posted in the hopes that controls are put in place......
As a basement-dwelling, thumb-twitching, race-to-the-top, neckbearded plat farmer I was salivating when I heard about campfire "ports".
So now, my group can park at a valuable camp such as EQ LGuk mask or FBSS camp. And I can farm these valuable no drop items and simply port someone here to buy it from me. COTH on steroids.
Wait......unless VR makes some mechanic like group-only-kill loot where you had to be in the group and zone when an item dropped to loot it....that would thwart me!
OK, well what I'll do is not worry about planning my exploration and travels and having to think about gear space and weight and no-drop items. I'll gobble up as much loot as possible and simply gate away to sell my loot and get summoned back to gobble up more.
Wait.....unless VR makes some mechanic like a 4 hour cooldown timer .....that would stop this plan.
OK, well I'll simply camp a deep rare spot and be paid by the hour. I'll wait for a rare NPC to spawn then Ill notify my customer who comes to do their turn in or kill.
on, and on........
Players will find ways to exploit and abuse any game mechanic meant to make the world simpler/faster/easier.
I give this a cautious wait-and-see, hoping that VR has the foresight to put some serious restrictions on this.
I can't remember exactly what was said this time, but let's say I'm just giving my opinion, not remembering and/or interpreting what VR said hehe.
I think the camp fire concept should only help a group *stay* together not help random folks travel.
So, the person doing the summoning at a camp fire should only be able to summon someone who was there, with them, recently.
disposalist said: So, the person doing the summoning at a camp fire should only be able to summon someone who was there, with them, recently.
The discussion in question was about replacing a group member who had to leave when everyone else wants to stay. That would almost always mean summoning someone who had not been there with them previously :)
To the OP: limiting a summons to PCs that are in the same zone, or better yet in the immediate area of the dungeon will help a lot. Not letting the same PC be summoned more than once - unless they had already been present with the group and died - would also help. And of course some amount of a cooldown on the summons would help too.
vjek said:If you want people to group up and play together on the same server, providing tools that permit that is a good idea.
Making it more difficult to accomplish that design goal? Probably not a good idea.
If you want to create a game with multiple design goals, placing limits on one goal to keep it from undermining another design goal is a good idea. Advancing one goal to the point where it undermines or trivializes another goal is definitely not a good idea.
Or, are you suggesting letting a group summon anyone, anytime, from anywhere?
IMO:
I think each implementation of a spell, ability, or similar only requires one overly punitive feature.
For example, it could have one, some, several, or all of (overly punitive):
A long recast timer.
A long casting time.
A requirement for a certain amount of a class-based resource to be consumed, like mana. (mana cost)
A requirement for a certain consumable resource to be consumed.
A geographical use restriction.
A range restriction.
And several more.
But objectively, if you consider each of those, some of those, or all of those from the perspective of Fun, subscriber retention, and encouraging social and group play, how many do you need, and how punitive do they really need to be? At some point, you're going to cross the line between "this is powerful and Fun" to: "I'm never going to cast or use this, because it's terrible."
Overly punitive game design and implementation does not expand the target demographic. Quite the opposite.
I will always advocate for a less punitive approach. more carrot, less stick.
How about summoning only from campfire to campfire (with one possibly being at an entrance). Already, a player must have been to x, y, z campfire to utilize it. If it still becomes a problem, and I don't see how when the player has previously put in the time to activate a campfire, then add another condition of a, b, c kills of this, that, or the other thing within the area of play. Campfires directly link to the two-hour play session mantra.
vjek said: I think each implementation of a spell, ability, or similar only requires one overly punitive feature. For example, it could have one, some, several, or all of (overly punitive):A long recast timer.
A long casting time.
A requirement for a certain amount of a class-based resource to be consumed, like mana. (mana cost)
A requirement for a certain consumable resource to be consumed.
A geographical use restriction.
A range restriction.
And several more.But objectively, if you consider each of those, some of those, or all of those from the perspective of Fun, subscriber retention, and encouraging social and group play, how many do you need, and how punitive do they really need to be? At some point, you're going to cross the line between "this is powerful and Fun" to: "I'm never going to cast or use this, because it's terrible."
Overly punitive game design and implementation does not expand the target demographic. Quite the opposite.I will always advocate for a less punitive approach. more carrot, less stick.
I might agree with you if I thought the various limitations for abilities were a punishment. But I completely disagree with your use of the word "punitive" here. The root of punitive is 'punish'. Punishment exists in relation to misbehavior, transgression, "doing wrong", behavior that we wish to diminish - which is the purpose of punishment.
I see no meaningul difference between the various rules you list and all the other rules (both known & unknown) that govern what we can and can't do in the Game. The rules of a game are not implemented to punish players. Rules are the structure of a game. A game has no existence or meaning without the rules that define it. Take away the rules and there's no difference between chess and checkers.
You also list specific costs. Those are even further from punishment. Everything has a cost, Real Life or MMO. Should everything of value on Terminus just be given freely to every character whenever they wish? Train any skill from any class you wish on your character? Wave your hand and the monster falls dead? The vendors all give their wares for free?
Every condition you list as a restriction can just as easily be found on a list of the powers & benefits of your character:
I am quick enough to cast this at the speed of X times every minute/hour.
I am stong enough to do this X times before I have to rest and recharge.
And both of these will increase with levels & better gear.
I can do this powerful thing anywhere in this village/valley/forest/kingdom/continent.
This will affect every person/thing around me out to X distance.
You can read it as telling you what you can't do, if you like.
I read it as telling me what I can do.
Thunderleg said:How about summoning only from campfire to campfire (with one possibly being at an entrance). Already, a player must have been to x, y, z campfire to utilize it. If it still becomes a problem, and I don't see how when the player has previously put in the time to activate a campfire, then add another condition of a, b, c kills of this, that, or the other thing within the area of play. Campfires directly link to the two-hour play session mantra.
I think that might be a good way to get someone back who died and there's no rezzer available. Like maybe a Mana-Crazed Ratkin Atheist threw himself on your Cleric and took her out :D
Jothany said: ... Every condition you list as a restriction can just as easily be found on a list of the powers & benefits of your character:...
IMO:
Which is why I am advocating for a single punitive implementation of each, rather than ALL of them, most of them, many of them, or some of them.
It's just that simple.
I'm not saying the game doesn't need rules, I'm just saying, hold off on making everything punitive, most of them punitive, many of them punitive, or some of them punitive. Just one will do.
A good path forward, then, when looking at each spell, ability, skill, or similar, is pick one feature to make punitive, and the rest?
Make them Fun, increase subscriber retention, and encourage social and group play.
I'm not advocating for any of the extreme scenarios or conclusions you're posing as questions, just so that's been made clear. :) Quite the opposite, I'm just looking for a predictable, holistic, even, level-headed, reasonable approach to design & implementation.
Each of those features I list can be implemented punitively. They should not all be.
This is gonna be one of those situations where VR has to look at the campfire's intended purpose vs possible unintended purposes and code it in such a way that the unintended purposes are not viable without destroying the intended purpose.
Intended purpose: summoning a new group member to your camp deep in a dungeon.
Unintended purpose: a fast system for travelling around the world.
Solution: you can only summon people already in the dungeon. This is a no brainer.
Unintended purpose: summoning your entire raid into the dungeon to skip a significant portion of clearing to a boss.
Solution: put a 5 minute cooldown on each fire. Now if a player tries to camp a toon at the fire and log him in to summon a raid, even a 12 man raid would take nearly an hour to summon, making it not viable vs just clearing there. VR could also avoid putting valuable loot-droppers close to campfires, so you'd still need to do some clearing anyway.
Unintended purpose: using campfire summons to sell no-drop loot.
Solution: the above rule about needing to be in zone makes this harder (assuming corpses have a despawn timer). Also if VR limits no-drop items as they've said they will, this behavior won't be necessary as most things will be sellable on the market anyway. Limiting no-drop items so they do not drop from mobs that are directly next to campfires is also a solution.
Notice that none of these solutions stop the intended purpose: a player can still walk into a dungeon, join a group already in progress, and the group can then use a campfire to summon their new player.
If the stated aim really is to allow characters to travel to a group deep in a dungeon when they wouldn't be able to otherwise, this is one of those times I may disagree with VR! Ooer!
Having to make you way to a group *should* be a dangerous endeavour if they are in a dangerous place. Why should that dangerous place suddenly be bypassable, just because a group could ideally do with another member?
How about the group has to fight their way to a spot the new member can reach?
A new member might have to ask a group heading into the dungeon if they can tag along in relative safety.
They might have to buy an invisibility potion and risk it failing along the way.
Should the excitement and fear of the dungeon really be circumventable for situational convenience's sake?
There are some good ideas being suggested here - some great ingenuity to try and make the camp fires concept work.
Perhaps it would be better, though, if we didn't fix the camp fire concept, but use that kind of ingenuity in game to get to the dangerous places we want to get to?
I know there's an effort on VR's part to make 2 hour sessions meaningful. Isn't making your way deep into a dangerous dungeon meaningful? Sounds a good accomplishment to me.
There was talk of having 'safe' areas in dungeons for people to log in and out. I'm ok with that as long as it's tough to get there. But circumventing danger for convenience's sake? Hmm. really not sure.
It's important to note VR said they'd be limiting campfire use to players who had already visited them before, meaning you'd have to travel to each one the old fashioned way at least once. It's strictly a mechanic to allow groups to fill holes when someone has to leave without having to return all the way to the entrance and start over.
I know there's an effort on VR's part to make 2 hour sessions meaningful. Isn't making your way deep into a dangerous dungeon meaningful? Sounds a good accomplishment to me. There was talk of having 'safe' areas in dungeons for people to log in and out. I'm ok with that as long as it's tough to get there.
vjek said:
It's just that simple.
Of course it is. Just ignore any points I make that you don't have an argument for and keep repeating your own point of view.
It's certainly a very popular form of "debate" these days. You should do well with it.
A shame it doesn't do anything for the larger conversation.
Have a nice day.
Heebs said:If it takes 2 hours to get to a camp spot in a dungeon, anything beyond that spot will be reserved for players with longer play times. If you spent 2 hours getting to a safe spot, logged out, and then logged in the next day, you'd likely just sit at that safe spot LFG for 2 hours while open groups were waiting for replacements in other zones' safe spots that you can't get to.
I take your point, but assuming zones won't be well populated isn't a great basis on which to provide convenience teleports.
Just as likely, those that had fun getting down to that safe point in their last session will enjoy getting a group in that dungeon very easily compared to other that might have to find other ways down.
Heebs said:
Circumventing this by being able to skip content by buying invisibility potions doesn't accomplish your goal of making it hard to skip content. It actually makes it easier and gated only by a player's inventory of invisibility potions. At least with a campfire system, you can only skip to places you have been before and if there's a group there to summon you.
An invisibility potion or spell was just an off-the-top-of-my-head example and I wasn't imagining invisibility to be as simple a solution as it might seem - in games like Everquest, the effect could end quite randomly and a lot of monsters could 'see through' it. It was usually a high risk strategy, though very useful if it worked out.
What I meant was, the 'normal' variety of ways to mitigate or endure the danger of travel - a large part of the normal gameplay loop - is supposed to be fun and interesting in and of itself. To add mechanics that enable players to skip some of what should be the most challenging and rewarding content in Terminus - a dungeon crawl - seems an odd thing to go to the effort of inventing a special mechanic for, especially when, as noted by the OP, it seems likely the kind of thing to be 'abused'.
To be honest, I'm pretty sure VR will be applying their usual common sense to this.
They have said many times in the past that they want travel to be meaningful and the world to feel big.
They have also made it clear that things like flying mounts that can skip content are out.
I'm pretty confident they won't add a mechanic that both trivialises travel and skips content in dungeons, where travel and content should be the most challenging, without having sensible limitations like some are suggesting.
I guess all I'm saying is, yes, VR would have to limit it quite severly so perhaps consider just saving the development effort hehe. In games like Everquest, being difficult and dangerous to get deep into (and corpse retrieval being much harder if you died down there) was a very important part of what made the dungeon experience that much more exciting than overland travel and adventure.
Reduce that fear and danger and you reduce the excitement and satisfaction.
There are perhaps other ways to achieve the two hour meaningful session that aren't so abusable or a detriment to other aspects, like the safe camp spots.
Heebs said: It's important to note VR said they'd be limiting campfire use to players who had already visited them before,
I don't remember him saying this ↑ I listened to the DRT where Joppa mentioned they were considering ports to help get a new player into a group when someone had to leave unexpectedly. Was that where you heard them say it or was it someplace else?
Thanks
I gather that "campfire" in this context means a place that outsiders can be summoned to in order to join a group that is already there. Supporting the design goal of of making grouping easier and the "default" option of how people play the game. Undercutting the design goal of large world - slow travel.
On balance I think it may be a necessary trade-off. People will leave groups in the middle - spit happens. If a typical group session is two hours or more - that is a lot of time for something to come up to force at least one person to leave. Unexpected call from work. Family aggro. Loss of power or internet.
If content is made asy enough that 2-3 people remaining in the group can easily handle it - the content is too easy to give any kind of challenge to a full group. So groups will need to just sit there wasting their time until they fill.
How do we reduce the harm to the "slow travel" design goal? And all we can do is reduce it not eliminate the harm.
My solution - the game keeps track of where the person being summoned was. If he or she leaves the group - whoosh - back to that spot. If he or she leaves the dungeon - whoosh - back to that spot. Maybe another whoosh if the person gets too far from the rest of the group.
So that this cannot be readily used as an exploit to let someone speed-travel to the campfire in order to do anything else other than stay with the group inside the dungeon.
Jothany said:Heebs said: It's important to note VR said they'd be limiting campfire use to players who had already visited them before,I don't remember him saying this ↑ I listened to the DRT where Joppa mentioned they were considering ports to help get a new player into a group when someone had to leave unexpectedly. Was that where you heard them say it or was it someplace else?
Thanks
Quote relevant to the player only being able to be summoned if they've visited that spot before is at roughly 32:20.
Jothany said: Of course it is. Just ignore any points I make that you don't have an argument for and keep repeating your own point of view. ...
What points are being made that you feel are being ignored? Is there a specific part of what I'm advocating for that you don't understand or don't agree with ?
Up to this point in this particular thread, I've only been trying to make my point of view clear in light of your original assertions of:
Jothany said: To the OP: limiting a summons to PCs that are in the same zone, or better yet in the immediate area of the dungeon will help a lot. Not letting the same PC be summoned more than once - unless they had already been present with the group and died - would also help. And of course some amount of a cooldown on the summons would help too.
Which, from how I read it, is advocating for three or four different potentially punitive restrictions on the use of the ability, rather than just one, depending on implementation details.
Do you want to discuss specific implementation details, or provide specific numbers regarding those restrictions? Happy to jump down that rabbit hole, if you are. :)
VJek I would suggest looking at my overall point and individual examples here:
https://seforums.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/13815/how-to-exploit-a-campfire/view/post_id/265069
"Punitive" is subjective and difficult to discuss. It's much better IMO to look at a problem vs solution model as I did in my linked post. If the designers have an intended purpose they're trying to design towards and unintended consequences they're trying to avoid, being able to objectively look at each problem individually and come up with solutions to that problem that do not create an undue burden to the intended purpose is gonna be the best way to go about this thought experiment.
vjek said:What points are being made that you feel are being ignored? Is there a specific part of what I'm advocating for that you don't understand or don't agree with ?
The points you are ignoring are the ones I made here: https://seforums.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/13815/how-to-exploit-a-campfire/view/post_id/265060 which you quoted in your next comment but didn't respond to at all, just reiterated your position.
The main point of that post that you didn't respond to was that
A long recast timer.
A long casting time.
A requirement for a certain amount of a class-based resource to be consumed, like mana. (mana cost)
A requirement for a certain consumable resource to be consumed.
A geographical use restriction.
A range restriction.
are game rules that are no more 'punitive' than any of the countless other rules used to define a character, their stats, their abilities, or the structure of the game world in general. You not liking them doesn't make them punitive.
Any parameter that specifies/defines the range of a character's power or functionality can be viewed positively or negatively. You are viewing them as limits of your power. You could just as accurately view them as definitions of your power. To illustrate this I rewrote your list, referencing the same rules, just using positive terms to define them instead of negative ones. Since that didn't convey what I was saying, here's a simpler example:
2 people live in a suburb with identical houses, yards and picket fences. Neighbor A looks at his fence and thinks "how nice to know that everywhere inside the fence is mine to do whatever I want with" while Neighbor B looks at his fence and thinks "the world is so big, and the only part that is mine is the trivial part of it inside this fence". The fence has no more or less affect on either of them. The only difference is what you choose to focus on. It's no different with any other 'fences' in the game.
Which, from how I read it, is advocating for three or four different potentially punitive restrictions on the use of the ability, rather than just one, depending on implementation details.
Do you want to discuss specific implementation details, or provide specific numbers regarding those restrictions? Happy to jump down that rabbit hole, if you are.
I'm happy to discus any game parameters or specific numbers. But not if you get to define them as "overly punitive" before we start the discussion. Doing that moves the goalposts before we start the game, so to speak.
Which is a great way to win debates if you can get away with it :) but no good at finding truth or reaching consensus.
Heebs said:https://youtu.be/AuabfJQ0d3w?t=1850 ; Quote relevant to the player only being able to be summoned if they've visited that spot before is at roughly 32:20.
Thanks. Can't imagine how I missed that.
fazool said:posted in the hopes that controls are put in place......
So now, my group can park at a valuable camp such as EQ LGuk mask or FBSS camp. And I can farm these valuable no drop items and simply port someone here to buy it from me. COTH on steroids.
I think here is a "law of diminishing returns" thing regarding exp, im not sure if there is also one that applies to loot or No drop item unles its character flag and once dropped for you its a one and done kind of deal. Sure you can keep camping the named, but it wont drop again for you, it will never drop again for you. Also, it may RNG to another named in the dungeon, maybe one that wanders if memory serves and if you were to camp all the nameds on that one char, it would still "no soup for you" because youpve already had your steak, and honestly, how much steak can you eat.
Jothany said:IMO:...
A long recast timer.
A long casting time.
A requirement for a certain amount of a class-based resource to be consumed, like mana. (mana cost)
A requirement for a certain consumable resource to be consumed.
A geographical use restriction.
A range restriction.are game rules that are no more 'punitive' than any of the countless other rules used to define a character, their stats, their abilities, or the structure of the game world in general. You not liking them doesn't make them punitive. ...
The purpose of making the list was to point out that each of these CAN be implemented punitively, but that not more than one should be. That's why I listed them, and pointed out that each one could be punitive, but they all should not be. I'm not sure how I could have been more clear, but I'll be more verbose in the future, just for your benefit.
So, for 'how to exploit a campfire' which one from that list would you like to implement punitively, in your opinion, Jothany?