW movement in EQ. From that point on, players were either a pinnacle of honor or a member of the contemptuous underbelly. I hear all this talk about social constructs and meaningful reputation ... just look at the impact something like that would make! How exactly did competition work in Everquest? It sounds like a confused hot mess with an identity crisis. I'd love to see the "laws" that were established prior to that statement ... you know, just for context.
The really funny thing is that you can read that phrase two different ways. Let me get this right ... someone gets to location X, and then they feel that the camp now belongs to them. In other words, they want to see to their desires, no matter the effect they have on other people who might show up later. They want to claim ownership of that camp/spawn, and report anyone who would dare challenge their authority. That doesn't sound like a situation where they are enjoying the game with everyone else. It sounds like they want to do their own thing ... in their own private little bubble ... with no regard to what anyone else thinks or wants. And if they do things this way ... they get the satisfaction of feeling like they embody the idea of being a "pinnacle of honor." Classic. That's probably right around the same time that "contesting a resource" evolved into "griefing" or "kill-stealing" in EQ. How did that work out?
I view this assessment as fair:
Kilsin said:Porygon said:Someone coming into your "camp" and killing your mobs is not griefing or malicious. You might not like it, but it's not against any rule.
If they stay there and you compete with them for 5 hours and lose all mobs, that's still not griefing or malicious.
I assume what he means is that if someone comes and ks's you, then you leave and that person follows you around ks'ing everything you touch.. that's when it becomes griefing and malicious.
You have to put personal feelings aside and look from a logical perspective. Is said person preventing you from playing the game... no. You have the ability to walk away. If you do, and they continue harassing you, that's when theres a problem.
Spot on, Porygon, thank you :)
Others want to change that stance. Let's take that same logical situation and redefine it as having pinnacles of honor who were bullied by a contemptuous underbelly. Let's take competition and turn it into a crime because someone doesn't like it.
I do have the ability to walk away. By discontinuing my subscription because I can't even enjoy the content I want to enjoy without someone coming in and taking my work. I hope it doesn't come to that.
Telling me I can leave and go to another camp isn't good enough. At least, not if it happens regularly. I worked to get to the camp I'm at. If the game itself is challenging, I worked hard to maintain that camp. I completely feel that I have every possible right to the work I put in.
If you were to park your car next to mine at a busy gas station, take the pump that I'm clearly parked next to, and insert it into your car, I would expect some enforcement to take place. Otherwise I'd stop supporting that gas station which does not even support my ability to enjoy it's products and services.
Naturally, I don't mind competition when it is reasonable, like someone takes a mob that can pop in multiple camps. I probably was just unlucky because the mob didn't pop in my reasonably sized camp that I was maintaining. This might seem tame to you, but it is what I consider "healthy" pve competition.
If the mob does pop in my camp, and you take it without my permission, I see it as no different then you selfishly cutting the line at the gas station. You should be deemed "not nice", and be kicked out.
However you specifically feel about this situation is up to you. This is how I feel: The camp I work for, and am clearly parked next to, belongs to me, so long as I use it reasonably.
You claim that people who want their own bubble are selfish and anti social. I am selfish. What could possibly be wrong with claiming entitlement to the things I work and pay for? I don't want to share the resources with you that I worked for if you can't even talk to me and make me like you enough to give some/all of them to you.
I'm more than happy to group with you, suggest a nearby camp of equal value to you, etc. Whatever works in the situation, but It should be my choice, as the one who was there, working, first. Only when it is a choice does a kind action have value to me.
Finally, why does this ridiculous instances thing keep coming up? I want to see others. I want to have the right to let them have at my camp. I want to see how they camp their camp and get pointers. I want to give buffs. Tell/show them how my camp works. Discuss the weather. Discuss life. I also want to be able to report them if they try to steal my work, as they should report me if I try to steal theirs.
My desires for a game are very specific, hence why I find hope in a game that claims to target a specific niche instead of the mainstream.
I hope Pantheon finds the happy place between you and me where healthy competition is abundant. So far, I don't think it is going to be, however, so I want an enforced PnP. To protect my playstyle from large, competition focused guilds who are more than happy to "unselfishly" strong arm me out of a camp, then defend it with flowery phrases about health and sharing.
BeaverBiscuit said:Endless tickets? How many is that, exactly?
...
If VR goes the open world+enforced PnP route that's fine too. I'd personally like to see a stronger stance on camps in Pantheon than community policing.
PNP means GMs are involved in player disputes as a mediator. That is a massive amount of tickets. How guilds stole raid spawns or how players stole a spawn will be a common thing. A group left the spawn site by x feet therefore they abandoned it based on line 122. The group in question refutes the distance, get a GM involved.
Unless VR is releasing a novel of requirements for what a camp means, how long you can have it, and how to transfer it over fairly, there will be disputes over the camps. If VR does release a full novel of rules it will be too complicated for most players to fully understand or ever read creating even more tickets. Plus I would hope the game will be unique enough for different zones to have different spawn systems. Camps are now that much more convoluted. Is the named NPC the camp or the spawn point the camp? If you can split the mobs are they a separate camp? Turn to the camp rule set for this named in this zone.
No PNP would mean GMs are enforcing hardline rules only. Rules players can easily understand and quickly read. Claims of hacking, racist remarks, intentional training players, etc.
Jobeson said:BeaverBiscuit said:Endless tickets? How many is that, exactly?
...
If VR goes the open world+enforced PnP route that's fine too. I'd personally like to see a stronger stance on camps in Pantheon than community policing.
PNP means GMs are involved in player disputes as a mediator. That is a massive amount of tickets. How guilds stole raid spawns or how players stole a spawn will be a common thing. A group left the spawn site by x feet therefore they abandoned it based on line 122. The group in question refutes the distance, get a GM involved.
Unless VR is releasing a novel of requirements for what a camp means, how long you can have it, and how to transfer it over fairly, there will be disputes over the camps. If VR does release a full novel of rules it will be too complicated for most players to fully understand or ever read creating even more tickets. Plus I would hope the game will be unique enough for different zones to have different spawn systems. Camps are now that much more convoluted. Is the named NPC the camp or the spawn point the camp? If you can split the mobs are they a separate camp? Turn to the camp rule set for this named in this zone.
No PNP would mean GMs are enforcing hardline rules only. Rules players can easily understand and quickly read. Claims of hacking, racist remarks, intentional training players, etc.
So 5k people on a server. You need to get rid of half of the tickets. You do so by watching the movie of what happened. So...20 minutes per ticket, then 10 minutes of followup is pretty generous.
If all 5k people break the camp rule, that's 5k tickets. 2.5k need to be solved. 30 minutes each, a little bit over 52 days to solve them all. Unless you are suggesting that people will get punished, and then rebreak the same rule for camps specifically, I can wait 52 days. Especially since in reality plenty of people won't break the rule in the first place, either due to understanding the rule or naturally not breaking it in their playstyle. I'd guess no more than 1/4 of a server will break the rule initially, and it will go down to 1/8 or less once people see it enforced. We don't need to ban right away. Even then, it would also happen over a timeframe. Most people would need to hit at least level 10 before they even have the ability to steal a camp, and then you wait until they see something they really value enough they don't mind contesting a guy/group/raid who's already there over it. Finally, many people would fail to report it if their camp was being stolen, especially if they didn't know it was a rule in the first place, as you predict.
In other words, I'm here predicting to you that most of the camp stealing problem will be solved within a month of release, faster, if VR starts in beta to get it out of the way.
Again, how many tickets are you actually suggesting will happen? Once people see them being enforced, how many will continue to happen?
___
The pnp "novel" you mention can have a tldr. Yes, they'd want to get real specific, but in the first part they could just make you hit "accept" after you read some general lines like "You usually can't hold a camp longer than 4 hours", and "Until you understand camps, you should ask someone, or group with them, before you kill things that they are standing near", and "a camp is generally a valuable resource that people need to kill several nearby enemies in order to maintain control over". Many games have a shortlist terms of service that you need to accept upon entering the game. If you don't read even a short list, that's your problem.
BeaverBiscuit said:I do have the ability to walk away. By discontinuing my subscription because I can't even enjoy the content I want to enjoy without someone coming in and taking my work. I hope it doesn't come to that.
Telling me I can leave and go to another camp isn't good enough. At least, not if it happens regularly. I worked to get to the camp I'm at. If the game itself is challenging, I worked hard to maintain that camp. I completely feel that I have every possible right to the work I put in.
If another player is in a position to contest a camp then it stands to reason that they also put time and effort into getting there. Should you be able to tell them that they must leave and go to another camp just because you got there before them? How long do you think this area and its content should belong to you? When it's time for you to pack up and go, who decides how ownership of this area and its content is transferred to another party?
BeaverBiscuit said:If you were to park your car next to mine at a busy gas station, take the pump that I'm clearly parked next to, and insert it into your car, I would expect some enforcement to take place. Otherwise I'd stop supporting that gas station which does not even support my ability to enjoy it's products and services.
Boss NPC's are not parking spots, gas pumps, or merchandise in a shopping cart. When people try to use these analogies it only reinforces what the real problem is ... entitlement. Let's revisit the quote from Brad and ask ourselves which type of player we identify as.
Player Type A:
"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."
Player Type B:
"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."
I am very much a type B player. I do not feel entitled to an area and its content (camp) just because I paid my subscription fee and put effort into getting to that location. I tend to view treasure pools from bosses as "something to dream about or another goal to head towards" rather than a commodity that I wait in line for and purchase directly. I understand that other players will also view treasure pools similar to how I do and since resources are finite, competition and conflict will at times be inevitable. That's fine, though, because it makes the world more real.
BeaverBiscuit said:Naturally, I don't mind competition when it is reasonable, like someone takes a mob that can pop in multiple camps. I probably was just unlucky because the mob didn't pop in my reasonably sized camp that I was maintaining. This might seem tame to you, but it is what I consider "healthy" pve competition.
If the mob does pop in my camp, and you take it without my permission, I see it as no different then you selfishly cutting the line at the gas station. You should be deemed "not nice", and be kicked out.
I wouldn't describe this as "reasonable competition." You said yourself that you were probably just unlucky and there seems to be a direct correlation between the luck factor and the size of the camp ... so how do you define "reasonably sized?" Is reasonable always the same or does it scale based on X/Y/Z criteria?
BeaverBiscuit said:However you specifically feel about this situation is up to you. This is how I feel: The camp I work for, and am clearly parked next to, belongs to me, so long as I use it reasonably.
Yes, I understand how you feel. I also understand that the way that you view the world and its content isn't consistent with an open-world dynamic that features contested resources as an inherent aspect of play. You can think/feel what you want as long as there aren't official policies/guidelines that impose your gas station analogy onto my virtual fantasy experience. I do not agree with your views of ownership/niceness and do not want to see space marshals popping in from another dimension that enforce them.
BeaverBiscuit said:You claim that people who want their own bubble are selfish and anti social. I am selfish. What could possibly be wrong with claiming entitlement to the things I work and pay for? I don't want to share the resources with you that I worked for if you can't even talk to me and make me like you enough to give some/all of them to you.
I'm more than happy to group with you, suggest a nearby camp of equal value to you, etc. Whatever works in the situation, but It should be my choice, as the one who was there, working, first. Only when it is a choice does a kind action have value to me.
You're claiming entitlement to things that do not belong to you. I agree with the premise of "Only when it is a choice does a kind action have value to me." I am all for player-driven social constructs that might recognize camping in some capacity. If players are doing it voluntarily then that would feel authentic and natural to me. If players are only doing it because they're worried about intergalactic space marshals enforcing a policy, that sounds more like social engineering.
BeaverBiscuit said:Finally, why does this ridiculous instances thing keep coming up? I want to see others. I want to have the right to let them have at my camp. I want to see how they camp their camp and get pointers. I want to give buffs. Tell/show them how my camp works. Discuss the weather. Discuss life. I also want to be able to report them if they try to steal my work, as they should report me if I try to steal theirs.
My desires for a game are very specific, hence why I find hope in a game that claims to target a specific niche instead of the mainstream.
I hope Pantheon finds the happy place between you and me where healthy competition is abundant. So far, I don't think it is going to be, however, so I want an enforced PnP. To protect my playstyle from large, competition focused guilds who are more than happy to "unselfishly" strong arm me out of a camp, then defend it with flowery phrases about health and sharing.
Instances keep coming up because they solve the "problem" of having to deal with other real players who can/will be competing for finite resources. Real players are not bound to a small list of things that you personally find acceptable. Freedom of choice and player agency are the primary draws of an open-world experience. Per Wikipedia:
"While the openness of the game world is an important facet to games featuring open worlds, the main draw of open-world games is about providing the player with autonomy - not so much the freedom to do anything they want in the game (which is nearly impossible with current computing technology), but the ability to choose how to approach the game and its challenges in the order and manner as the player desires while still constrained by gameplay rules. Examples of high level of autonomy in computer games can be found in massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPG) or in single-player games adhering to the open-world concept such as the Fallout series. The main appeal of open-world gameplay is that they provide a simulated reality and allow players to develop their character and its behaviour in the direction and the pace of their own choosing."
I am curious, what is the "healthy competition" half of you speak of who want the GMs to negotiate spawn rights?
First come first serve camps?
First called determines ownership of the camp?
Who names the camps?
If you call the wrong name do you lose the camp?
If you ignore a camp check do you give up the camp?
How long do you have to respond?
What if the camp check is not in english?
What about multiple spawn locations?
Multiple spawns in the same room?
What about 3 rooms side by side?
What about 3 rooms at 3 corners of the dungeon one group could hold if they moved fast.
What if a group could only hold two rooms?
Are camp handoffs illegal?
What if its to the same guild 24/7?
What if its two guilds working together 24/7?
What if the second guild is an alt guild of the first?
Is there a line for who gets the camp next?
Does the line transfer between groups?
Do rights in the line transfer if the group leader changes?
What if the group leader comes back?
Can group leaders next in line offer group spots to some of the members of the first group?
How far away from the spawns can you be?
Are you allowed to leave the "zone" in the event of a train?
How many people of the group need to be there to "hold a camp"
How long can you leave the spawns up for?
Should their be a counter on the nameplate to make sure it is not disputed?
What if the spawn patrols an area?
How long can a group own the camp?
When does the timer start / stop if everyone in the group is replaced one person at a time?
Why are none of the PNP supporters pointing to an actual systems saying this is the ideal I/we want?
I can gladly debate whether DPS races or first hit = ownership should be the system for kill rights. I could even see the value of no group getting loot if neither group does 70% of the damage. The groups would either all agree to the ownership or no one gets anything. Might is right vs no one gets anything as long as they fight with eachother. Game mechanics beat GM tickets any day of the week.
well my edit was a quote... I don't see a delete button... sorry
oneADseven said:BeaverBiscuit said:I do have the ability to walk away. By discontinuing my subscription because I can't even enjoy the content I want to enjoy without someone coming in and taking my work. I hope it doesn't come to that.
Telling me I can leave and go to another camp isn't good enough. At least, not if it happens regularly. I worked to get to the camp I'm at. If the game itself is challenging, I worked hard to maintain that camp. I completely feel that I have every possible right to the work I put in.
If another player is in a position to contest a camp then it stands to reason that they also put time and effort into getting there. Should you be able to tell them that they must leave and go to another camp just because you got there before them? How long do you think this area and its content should belong to you? When it's time for you to pack up and go, who decides how ownership of this area and its content is transferred to another party?
At a gas station, if I get to the line first, even though you worked to get to that line, you have to go after me in the line. Ownership of the position after me is determined, also, by who got there first. Second, it is judged by who did the most work. Sometimes people will let, say, an old lady in front of them. But first come first served is first.
oneADseven said:BeaverBiscuit said:If you were to park your car next to mine at a busy gas station, take the pump that I'm clearly parked next to, and insert it into your car, I would expect some enforcement to take place. Otherwise I'd stop supporting that gas station which does not even support my ability to enjoy it's products and services.
Boss NPC's are not parking spots, gas pumps, or merchandise in a shopping cart. When people try to use these analogies it only reinforces what the real problem is ... entitlement. Let's revisit the quote from Brad and ask ourselves which type of player we identify as.
Player Type A:
"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."
Player Type B:
"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."
I am very much a type B player. I do not feel entitled to an area and its content (camp) just because I paid my subscription fee and put effort into getting to that location. I tend to view treasure pools from bosses as "something to dream about or another goal to head towards" rather than a commodity that I wait in line for and purchase directly. I understand that other players will also view treasure pools similar to how I do and since resources are finite, competition and conflict will at times be inevitable. That's fine, though, because it makes the world more real.
I understand that they are not spots in a gas station to you, or Brad. I do still feel the entitlement, however. Following rules for camps instead of "strength rules all" would certainly be a problem to someone who plans on making a really big guild and I'm sorry for that. Just not sorry enough to play a game I do not enjoy.
oneADseven said:BeaverBiscuit said:Naturally, I don't mind competition when it is reasonable, like someone takes a mob that can pop in multiple camps. I probably was just unlucky because the mob didn't pop in my reasonably sized camp that I was maintaining. This might seem tame to you, but it is what I consider "healthy" pve competition.
If the mob does pop in my camp, and you take it without my permission, I see it as no different then you selfishly cutting the line at the gas station. You should be deemed "not nice", and be kicked out.
I wouldn't describe this as "reasonable competition." You said yourself that you were probably just unlucky and there seems to be a direct correlation between the luck factor and the size of the camp ... so how do you define "reasonably sized?" Is reasonable always the same or does it scale based on X/Y/Z criteria?
I'd say reasonably sized is how much a group can comfortably handle, 1 mob at a time, once they've broken it in. So X/Y/Z criteria. Of course, you take the nearest valuable resource into consideration. Most people won't care if you take a trash mob out of their camp, accidentally. I know I wouldn't. I'd leave it to VR to determine specifics beyond that.
Of course, you can't have specific sizes for every camp without a ridiculous pnp, so you have people who determine it, case by case. The general rule to follow is "don't kill something that just spawned next to someone else who got there first".
A "good samaritan" section of the PnP is fine.
oneADseven said:BeaverBiscuit said:You claim that people who want their own bubble are selfish and anti social. I am selfish. What could possibly be wrong with claiming entitlement to the things I work and pay for? I don't want to share the resources with you that I worked for if you can't even talk to me and make me like you enough to give some/all of them to you.
I'm more than happy to group with you, suggest a nearby camp of equal value to you, etc. Whatever works in the situation, but It should be my choice, as the one who was there, working, first. Only when it is a choice does a kind action have value to me.
You're claiming entitlement to things that do not belong to you. I agree with the premise of "Only when it is a choice does a kind action have value to me." I am all for player-driven social constructs that might recognize camping in some capacity. If players are doing it voluntarily then that would feel authentic and natural to me. If players are only doing it because they're worried about inter-galactic space marshals enforcing a policy, that sounds more like social engineering.
I do feel that they belong to me, though. Which is enough ,when it comes to a potential paying customer. Again, if VR doesn't want to make their game for customers like me, that is their choice. I want them to know how they could, if they wanted to.
You seem to treat social engineering as a bad thing. Manipulation is inherent even in the simplest of conversations. Your guild that you plan on having won't have rules that regulate the future development and behavior of your mini society?
Social engineering keeps society ticking. I wish the world were perfect and it wasn't necessary. My personal policy is where possible and it's reasonable/matters, you treat a person how THEY would like to be treated, not how you would like to be treated. Everyone does not feel this way, going instead for that "treat others how you would like to be treated", so we need social engineering.
I certainly make mistakes, so bring on the engineering!
I have no problem with you stealing camps from people in group B. People in group A feel entitlement and I'd appreciate it if you refrained. Not doing an unkind thing is important, but not terribly meaningful as a kind action in my opinion. Few people would thank you for choosing not to punch them every 5 minutes, even though technically you could.
oneADseven said:BeaverBiscuit said:Finally, why does this ridiculous instances thing keep coming up? I want to see others. I want to have the right to let them have at my camp. I want to see how they camp their camp and get pointers. I want to give buffs. Tell/show them how my camp works. Discuss the weather. Discuss life. I also want to be able to report them if they try to steal my work, as they should report me if I try to steal theirs.
My desires for a game are very specific, hence why I find hope in a game that claims to target a specific niche instead of the mainstream.
I hope Pantheon finds the happy place between you and me where healthy competition is abundant. So far, I don't think it is going to be, however, so I want an enforced PnP. To protect my playstyle from large, competition focused guilds who are more than happy to "unselfishly" strong arm me out of a camp, then defend it with flowery phrases about health and sharing.
Instances keep coming up because they solve the "problem" of having to deal with other real players who can/will be competing for finite resources. Real players are not bound to a small list of things that you personally find acceptable. Freedom of choice and player agency are the primary draws of an open-world experience. Per Wikipedia:
"While the openness of the game world is an important facet to games featuring open worlds, the main draw of open-world games is about providing the player with autonomy - not so much the freedom to do anything they want in the game (which is nearly impossible with current computing technology), but the ability to choose how to approach the game and its challenges in the order and manner as the player desires while still constrained by gameplay rules. Examples of high level of autonomy in computer games can be found in massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPG) or in single-player games adhering to the open-world concept such as the Fallout series. The main appeal of open-world gameplay is that they provide a simulated reality and allow players to develop their character and its behaviour in the direction and the pace of their own choosing."
Again, I make these posts so people WILL be bound to a small list of things that I personally find acceptable, specifically in this game that I will buy for the purpose of personal enjoyment.
Me having to "share" a camp that you strong arm is me having to follow a small list of things that you personally find acceptable.
Many of your policies ruin my fun, as mine ruin yours. Neither is more selfish than the other.
Autonomy is certainly possible with an enforced camp-pnp and no instances. It's just a method you don't personally find acceptable.
BeaverBiscuit said:I'd say reasonably sized is how much a group can comfortably handle, 1 mob at a time, once they've broken it in. So X/Y/Z criteria. Of course, you take the nearest valuable resource into consideration. Most people won't care if you take a trash mob out of their camp, accidentally. I know I wouldn't. I'd leave it to VR to determine specifics beyond that.
Of course, you can't have specific sizes for every camp without a ridiculous pnp, so you have people who determine it, case by case. The general rule to follow is "don't kill something that just spawned next to someone else who got there first".
A "good samaritan" section of the PnP is fine.
Your example clearly goes against EQ, EQ2, and P99 PNPs. If you followed those rules you would be reported and be in the wrong using the PNPs we actually have seen. Lets hope the GM doesn't ban you for playing the wrong way.