Liav said:Hieromonk said:One Character per account.. which means your reputation matters.
There should be no actual POLICY on griefing at all. The community itself will take care of those who are found to be "griefers" and not known to play nice.
Worst idea I've ever heard, hands down.
I love hearing subjective perspectives but maybe offer constructive criticism instead of literally stating a fallacy. It is not the worst idea you have "ever" heard.
@Hieromonk, what happens when it is a guild of griefers that are "elitist type", how would the community deal with them?
J
Zorus said: First of all we agree on some important issues. That the authority must be ready and willing to implement fair and just treatment, and that they must be an outlet.
Agreed and I don't disagree that there should be a /report feature.
Zorus said: I respectfully disagree on other parts. First of all it seems to me that the argument that if the GMs get involved with disputes they will be involved with ALL disputes is a classical logical fallacy. The GMs can get involved in some disputes, when they need to, where they need to.
Again, I agree, which is why I stated in my original post when community controls fail, then GMs/Guides get involved.
Zorus said: My point was not that they should always be involved, but rather that it was unrealistic in todays world of gaming (which, need I remind you, is vastly different then it was when we played EQ and even VG) to expect that community self policing will be sufficient. And when they need to be, they should be. Everyone should know it, everyone should be able to access that support, and everyone should be able to see exactly how it is dealt with. I'm not sure we actually disagree on that, but rather it seems the rub is how often that should happen. I don't have a number or percentage, but the point of this post was that it does happen, now and forever, and it can kill a game. So, I was hoping to generate some conversation on how to approach and deal with that. Which we have hereby done!
This is where we disagree. I disagree on your first sentence, but agree on your second - that everyone should know that there's a EULA, what the guidelines are, and what the repercussions are for breaking it.
Zorus said: I also feel that it is unrealistic to say that you can't compare Pantheon to more recent MMOs. Maybe the game is different, but the playerbase has changed, for better and for worse. If we want this game to succeed, we need to be prepared to have todays players play it, and we need to be ready to deal with todays problems in gaming. One of which, I feel, is the type of griefing I have outlined here. I have seen community policing fail several times. Many, many more times than I have seen it succeed. And many, many times more recently.
Another point we disagree on and perhaps we'll just agree to disagree. I would again argue it is unrealistic because server reputation hasn't mattered in an MMO since EQ - not even VG. Today's players will be in game, but, with a server population of 1500-2000, they'll have to adapt to a game which requires grouping for progression and meaningful content, or they won't progress. And, I'll stick to my points that community policing has failed for the aforementioned reasons I suggested in previous posts, which you didn't counter, and which new MMOs include. I'd like to hear specific examples of games which include what I'm asking above fail due to it (again, I'm not saying there never should be GM interactions).
Either way, we agree more than we disagree. I want there to be a /report function and GM interactions where necessary, a detailed EULA outlining griefing and /bannable offenses, and the expectations of being a Pantheon community member.
And @Arksien - You're right, that is in their job description; however, I would prefer having to have fewer GMs and more resources added to content development. Or, even if you kept the same number of GMs - have their time dedicated to GM events and positive community interactions versus always being viewed in a punitive nature.
JoshuaLLFE said:Liav said:Hieromonk said:One Character per account.. which means your reputation matters.
There should be no actual POLICY on griefing at all. The community itself will take care of those who are found to be "griefers" and not known to play nice.
Worst idea I've ever heard, hands down.
I love hearing subjective perspectives but maybe offer constructive criticism instead of literally stating a fallacy. It is not the worst idea you have "ever" heard.
@Hieromonk, what happens when it is a guild of griefers that are "elitist type", how would the community deal with them?
J
I haven't experienced a guild of griefers continually training me while I've attempted content. If they were, and they didn't quit when appropriately confronted that would be an example of an appropriate use of the /report feature.
Again, if you're talking about competition for raid mobs in a non-instanced world, there will be arguments/fights - it's nearly unavoidable. This goes back to my expectiations point that not "everyone" can be the best, and it's ok, if you're not a server first (even if it means the top-tier raid content you won't see until the next expansion).
Raidan said:JoshuaLLFE said:Liav said:Hieromonk said:One Character per account.. which means your reputation matters.
There should be no actual POLICY on griefing at all. The community itself will take care of those who are found to be "griefers" and not known to play nice.
Worst idea I've ever heard, hands down.
I love hearing subjective perspectives but maybe offer constructive criticism instead of literally stating a fallacy. It is not the worst idea you have "ever" heard.
@Hieromonk, what happens when it is a guild of griefers that are "elitist type", how would the community deal with them?
J
I haven't experienced a guild of griefers continually training me while I've attempted content. If they were, and they didn't quit when appropriately confronted that would be an example of an appropriate use of the /report feature.
Again, if you're talking about competition for raid mobs in a non-instanced world, there will be arguments/fights - it's nearly unavoidable. This goes back to my expectiations point that not "everyone" can be the best, and it's ok, if you're not a server first (even if it means the top-tier raid content you won't see until the next expansion).
I just mean that within a guild of griefers, (not all, but many), when individuals within the guild will grief you or purposely train mobs on you or others.
J
Raidan said:Zorus said: First of all we agree on some important issues. That the authority must be ready and willing to implement fair and just treatment, and that they must be an outlet.
Agreed and I don't disagree that there should be a /report feature.
Zorus said: I respectfully disagree on other parts. First of all it seems to me that the argument that if the GMs get involved with disputes they will be involved with ALL disputes is a classical logical fallacy. The GMs can get involved in some disputes, when they need to, where they need to.
Again, I agree, which is why I stated in my original post when community controls fail, then GMs/Guides get involved.
Zorus said: My point was not that they should always be involved, but rather that it was unrealistic in todays world of gaming (which, need I remind you, is vastly different then it was when we played EQ and even VG) to expect that community self policing will be sufficient. And when they need to be, they should be. Everyone should know it, everyone should be able to access that support, and everyone should be able to see exactly how it is dealt with. I'm not sure we actually disagree on that, but rather it seems the rub is how often that should happen. I don't have a number or percentage, but the point of this post was that it does happen, now and forever, and it can kill a game. So, I was hoping to generate some conversation on how to approach and deal with that. Which we have hereby done!
This is where we disagree. I disagree on your first sentence, but agree on your second - that everyone should know that there's a EULA, what the guidelines are, and what the repercussions are for breaking it.
Zorus said: I also feel that it is unrealistic to say that you can't compare Pantheon to more recent MMOs. Maybe the game is different, but the playerbase has changed, for better and for worse. If we want this game to succeed, we need to be prepared to have todays players play it, and we need to be ready to deal with todays problems in gaming. One of which, I feel, is the type of griefing I have outlined here. I have seen community policing fail several times. Many, many more times than I have seen it succeed. And many, many times more recently.
Another point we disagree on and perhaps we'll just agree to disagree. I would again argue it is unrealistic because server reputation hasn't mattered in an MMO since EQ - not even VG. Today's players will be in game, but, with a server population of 1500-2000, they'll have to adapt to a game which requires grouping for progression and meaningful content, or they won't progress. And, I'll stick to my points that community policing has failed for the aforementioned reasons I suggested in previous posts, which you didn't counter, and which new MMOs include. I'd like to hear specific examples of games which include what I'm asking above fail due to it (again, I'm not saying there never should be GM interactions).
Either way, we agree more than we disagree. I want there to be a /report function and GM interactions where necessary, a detailed EULA outlining griefing and /bannable offenses, and the expectations of being a Pantheon community member.
And @Arksien - You're right, that is in their job description; however, I would prefer having to have fewer GMs and more resources added to content development. Or, even if you kept the same number of GMs - have their time dedicated to GM events and positive community interactions versus always being viewed in a punitive nature.
It is my strong opinion that as long as we, and the majority agree there must be a GM option, at the least, our disagreements are tertiary. Nothing would make me happier than to be wrong here. If community controls prove sufficient, I will gladly return to this post in a few years and say: " I am happy to say that I have been wrong here, and this community is full of awesomeness."
However, I would like to draw attention to the previous post by Valith. Now I'm not supposing that Valith himself is a griefer, but rather that he seems to think that griefing should be allowed, and that not allowing it is an infringement on personal rights. Again, supposing that this post is not sarcasm, then I can further suppose a guild which thinks along these lines. Perhaps several guilds. If that is the case, then community controls would seem to me to be insufficient at best, and laughable at worst. I have seen top tier guilds abuse this over and over. What do they care if the rest of the server thinks they're jerks? They have a competitive membership which experiences prime content, and which (again, in my past experience) might be ignored by GMs in terms of transgressions. 'Consequences' and means of determining relative guilt or responsibility in these circumstances is exactly the point of this thread.
Again, I would be happily wrong here. But I also know that I lost a few very good raiders in VG due to this sort of thing. I have seen guilds collapse due to the playerbase losing faith in the ability of the GMs to maintain control. It's happening in a game I am playing right now (which will remain unnamed, mostly because I don't know the ethics or legalities involved there). I would be devastated if this happened in Pantheon, and I think an ounce of preparation/prevention here might be worth a pound of cure later.
This may sound weird...and i am not a griefer...but griefing actually can add some character to the community. In EQOA we had our share of griefers but the thing is you learned who they were as some were more "popular" than others. So you knew to tell people things like "hey stay away from that guy beefgrinder, he liks to train camps or ninja loot gear". It can actually be kind of fun knowing there are evil people out there and not everyone is your best friend. In the end the griefers are the ones who suffer anyway so lte them do their thing.
@Zorus
I get your point and wanting to be preventative, but I'm going to quote Dullahan in a post he used over in MMORPG as he summarized my thoughts better than I've presented them,
Dullahan said: At the end of the day, some players will always find a way to be disruptive if that is their intention. Placing mechanics in the game to try to remove or reduce those opportunities is somewhat futile. It only ends up taking away the player freedom that should exist in a virtual world (or the real world for that matter).
There are two major things that should be considered to stop that behavior. First, assuring that content in general yields progressively more money and valuable items (risk vs reward). That means a player should not be wasting their time going to a lower level area for an item they could easily afford farming higher level content. If an item is so valuable that higher levels want to come in an solo the camp for money, chances are the camp needs to be buffed or the item needs to be moved to a harder locale. The other option is offering a better higher level alternative.
In the end, if they are really there to grief, they will do so whether they get an item out of it or not.
The best thing you can do is strongly encourage players to be cordial and cooperative by creating a game where players absolutely need each other. Not just for groups, but for trade, travel raids and all the other forms of interdepence that existed in oldschool games. In EQ, I almost never had those griefing scenarios that have become so commonplace in games because it meant ostracizing yourself. Once you make a bad name for yourself, players stop grouping with you, stop trading with you, and not only you, but also your guild and those who associate with you. If players really have that power, people will naturally exercise caution when interacting with other players.
It also needs to be said that, if a higher level player simply wants to farm something in a lower level dungeon and they were there first, tough apples. As long as its the exception and not the norm, sometimes you have to wait your turn in a virtual world with contested content.
The last thing you can do is change the spawn dynamics of some mobs that are more highly sought after. In EQ, many mobs that dropped a special item spawned in various locations, sometimes all throughout a dungeon. If you make it so a player can't lock down every spawn of a particular mob, all of a sudden people feel OK about a higher level monopolizing a wing of the dungeon.
Again, if you're discussing a "guild" of griefers, I would need to see your definition of griefing, because, if it is guilds that are training/preventing progression then you could use the /report feature.
Again, why griefing is such a problem in today's MMOs is you can do almost everything outside of a group setting that you can do within it up until raiding, which, at that point, the community controls were never in place to weed out the "griefers" during the progression to endgame.
I'm sure that VR will come up with a list of actions which will be considered griefing if they don't have one already. Where my biggest concern is focused is the GMs and Guides, specifically the nature of their relationship with VR. My experience is that GMs and Guides can grief, cheat and otherwise ruin the game moreso than players.
GMs should be paid employees of VR and not be allowed to play the game. I haven't come across a game yet were GMs, because they had characters in the game, used their GM powers to the benefit of their friends. EVE players will remember the 'GM' who spawned in ships and BPOs for his friends, or other GMs who passed along developer insider information to friends giving them advantages over everyone else. I do not trust GMs who also are players. GMs should also be permanent for a given server as this allows GMS to know the community, to follow patterns of behavior and understand the relationships between guilds. 'Floating' GMs lose that.
Guides, those non-employee volunteers, should be restricted to guide positions on servers other than ones on which they have player accounts. Guides should not have the ability to summon, spawn or otherwise hand over items, equipment or money. Moving a stuck player? Sure. Reimbursing a loss? No.
I can't take "At the end of the day, some players will always find a way to be disruptive if that is their intention." as a serious reason not to do anything. I have no doubt there will be still people that will try to grief regardless of rules and mechanisms in place but that is a silly reason to not do anything and further that invalidates community policing as well (as clearly community policing will be just as likely to fail to stop people who are dedicated to disruption).
Think about it, should we have no laws then because some people will commit crimes regardless of the law? Some people will still be disruptive, but the more defense you have the more you reduce the problem. Now there is a point where you have to balance measures meant to hinder negative player activity against diminsihing player freedoms but 0 rules and systems is not the answer.
I think there's a fine line between griefing and harassment. The community can help police griefing, they're somewhat ineffective at policing harassment.
To me griefing is a general 'crime' against the player base - taking a spawn (if VR lets people 'own' a spawn), a large guild locking down spawns, one off training of mobs on someone, so on
Harassment is when it crosses over to repeated, focued, and constant targeting of a player (or players). Example: X logs in and Y sends harassing/threatening messages. Y finds X and constant steals their kills/trains/etc. When the only choice a player feels they have is to log off/change servers/quit the game, you've entered in to harassment and a GM has to step in, review logs, and warn/punish.
I actually don't have a big problem with large guilds locking things down. If a guild can do it, good for them, bad design by the devs. There's no real reason a bunch of tactics can't be put in by the devs to help thwart spawn/boss control by large guilds (or anyone). There should also be so much to do that one guild would have a hard time sitting on it all (that will come with time, not at launch, however). On the player side - they can either build a guild to help counter it, or join them.
Raidan said:@Zorus
I get your point and wanting to be preventative, but I'm going to quote Dullahan in a post he used over in MMORPG as he summarized my thoughts better than I've presented them,
Dullahan said: At the end of the day, some players will always find a way to be disruptive if that is their intention. Placing mechanics in the game to try to remove or reduce those opportunities is somewhat futile. It only ends up taking away the player freedom that should exist in a virtual world (or the real world for that matter).
There are two major things that should be considered to stop that behavior. First, assuring that content in general yields progressively more money and valuable items (risk vs reward). That means a player should not be wasting their time going to a lower level area for an item they could easily afford farming higher level content. If an item is so valuable that higher levels want to come in an solo the camp for money, chances are the camp needs to be buffed or the item needs to be moved to a harder locale. The other option is offering a better higher level alternative.
In the end, if they are really there to grief, they will do so whether they get an item out of it or not.
The best thing you can do is strongly encourage players to be cordial and cooperative by creating a game where players absolutely need each other. Not just for groups, but for trade, travel raids and all the other forms of interdepence that existed in oldschool games. In EQ, I almost never had those griefing scenarios that have become so commonplace in games because it meant ostracizing yourself. Once you make a bad name for yourself, players stop grouping with you, stop trading with you, and not only you, but also your guild and those who associate with you. If players really have that power, people will naturally exercise caution when interacting with other players.
It also needs to be said that, if a higher level player simply wants to farm something in a lower level dungeon and they were there first, tough apples. As long as its the exception and not the norm, sometimes you have to wait your turn in a virtual world with contested content.
The last thing you can do is change the spawn dynamics of some mobs that are more highly sought after. In EQ, many mobs that dropped a special item spawned in various locations, sometimes all throughout a dungeon. If you make it so a player can't lock down every spawn of a particular mob, all of a sudden people feel OK about a higher level monopolizing a wing of the dungeon.Again, if you're discussing a "guild" of griefers, I would need to see your definition of griefing, because, if it is guilds that are training/preventing progression then you could use the /report feature.
Again, why griefing is such a problem in today's MMOs is you can do almost everything outside of a group setting that you can do within it up until raiding, which, at that point, the community controls were never in place to weed out the "griefers" during the progression to endgame.
I find these ideas fundementally flawed. I will do my best to respectfully show why here.
Lets start with the idea that 'people are going to do x no matter what, so might as well not try to stop them with rules'. Besides the obvious parallels to political issues, there is the glaring problem of rules in general, which, by their nature, stop people from doing things, which must by the laws of cause and effect restrict some freedoms. ALL RULES DO THIS. They must, it is their purpose: the law against murder limits your freedom to kill people. The rules against having multiple accounts limits your personal freedom to have multiple accounts. Etcetera, et al, and so on.
Next is the idea that you can bribe people out of griefing. Not only does this seem counter-intuitive to the speakers previous points, it also seems to me to be based on some flawed logic. In my experience, people who harass and grief other players aren't doing it for loot. They're doing it for deep seeded emotional reasons which I suspect relate to inadequacy issues and frustrations with the rest of their lives. They do it because it evokes a response, because it makes them feel better about themselves, because it makes them feel powerful and cool, because it amuses them. Offer them better loot somewhere else? Their relation to the actual game mechanics and plot by the time grief and harrassment happen are distant at best.
You also seem to be confusing the idea of a guild which supports the previously mentioned griefing and harassment with a guild that will be aggressive in manipulating content. I don't love either, but if the latter is within the ruleset, its not griefing, and therefore not relevant to our conversation. But a guild whose members individually grief and harass, but allow those members to retain their status or even encourage their behavior (implicitly or complicitly, with a simple "haha thats funny" for instance), is sadly increasing in number.
I do think group-dependant gaming helps this cause...but I have seen even that fail, and I think the principles remain: community policing can reduce griefing...but it cannot prevent or stop it, and it is limited in its punitive ability. Especially with today's gaming.
Lastly, if you limit players to one character, with no transfers or name changes and no duplicate first names...I suspect this game will struggle to maintain a playerbase. I like strict classes, but that means I'll want to play more than one.
Z
@Zorus and Mephiles
I've re-written my response several times as I don't want to get in a political/philisophical discussion on these boards, but let's leave it at agree to disagree that simply enacting rules will cause people to follow them (griefers stopping griefing due to rules in this case). However, that's entirely different than saying there should be no rules - which I didn't say, and how I wouldn't interpret Dullahan's post. I would read it more as not wanting to introduce artificial restrictions to prevent griefing such as instances, or leashing, etc.
With that said, in my responses in this thread, again I've never stated that I didn't want rules/guidelines, but simply that GM interaction shouldn't be the first step - community controls should. I'll use a scenario as an example:
Scenario: Player 1 trains, kills steals, ninja loots, etc. from Player 2.
Step 1: EULA needs to be in place what constitutes griefing and what the community expectations are for handling griefing.
Step 2: Player 1 asks politely for the Player 2 to stop their behavior - they don't
Step 3: Player 2 continues to grief and obtains a reputation for being **ses and are ostracized.
Step 4a: This causes player 2 to fall in line and/or reroll. (go to Step 5a).
Step 4b: OR, Community has no effect and continues to /grief. Player 1 reports Player 2 for griefing to GM (go to Step 5b)
Step 5a: Continued from 4a: Player2 rerolls and falls in line with the "play nice" behavior, OR, if Player2 doesn't - repeat steps 1-4.
Step 5b: Continued from 4b: GM investigates and identifies Player 2 for griefing. 1st time - Warning is issued. 2nd time - account suspension. 3rd time - Ban. The punishment must be certain and consistent.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The point on having gear appropriate with risk/reward was used to eliminate some forms of griefing (high level monopolizing low level content) and not eliminating all griefing. That idea needs to be taken into context with the previous posts on MMORPG (which I didn't include) before as Aradune had discussed the idea of how to prevent the monopolization of low level content without resorting to a Trivial Loot code. And, even within the quote itself it's saying griefers will still grief regardless of the item.
And, I'm not seeing how you think I'm missing your point on griefing with guilds. If the guilds were out of hand, using my scenario above, they would be reported the same. However, I would want the community controls to be in place first, and also the realization to be present that simply having a guild monopolize content in a contested world (unless it was identified in the EULA as griefing) might not be.
Again - Zorus, I think we are in much more agreement than disagreement.
Hieromonk said:One Character per account.. which means your reputation matters.
There should be no actual POLICY on griefing at all. The community itself will take care of those who are found to be "griefers" and not known to play nice.
Ideally, yes. As for one character per account, perhaps on some servers.... there are plusses and minusses with such a system.
A strong community that holds people responsible for their actions and is able to enforce it because of interdepedence is key.
Will still need GMs unfortunately for the really nasty person, say someone who creates a level 1 and starts shouting racial (and I mean RL racial) slurs.
Aradune said:Hieromonk said:One Character per account.. which means your reputation matters.
There should be no actual POLICY on griefing at all. The community itself will take care of those who are found to be "griefers" and not known to play nice.
Ideally, yes. As for one character per account, perhaps on some servers.... there are plusses and minusses with such a system.
A strong community that holds people responsible for their actions and is able to enforce it because of interdepedence is key.
Will still need GMs unfortunately for the really nasty person, say someone who creates a level 1 and starts shouting racial (and I mean RL racial) slurs.
Just to be clear, I will be free to make disparaging remarks about Gnome lineage correct?
I will play pantheon just to greif Filzin all day long dont care if my toon stays lvl1 for a year or so..
If one player is a known greifer give that player the title, "Azraell the greifer of players" or something. Make a cage in the middle of the every racial city, put every greifer in it, if they were caught and proven guilty of their crimes. Give them a debuff that they cant do anything but sit and walk around, with X mins depending on severity of crime. Has to be online to let the buff tick away. Leave a barrel of rotten tomatoes beside the cage for players to throw at the greifers. If a player gets banned his toon is placed on a stake in the center of every town. Cool if this happened.
But seriously, I would do diplomacy first and if that fails I would let a gm handle it. Not going to let one player ruin my game (or ruin the greifing im doing to filzin).
Filzin said:Aradune said:Hieromonk said:One Character per account.. which means your reputation matters.
There should be no actual POLICY on griefing at all. The community itself will take care of those who are found to be "griefers" and not known to play nice.
Ideally, yes. As for one character per account, perhaps on some servers.... there are plusses and minusses with such a system.
A strong community that holds people responsible for their actions and is able to enforce it because of interdepedence is key.
Will still need GMs unfortunately for the really nasty person, say someone who creates a level 1 and starts shouting racial (and I mean RL racial) slurs.
Just to be clear, I will be free to make disparaging remarks about Gnome lineage correct?
Of course! This goes without saying, all Gnomes should be mocked and teased right before you punt them! I think we actually have it in a Policy somewhere... ;)
Malsirian said:Kilsin said:Of course! This goes without saying, all Gnomes should be mocked and teased right before you punt them! I think we actually have it in a Policy somewhere... ;)
That wink at the end was supposed to anchor it as a joke but it actually sounded quite harsh, sorry Mal, I didn't mean it I promise! :)
In regards to one character per account: I like the idea of it - not sure if its right for Pantheon until I see how the progeny system works.
In games such as FFXIV & TSW, where you can level up all classes on the same character it makes sense. You can then enjoy more content and replayability. You get to explore more of the game on one character. People only know you by one name and your reputation matters more.
In a game like EQ where you level up only one class per character you will limit yourself then to only be able to explore one class per server. That either limits how many other classes you will play (alts) or you go from server to server not building as much of a community feel.
Now Pantheon's progeny system will hopefully give us the best of both worlds: you get to retire your old character, and your child will then re-level - I am assuming a new class for more content exploration/replayablity? If that is so and you keep at least portion or a variation of your name (my assumption- ie last name) it allows us to keep reputation while giving us more to do.
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.
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.
Interestingly enough Bloodbeard, EQ had a system similar to this on the Firiona Vie server (RP server) when it was initially launched. It wasn't one character per account obviously, but one character per server. I'll include a link to a REDDIT I found where a FV'er summarizes the main points of the server well. I played on Xegony/Firiona shortly after launch, and it's mainly accurate, including the later posts on the non-"No-Drop" raid items being the reason that people migrating to the server over the RP'ing aspect. It was initially in place to offset the trivial loot code some, but, the trivial loot code was later removed.
Basically, I don't think ALL servers could be one character per, but if Pantheon's population is large enough, I could see one RP server similar to Firiona being viable.
Here's a link to the thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MMORPG/comments/2vhlbn/did_anyone_play_on_everquests_firiona_vie/
There is a huge difference between one character per account versus one character per server. I wouldn't mind being restricted on the server (but I would prefer multiple characters on same server) but I will need to have different characters to play with my main, with the GF and with my "LAN" group.
Raidan 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.
Interestingly enough Bloodbeard, EQ had a system similar to this on the Firiona Vie server (RP server) when it was initially launched. It wasn't one character per account obviously, but one character per server. I'll include a link to a REDDIT I found where a FV'er summarizes the main points of the server well. I played on Xegony/Firiona shortly after launch, and it's mainly accurate, including the later posts on the non-"No-Drop" raid items being the reason that people migrating to the server over the RP'ing aspect. It was initially in place to offset the trivial loot code some, but, the trivial loot code was later removed.
Basically, I don't think ALL servers could be one character per, but if Pantheon's population is large enough, I could see one RP server similar to Firiona being viable.
Here's a link to the thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MMORPG/comments/2vhlbn/did_anyone_play_on_everquests_firiona_vie/
I did not read all the posts and probably just missed where it was per special rule-set server and not per account.
I completely agree with the Firiona Vie idea! I played on the original briefly. The only reason I left was because very few of my friends wished to play on that server. In Pantheon, I won't have as many 'old' friends playing already and I would love to roll a character on a RP rules server. Were the old PvP servers one character per as well? To this non-pvper it would seem to make sense there as well.
Thanks for the link Raidan :)
