Yeah! Thanks for the link Raidan. That rule set sounds incredible.
Funnily enough I was just listening to a podcast where Niel DeGrasse Tyson was discussing creativity with David Byrne. One of their main points was that constraints foster creativity as opposed to the opposite being true. Couldnt help but see the similarities there. For example, the more restrictive rule set forced creative communication and language learning and I'm sure there was much more. Very cool!
Don't ask me why, don't ask me how... I've seen this thread on the forums for as long as it's been here. However, I just logged in, was scanning the thread list, and read:
Girlfriend: Does Pantheon have a plan?
Apparently the devs (in my mind) need to account for wife agro issues...
:)
Was there really any major long term griefing in EQ? People would get trained or KS'd, but this thread makes it seem like thing were out of control. Things like duping and other exploits are way more destructive to the game. I remember the rubicite dupe on EMarr, it cause a huge portion of the high end players to quit and start over on the nameless because they felt like the integrity of the server had been compromised. People were puting duped rubicite on level 1 mobs. Or the people who would go into various places in the mansion in unrest and exploit pathing while the rest of us ground it out risking our lives. That stuff sucked.
This may seem like an odd feature request, but in addition to the usual friends list and ignore list, could we have an enemies/troublemakers list? I'm very hopeful about this community, and doubt it would have many entries, but just in case... Say Jerkface (presumably with a more innocuous name) has trained my group before, and I've heard from friends and guildies that Jerkface has trained their groups, and *they've* heard from others that Jerkface has trained them as well. I'd rather not /ignore Jerkface, because by not /ignoring him, if I see Jerkface spouting nonsense in /ooc or the like, I have advanced warning that my group may suddenly have 37 adds to deal with. Granted, if Jerkface is that much of an annoyance, I may well remember his name and have no use for a handy list. But say it's been 11 months since I've seen him, and (I'm getting old!) all I can remember is "that name is familiar for some reason, but I can't quite recall why," it would be helpful to realize he was problematic enough to land on the naughty list. It would be even more helpful if we could have short "notes" fields for the friends/bad-guys lists. What if Jonny was nasty to everyone when you grouped with him a few months ago, and now Johny is looking for a group. I may not be feeling patient enough today to tolerate Jonny, but I don't want to say no to Johny because I can't remember how the unpleasant one spelled his name. (No, I'm not saying that being excessively abrasive is necessarily griefing, but it's at least peripherally related to community policing of unacceptable behaviour.) Your reputation should matter--but people should be certain it's you.
If/when GM intervention is necessary, I vote that warnings be accompanied by a multi-day non-dispellable 95% snare/slow/stat-reduction that doesn't expire while offline. >:D
You have to be careful when it comes to players policing themselves. I've seen first hand just how ridiculous situations can get when you have multiple competing guilds all vying for the same world bosses. When the competion ramps up, anything seems to go.
This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to PVE competition in an open world environment. When items are super rare and not every guild gets to participate due to the non-instances nature of the game, things tend to get nasty. Players don't like feeling they wasted their time and will sometimes resort to the above to get an advantage.
I'm all for giving the players ways to police the community. It starts with reputation meaning something by not allowing name changes or server transfers. We do have to be careful not to give the players too much sway. That tends to go wrong rather quickly in my experience.
Despite all the nastiness i've been a part of, i've still had an overwhelmingly positive experience when it comes to allowing the players certain freedoms to uphold a higher standard where reputations are concerned. I still believe it's the best way to form a great community. With anything, the good comes with a little bad.
Aldie said:You have to be careful when it comes to players policing themselves. I've seen first hand just how ridiculous situations can get when you have multiple competing guilds all vying for the same world bosses. When the competion ramps up, anything seems to go.
- I've seen entire guilds reporting competing guild members for absolutely made up reasons and getting them 3 day bans just so the competition didn't have tanks online.
- I've seen stories completely fabricated to ruin someones reputation in order to get them kicked out of competing guilds.
- I've seen drama started just to indirectly hurt competing guilds recruitment efforts.
- I've seen pre agreed upon rulesets broken when certain guilds don't get their way.
This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to PVE competition in an open world environment. When items are super rare and not every guild gets to participate due to the non-instances nature of the game, things tend to get nasty. Players don't like feeling they wasted their time and will sometimes resort to the above to get an advantage.
I'm all for giving the players ways to police the community. It starts with reputation meaning something by not allowing name changes or server transfers. We do have to be careful not to give the players too much sway. That tends to go wrong rather quickly in my experience.
Despite all the nastiness i've been a part of, i've still had an overwhelmingly positive experience when it comes to allowing the players certain freedoms to uphold a higher standard where reputations are concerned. I still believe it's the best way to form a great community. With anything, the good comes with a little bad.
Hopefully they'll hit the sweet spot with server pops, and succeed in expanding the game borth vertically and horizontally. Something tells me we're going to get a lot more "real" content than we've seen from a game in a long time.
Aldie said:You have to be careful when it comes to players policing themselves. I've seen first hand just how ridiculous situations can get when you have multiple competing guilds all vying for the same world bosses. When the competion ramps up, anything seems to go.
- I've seen entire guilds reporting competing guild members for absolutely made up reasons and getting them 3 day bans just so the competition didn't have tanks online.
- I've seen stories completely fabricated to ruin someones reputation in order to get them kicked out of competing guilds.
- I've seen drama started just to indirectly hurt competing guilds recruitment efforts.
- I've seen pre agreed upon rulesets broken when certain guilds don't get their way.
This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to PVE competition in an open world environment. When items are super rare and not every guild gets to participate due to the non-instances nature of the game, things tend to get nasty. Players don't like feeling they wasted their time and will sometimes resort to the above to get an advantage.
I'm all for giving the players ways to police the community. It starts with reputation meaning something by not allowing name changes or server transfers. We do have to be careful not to give the players too much sway. That tends to go wrong rather quickly in my experience.
Despite all the nastiness i've been a part of, i've still had an overwhelmingly positive experience when it comes to allowing the players certain freedoms to uphold a higher standard where reputations are concerned. I still believe it's the best way to form a great community. With anything, the good comes with a little bad.
Sounds like you spent some time playing on Project1999.
Either way, the community policing a server only works if the game is truly multiplayer (meaning the players must rely on each other) and players are held accountable by their actions and cannot hide behind the anonymity created by instancing, cross servers and megaservers. From my experience on P99, its also important to have enough servers to keep the most hardcore players spread between them. When you have but a single server (p99) for hundreds of neckbeards that eat, sleep and work with their batphone soulbound to their person, that environment tends to become a bit acerbic.
Wondering if posts like this change anyone's mind about policy regarding griefing:
Kayahni said:This may seem like an odd feature request, but in addition to the usual friends list and ignore list, could we have an enemies/troublemakers list?...
Yes something like that would be great. I've discussed a more involved reputation system elsewhere and perhaps that was too much, but to not have some kind of helper for this in a modern game would be missing an eay and obvious trick.
Sure, let community reputation matter, but don't let it rely upon disparate, informal unreliable record keeping.
BloodbeardBattlecaster said:Just my opinion, but one character per account would only keep players from buying the game, or ultimately stop them from paying for the game. Too many people have a love of alts. Also, why would anyone wish to pay a sub again, and receive less in return than what they are accustomed to receiving?
To put it into perspective, I don't even remember the name(s) of the game(s) I have tested/tried which allowed only one character per account.
The one character per account would only exist on *some* servers. We plan on having servers/shards with slightly different rulesets. Some that are being considered and/or planned for:
PvP server(s) -- initially open world, free-for-all. But we would love to, post launch, have more sophisticated PvP servers (like race wars, being able to take and hold territory, etc.)
RP server(s) -- Something like the FV EQ server, where there's no common language, people are encouraged to RP, etc. It might make sense to do the one character per account on these sorts of servers. The Progeny System would probably be the only way to have more than one character on that server/shard.
Veteran Server(s) -- These would be servers where you would need to pay up front (e.g. no trial period) for those players who don't want to deal with new players who are just checking out the game to see if they like it during a free trial period (likely the first 5-10 levels would be free, then you have to sign up).
Premium Server(s) -- We experimented with these early in EQ with limited success, but it could have been more about the implementation than the idea. The idea would be that players could choose to pay a higher monthly sub in exchange for more GMs, special events, etc.
Any other ideas? I really think having servers that are still Pantheon at their core, but have varying rules (a different meta-game, so to speak) is a great way to appeal in general to those attracted to what Pantheon is at its core, but then to more specifically appeal to groups and playstyles that exist within the core group.
Aradune said:BloodbeardBattlecaster said:Just my opinion, but one character per account would only keep players from buying the game, or ultimately stop them from paying for the game. Too many people have a love of alts. Also, why would anyone wish to pay a sub again, and receive less in return than what they are accustomed to receiving?
To put it into perspective, I don't even remember the name(s) of the game(s) I have tested/tried which allowed only one character per account.
The one character per account would only exist on *some* servers. We plan on having servers/shards with slightly different rulesets. Some that are being considered and/or planned for:
PvP server(s) -- initially open world, free-for-all. But we would love to, post launch, have more sophisticated PvP servers (like race wars, being able to take and hold territory, etc.)
RP server(s) -- Something like the FV EQ server, where there's no common language, people are encouraged to RP, etc. It might make sense to do the one character per account on these sorts of servers. The Progeny System would probably be the only way to have more than one character on that server/shard.
Veteran Server(s) -- These would be servers where you would need to pay up front (e.g. no trial period) for those players who don't want to deal with new players who are just checking out the game to see if they like it during a free trial period (likely the first 5-10 levels would be free, then you have to sign up).
Premium Server(s) -- We experimented with these early in EQ with limited success, but it could have been more about the implementation than the idea. The idea would be that players could choose to pay a higher monthly sub in exchange for more GMs, special events, etc.
Any other ideas? I really think having servers that are still Pantheon at their core, but have varying rules (a different meta-game, so to speak) is a great way to appeal in general to those attracted to what Pantheon is at its core, but then to more specifically appeal to groups and playstyles that exist within the core group.
I like these ideas, although I do hope that for the RP servers at least you have two options. Those of us who enjoy RP and would like to take part in the progeny system, and are ok with only one character per server - and those of us who enjoy RP servers without those restrictions. As interesting as I, personally, see the progeny system, I also enjoy both alts AND being a part of RP servers. Typically, in my experience, RP servers have a community more suited to my personal tastes, but I'd hate to sacrifice my ability to play alts in order to play on the server I'd enjoy.
But that's just personal preference. Either way, I'm playing. Thanks for all ya'll do here.
-Tralyan
Aradune said:BloodbeardBattlecaster said:Just my opinion, but one character per account would only keep players from buying the game, or ultimately stop them from paying for the game. Too many people have a love of alts. Also, why would anyone wish to pay a sub again, and receive less in return than what they are accustomed to receiving?
To put it into perspective, I don't even remember the name(s) of the game(s) I have tested/tried which allowed only one character per account.
The one character per account would only exist on *some* servers. We plan on having servers/shards with slightly different rulesets. Some that are being considered and/or planned for:
PvP server(s) -- initially open world, free-for-all. But we would love to, post launch, have more sophisticated PvP servers (like race wars, being able to take and hold territory, etc.)
RP server(s) -- Something like the FV EQ server, where there's no common language, people are encouraged to RP, etc. It might make sense to do the one character per account on these sorts of servers. The Progeny System would probably be the only way to have more than one character on that server/shard.
Veteran Server(s) -- These would be servers where you would need to pay up front (e.g. no trial period) for those players who don't want to deal with new players who are just checking out the game to see if they like it during a free trial period (likely the first 5-10 levels would be free, then you have to sign up).
Premium Server(s) -- We experimented with these early in EQ with limited success, but it could have been more about the implementation than the idea. The idea would be that players could choose to pay a higher monthly sub in exchange for more GMs, special events, etc.
Any other ideas? I really think having servers that are still Pantheon at their core, but have varying rules (a different meta-game, so to speak) is a great way to appeal in general to those attracted to what Pantheon is at its core, but then to more specifically appeal to groups and playstyles that exist within the core group.
I love you for even daring to utter the mode that shall not be mentioned PVP
I always hated Premium servers honestly. I feel everyone should get the same content and paying more for special events is wrong.
Now FFA PVP servers HELL YES. I would also like to see faction PVP servers like in EQ2 Qeynos vs freeport maybe even restrict a few classes to each faction and make the rest neuteral. The one thing I hated was we would invade qeyno hold the docks for hours and got nothing besides bragging rights so some sort of Territory thing would be pretty cool.
Aradune said:Premium Server(s) -- We experimented with these early in EQ with limited success, but it could have been more about the implementation than the idea. The idea would be that players could choose to pay a higher monthly sub in exchange for more GMs, special events, etc.
I'd pay for that, anytime! Do you have an estimate though? I mean 30 and 60 are two different ball games
Far as ideas..
i) you might want to reconsider separating Role Playing from Premium, IF, if, you do provide tools for some proper RPing. They are usually your most stable customers and the least patient with.. certain categories. Given they are provided a plethora of tools, am sure they'd be happy to pay for their peace of mind
ii) do NOT, NOT allow for a "relaxed" PvE ruleset. Most will flock there and it will only go downhill after that. The PvE "hardcore" server would lose the fresh blood that is always an essential for maintaining raid rosters. Plus, let us be honest, you do need the extra money, but do you need the clientele that goes with it?
Aenra said:Aradune said:Premium Server(s) -- We experimented with these early in EQ with limited success, but it could have been more about the implementation than the idea. The idea would be that players could choose to pay a higher monthly sub in exchange for more GMs, special events, etc.
I'd pay for that, anytime! Do you have an estimate though? I mean 30 and 60 are two different ball games
Far as ideas..
i) you might want to reconsider separating Role Playing from Premium, IF, if, you do provide tools for some proper RPing. They are usually your most stable customers and the least patient with.. certain categories. Given they are provided a plethora of tools, am sure they'd be happy to pay for their peace of mind
ii) do NOT, NOT allow for a "relaxed" PvE ruleset. Most will flock there and it will only go downhill after that. The PvE "hardcore" server would lose the fresh blood that is always an essential for maintaining raid rosters. Plus, let us be honest, you do need the extra money, but do you need the clientele that goes with it?
You don't have to worry about that :) Alternate ruleset servers will either offer specific variations or additional rules/restrictions. In other words they will be a different twist on the core game making the experience different and, probably more often than not, more challenging. Alternate ruleset servers will *not* offer an 'easy' mode to playing the game.
Good to know :)
The only downside i can think of is the event where you need to merge back. Assuming the logistics for that is something you're all willing to do (item changes, names taken, rosters or progress statistics, et al.), it's a good idea. Most of us are of a certain age, so i don't see how we'd mind paying the extra bit. Especially considering i) the business model (by now obsolete due to greed), ii) that there's no other MMO out there like Pantheon.
To be frank, i have only complained about a higher than 15 bucks fee once. In Funcom's Anarchy Online. And only because it was (still is) buggy as hell, empty, WITH a cash shop, and designed to milk you to death.. under normal circumstances (honest devs, qualitative ideas), i'd be all up for this.
I like the idea behind the premium server however I think that before long a lot of people who start with the whole 'p2w' thread on it. I would rather have the vet servers cost say $5 a month more to have a little more GM interactions. There needs to be some cost for the vet servers otherwise everyone would flock there and the trials would have no one to help them with the game thus costing more subs. GM Events, while usually fun and worth it, shouldn't be restricted to any server because of a higher payment. That will entice the p2w crowd to grab their pitchforks. Maybe just do 1 event a month and rotate the server it's on.
I don't see how anyone would read "P2W" into this.
We have normal servers, you can go on a trial mode, play for free, try the game out, play the game out if you sub, all normal, nothing removed or unavailable.
We have Premium servers too, they offer harder content/RPing/GM-run fun events (you link a Youtube GM event here just so to be clear). NO, NO advantage is given to those joining our Premium servers. They exist solely for our most dedicated fans to support us in a tangible, immediate way.
Transfers between the servers will always be an option for you, so you need not rush and decide now or even in the immediate future.
Done.
Aenra said:I don't see how anyone would read "P2W" into this.
We have normal servers, you can go on a trial mode, play for free, try the game out, play the game out if you sub, all normal, nothing removed or unavailable.
We have Premium servers too, they offer harder content/RPing/GM-run fun events (you link a Youtube GM event here just so to be clear). NO, NO advantage is given to those joining our Premium servers. They exist solely for our most dedicated fans to support us in a tangible, immediate way.
Transfers between the servers will always be an option for you, so you need not rush and decide now or even in the immediate future.
Done.
Yet Premium servers get more GMs and more content via GM events, which used to yield some pretty cool items as well. So yes you will get those people who say it's p2w. You will always get those people that will say p2w when you can get more than they can (content, gear, items, anything) simply by paying more money. I agree that it is most definitely not but that doesn't mean others won't see it that way.
You said we'd get cool items. Not Brad, not the description :)
If and assuming we do, sure.. but why would we? Don't use a past model to judge an unwritten future.. He even said "different implementation".
As for the extra GMs.. you'd need to explain how more GMs would "allow" for cheating over the rest of the servers.
Events man, just events. In Lotro for example, a GM would assume the role of a huuuge troll (designed for just this one occasion), controlling it fully. He'd enter our Mines of Moria city and kill us with no mercy, lol.. events. Just fun :)
edit: To put it differently, if one's willfully negatively biased, one usually remains so. PR's job is to convince the rest, not the fanatic. If this is an option deemed desireable by us, the Pantheon supporters, i don't see the issue. They don't have a cash shop, they don't have milking techniques. If they make a good game, i will be happy to pay more and keep them afloat. If some twelve year old finds this P2W? End of the day? Who cares? Not the target audience in any case ^^
Aradune said:RP server(s) -- Something like the FV EQ server, where there's no common language, people are encouraged to RP, etc. It might make sense to do the one character per account on these sorts of servers. The Progeny System would probably be the only way to have more than one character on that server/shard.
Not a fan of one character per account on any type of server. I mean, if there are a handfull of RP servers and only one has the one character rule, then thats perfectly cool, but I'm sure there are other people like myself who enjoy having alts and would like to enjoy the roleplay aspects of the game.
Aradune said:Premium Server(s) -- We experimented with these early in EQ with limited success, but it could have been more about the implementation than the idea. The idea would be that players could choose to pay a higher monthly sub in exchange for more GMs, special events, etc.
Honestly, I can't think of an idea I hate more than this. Paying more for faster GM response times, more GM attention, and more special events (and potentially event items to boot)? That's just not right and can go wrong in several ways. If the GMs focus too much attention on the premium servers then you run into what would basically amount to classism; if the GMs don't give enough attention to the premium servers then why would anyone bother? Not to mention the the community issues that could arise if you only had premium servers for one or two of the various rulesets. Just sounds like something that borders on pay to win and not worth the bandwidth costs to me.
Vandraad said:Raidan said:I'm for community policing of griefing, which is why I want player/server rep to matter (non-identical first names), and if it becomes extreme, community controls are proven inneffective, and players (or groups/guilds) continue to grief - then the GMs/Guides would step in.
This harkens back to actions having consequences. Through unique names, no server transfers and no name changes the actions of a player follow that player and reputation once again means something.
I agree with this. I think much of the behavior people are posting (training and KS'sing etc..) are definitely griefing to some extent but I would not want any hard and fast rules against it or an expectation that GMs will be hovering over popular camp sites to babysit players. That is not the type of environment that I would want to play in.
EQ had "rules" against griefing but they had to be pretty severe for a GM to get involved and so players took matters into their own hands by blacklisting players and guilds. Reputations were made or ruined based on your actions. Your actions had actual consequences in the game. This sort of accountability is completely gone in modern MMOs and they have all sorts of anti-KS'ing and anti-training mechanics in place which tells me that old school consequences in the form of server reputation is more impactful.
I would rather give players the tools/abilities to act in a positive way towards other players (rezzing, porting, buffing) or in a negative way (training, KS-ing, general ass-hattery) and let players deal with the consequences of their actions rather than implement all these mechanisms and rules or strict GM interaction.
Leashing mobs, chained mobs and no trains have had a detrimental effect on gameplay and the MMO community in general IMO (mostly all gone since EQ). Our player moderated server forums (Lanys) had a sub-forum called "The **** List" where players could call out players for bad behavior and others could post about them (positively and negatively). Guilds would use that list when deciding whether to admit a person into the guild. If you cared about your reputation on the server you did *not* want to end up on that list. I would rather see more of that TBH.
Gurt said:Aradune said:RP server(s) -- Something like the FV EQ server, where there's no common language, people are encouraged to RP, etc. It might make sense to do the one character per account on these sorts of servers. The Progeny System would probably be the only way to have more than one character on that server/shard.
Not a fan of one character per account on any type of server. I mean, if there are a handfull of RP servers and only one has the one character rule, then thats perfectly cool, but I'm sure there are other people like myself who enjoy having alts and would like to enjoy the roleplay aspects of the game.
Aradune said:Premium Server(s) -- We experimented with these early in EQ with limited success, but it could have been more about the implementation than the idea. The idea would be that players could choose to pay a higher monthly sub in exchange for more GMs, special events, etc.
Honestly, I can't think of an idea I hate more than this. Paying more for faster GM response times, more GM attention, and more special events (and potentially event items to boot)? That's just not right and can go wrong in several ways. If the GMs focus too much attention on the premium servers then you run into what would basically amount to classism; if the GMs don't give enough attention to the premium servers then why would anyone bother? Not to mention the the community issues that could arise if you only had premium servers for one or two of the various rulesets. Just sounds like something that borders on pay to win and not worth the bandwidth costs to me.
I agree with this. I think it's cool to have a few different server rulesets but I'm not a fan of offering a "premium" server. Even if there aren't better items or anything it just creates a tiered customer experience that I don't believe will be healthy in the long run. Like you mentioned..if they offer the premium server too much the regular servers will feel like they are getting shorted and if they don't offer enough there is no point in the added expense. It just sounds like a can of worms that is not necessary to open.
I also worry that too many server rulesets will fragment a community that by most accounts will be a niche audience. If your goal is to appeal to a niche audience I think further splitting up the community with too many rulesets will be counter-productive to the core of what Pantheon is offering..group content and class interdependence. If everyone gets their exact ruleset that they want but nobody can fill a group because the community is too spread out that won't benefit anyone.