Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

About Mob Tagging/Stealing

    • 72 posts
    December 14, 2016 11:37 AM PST

    Hi everyone,

    I have an honest question (slight skepticism) about the benefits of mob tagging/credit through the concept of "whoever does the most damage". I just forsee too many possibilites where people could have negative experiences regardless of hoping for community repercussions. I am extremely pumped by a game and philosphy attemping to bring back personal and open world/shared mechanics. However, there are some possibilites of change/adaptation with specifc areas of gameplay.

    EDIT: I'm just worried of the possibilities of Kill stealing turning away good, respectful and friendly players from the game and allowing the types of players and mentality opposite of Pantheon's approach to take charge.

    Pantheons Goal / Motto: "Group and Community Driven"

    Most recent system/idea vocalized in stream about Kill stealing: "Person or Group that does the most damage gets credit. Kill stealers will get a bad rep"

     Negative Examples / Possibilities

    1) First off, reputation can affect your ability to get groups or help, trade, etc if you do NOT already have a group of players to pull from.

    Example: (BIG Guild, or Extremely Geared HC progression guild) has no issues forming groups within themselves. Your group of friends /guild / family have spent time progressing through a dungeon and have finally made it to a named camp or area. You start to pull and in comes "Guild X" with massive firepower and takes your kills, credit, time and leaves. Ideally, that action would affect their reputation and hinder their ability to find groups to continue that action. However, their groups are unaffected, unchanged and still retain the firepower to continue to do those types of things which ARE NOT community driven.

     2) Damage as a sole qualifier for credit? Why?

    Example:  Your group of friends/guild/family are trying to enjoy this group centric game and progress through an area and dungeon. At this time, the players online are 2 support, 2 tanks, 2 dps. One of your tanks decides to try to fill the DPS role as best as possible to help round out the group (but is still essentially a tank class/spec). Your group is having a generally more diffuclt time progressing and taking a bit longer, but your are making it through! Your group has really stepped up coordination in crowd control, kiting, heals/damage to alleviate the lack of damage in your group as a whole. After a much longer time, you make it to the goal named mob/area and begin to pull. In comes a group that has more dps classes in their group, spent half the time you did with yours and steals your credit/kill because they simply have more dps classes than you.

    If the idea behind Pantheon is to truly promote group play, building relationships with PEOPLE, not specs/classes; then it should be careful of punishing groups /guilds for attempting to progress with a certain group of players.

     

    Alternatives:

    1) Shared Credit: Why couldn't there be a system in place that allows for shared credit after meeting a certain amount (probably minimal requirements).

    Group A has been waiting for a mob for 1 1/2 hours. It spawns and they begin to attack.

    Group B arrives with the mob at half health and begins to attack and help Group A defeat the mob.

    Group C arrives with the mob at 3% health and gets one or two spells off as it dies.

    Groups A and B receive credit and chance at loot while Group C does not because they did not meet a specified requirement (time spent fighting, percent of health damage done or players healed Including other groups: Basically anything that shows they took part in helping with the kill)

     If an issue or worry here is "Zerging" Mobs: Then scale mobs to adjust similar to WoW's current expansion. Mobs still retain their difficulty level regardless on the amount of players engaged. Essentially, mobs could technically be zerged with the"damage takes all model" anyway.  Group A engages, Group B does most damage, Groups C and D come in later to help. Mob dies extremely fast due to no scaling and only group B gets loot). Just seems incredibly lackluster and not very immersive.
     

    MOST IMPORTANTLY: This also goes with the Pantheon "Group/Community" Philosophy as opposed to it.

    1) With this type of system, You are encouraged to jump in and fight or help another group. You get rewarded and the other group is thankful.

    2) With a pure Damage takes all model, You either walk right by because the other group probably already did more damage than you, or you engage with intentions of Kill stealing instead of helping.

     

    A less ideal alternative

    2) First to tag: I do not have as much experience in games where you "camped for a mob for hours" but after hearing about it, why should you have your time essentially stolen by a group that carries more dps than you. I imagine first to tag solution is not ideal and has its own set of downsides but it eliminates the above situations.

     


    This post was edited by Kobrashade at December 20, 2016 9:47 AM PST
    • 277 posts
    December 14, 2016 11:59 AM PST

    Hi Kobra, I for one hope that mob credit is a bit more complex than just damage also.  I know they said it in the stream, but your points are valid and I think mob credit needs to have more of a spread to it than just 50%.  I do think, however, that many players would not want a group to interrupt their fight and "help" them kill a mob, especially if the other group then also has looting rights.  I think it would be ok if it was quest credit for helping, but I honestly wouldn't want them to be able to loot.  I have been the victim of KS before, and it sucks when you have basically done all the work and then someone runs in and grabs your mob as you are resting.  The only time this has been enjoyable is when they pull in a hurry and then wipe :)

    I sort of support first to tag, but realize that it can lead to issues also.  I wonder if there is a way to sort of combine the two, like a timed lock on the enounter that expires so a group can't say pull and snare a mob then have it chase them all over the zone while their friends arrive or whatever.

    • 72 posts
    December 14, 2016 12:09 PM PST

    Rominian said:

    Hi Kobra, I for one hope that mob credit is a bit more complex than just damage also.  I know they said it in the stream, but your points are valid and I think mob credit needs to have more of a spread to it than just 50%.  I do think, however, that many players would not want a group to interrupt their fight and "help" them kill a mob, especially if the other group then also has looting rights.  I think it would be ok if it was quest credit for helping, but I honestly wouldn't want them to be able to loot.  I have been the victim of KS before, and it sucks when you have basically done all the work and then someone runs in and grabs your mob as you are resting.  The only time this has been enjoyable is when they pull in a hurry and then wipe :)

    I sort of support first to tag, but realize that it can lead to issues also.  I wonder if there is a way to sort of combine the two, like a timed lock on the enounter that expires so a group can't say pull and snare a mob then have it chase them all over the zone while their friends arrive or whatever.

    Ah yes! I didn't think about the loot situation on shared mob. I imagine "personal loot" is not something this game or community is going for which Is fine with me. Like you mentioned, for quest credit, it shouldn't be a problem though. I still think each group getting their own set of loot drops from a mob is better than one group stealing it all.

    • 109 posts
    December 14, 2016 12:18 PM PST

    Complicated topic. Both pros and cons to all types of solutions.

    EQ1 -  I played when I was in high school and was a more casual group player in a small guild and played for fun. Never really raided or anything. Never really ran into an issue personally with kill stealing. I actually remember there being a lot of friendly people. There is a LOT of room for bad experiences for players though. People on internet can be harsh and simply be jerks to be jerks.

    EQ2 - Gave option to lock/unlock encounter giving the group/raid control who could attack. I think raid might have been locked always. Cannot recall. Most played with encs locked, including myself. The opposite issue happened as a normal player. I ran into people yelling because I took there mob even though I was only one there and they were not there. THey ran around named to named with them on a timer. I found it funny. Fun to mess with those people.

    GW2 - Groups/raids were not important. Organization didn't really matter that much. If you wanted to join, you joined. Pure chaos. Everyone got rewards. Everyone gets exp. It is a "Give everyone a trophy mentality". It was horrible

    Only games I have played in depth. Cannot talk effectively about others.

     

    Personally, I'd like a mix of EQ1 and EQ2 leaning more towards EQ1 style

    OR

    Something entirely new that needs tested thoroughly for exploits, etc.

    Im open to ideas and testing stuff out with this big time

     

    • 331 posts
    December 14, 2016 12:22 PM PST

    Thanks for the thoughtful post, Kobrashade.  There are few things with a greater impact on community and gameplay than the mechanics for "kill credit," and I agree that it would be disappointing for Pantheon to implement a simple >50% damage system.  That said, I am not sure the scenarios you've described (a single-group dungeon crawl, disrupted by a group of hard-core raiders) should dictate the mechanics of kill credit.  It seems like it will be pretty uncommon for a group of hard-core types to descend on the same dungeon objective that you and your friends/family have chosen to pursue on any given night, if for no other reason than that the hard-core types will already have progressed beyond the point of needing to do so. 

    In my mind, the main situations where "kill credit" design becomes critical are (1) static/quasi-static location, rare-spawning mobs (a la EQ monk epic in LGuk), and (2) raid encounters. 

    In the first situation, I think it's a tough call between first-to-tag and most damage.  Under either system, the person who spent the most time camping the spawn may get their kill "stolen."  The only way to get around this kind of kill "stealing," as far as I can think, would be to implement a mechanic for claiming a camp/spawn.  That seems pretty artificial and would open its own can of worms. 

    In the second situation (raid encounters), Pantheon could definitely do better than open-world EQ.  For raid encounters, I would support a first-to-tag system that involved mechanics compelling the raid that was first to tag to immediately engage the fight and either succeed or perish.  For example, raid-encounter mobs could be designed to immediately detect (i.e., agro), and summon into a fixed radius, anyone in the zone who is part of the first-to-tag player's group or raid.  The only way to be removed from the agro list would be to die or gate.  The point being, basically, that if you are first-to-tag, you better be ready to complete the encounter, or you'll be doing corpse recovery while the next group tries.

     

    • 72 posts
    December 14, 2016 12:27 PM PST

    Backin said:

    Complicated topic. Both pros and cons to all types of solutions.

    EQ1 -  I played when I was in high school and was a more casual group player in a small guild and played for fun. Never really raided or anything. Never really ran into an issue personally with kill stealing. I actually remember there being a lot of friendly people. There is a LOT of room for bad experiences for players though. People on internet can be harsh and simply be jerks to be jerks.

    EQ2 - Gave option to lock/unlock encounter giving the group/raid control who could attack. I think raid might have been locked always. Cannot recall. Most played with encs locked, including myself. The opposite issue happened as a normal player. I ran into people yelling because I took there mob even though I was only one there and they were not there. THey ran around named to named with them on a timer. I found it funny. Fun to mess with those people.

    GW2 - Groups/raids were not important. Organization didn't really matter that much. If you wanted to join, you joined. Pure chaos. Everyone got rewards. Everyone gets exp. It is a "Give everyone a trophy mentality". It was horrible

    Only games I have played in depth. Cannot talk effectively about others.

     

    Personally, I'd like a mix of EQ1 and EQ2 leaning more towards EQ1 style

    OR

    Something entirely new that needs tested thoroughly for exploits, etc.

    Im open to ideas and testing stuff out with this big time

    Hi Backin, good points.

    In regards to the Loot "give everyone a prize": What if there was only a specific group/player threshold for a given mob depending on the type of content (zone/dungeon/world named).

    For example, if it is just a measely bee in the forest (trash mob) than a high threshold for shared loot. A dungeon boss that might typically average 6 kills on it by groups an hour would only allow 2 groups or (ten people) who meet requirements for credit to be able to loot. A world boss that might require more players obviously would have a higher player/group count.

    This is only specific to loot and not quest credit. There are probably some problems with what I just mentioned though and I'm sure people can voice them. I haven't really thought it through, just figured I'd write the first idea that came to mind :P

    • 109 posts
    December 14, 2016 12:32 PM PST

    Kobrashade said:

    In regards to the Loot "give everyone a prize": What if there was only a specific group/player threshold for a given mob depending on the type of content (zone/dungeon/world named).

    For example, if it is just a measely bee in the forest (trash mob) than a high threshold for shared loot. A dungeon boss that might typically average 6 kills on it by groups an hour would only allow 2 groups or (ten people) who meet requirements for credit to be able to loot. A world boss that might require more players obviously would have a higher player/group count.

    This is only specific to loot and not quest credit. There are probably some problems with what I just mentioned though and I'm sure people can voice them. I haven't really thought it through, just figured I'd write the first idea that came to mind :P

    Still brings us back to square one kinda. What determines who is within that threshold? 

    Same questions get asked basically. It pushed the underlying conflict/issue/concern in one level of design without solving the underlying question

    • 1713 posts
    December 14, 2016 12:33 PM PST

    Having had to deal with KSers in EQ1, I have no problems with the way EQ1 did it.  The only thing I'd say is give a little bonus to whoever tagged the mob.  For example, if I tag the mob I get a bonus of 10% when considering the amount of damage I've done.  So anyone else coming along trying to steal it would have to do not just more damage than me, but more than 10% more damage than me to get it.

    That would be for normal mobs.  For some raid mobs, tie them to the mobs around them.  If a raid comes along and is clearing out the trash near the raid mob, then the raid mob should lock to them for a certain period of time and disallow another raid from engaging during tha time.

    Another option for raiding could be involving a "quest" to complete it.  A raid gets a quest, and it locks a specific raid mob or mobs to them.  Once engaged, if the raid mob loses agro on all players, then it would reset and someone else could pick up the quest.

    Unfortunately there is going to be no perfect answer to this one, as everyone is going to prefer different mechanics.  Hopefully the VR team can come up with something that both makes sense, is fairest possible and works without much complexity.

    • 72 posts
    December 14, 2016 12:33 PM PST

    Gnog said:

    Thanks for the thoughtful post, Kobrashade.  There are few things with a greater impact on community and gameplay than the mechanics for "kill credit," and I agree that it would be disappointing for Pantheon to implement a simple >50% damage system.  That said, I am not sure the scenarios you've described (a single-group dungeon crawl, disrupted by a group of hard-core raiders) should dictate the mechanics of kill credit.  It seems like it will be pretty uncommon for a group of hard-core types to descend on the same dungeon objective that you and your friends/family have chosen to pursue on any given night, if for no other reason than that the hard-core types will already have progressed beyond the point of needing to do so. 

    In my mind, the main situations where "kill credit" design becomes critical are (1) static/quasi-static location, rare-spawning mobs (a la EQ monk epic in LGuk), and (2) raid encounters. 

    In the first situation, I think it's a tough call between first-to-tag and most damage.  Under either system, the person who spent the most time camping the spawn may get their kill "stolen."  The only way to get around this kind of kill "stealing," as far as I can think, would be to implement a mechanic for claiming a camp/spawn.  That seems pretty artificial and would open its own can of worms. 

    In the second situation (raid encounters), Pantheon could definitely do better than open-world EQ.  For raid encounters, I would support a first-to-tag system that involved mechanics compelling the raid that was first to tag to immediately engage the fight and either succeed or perish.  For example, raid-encounter mobs could be designed to immediately detect (i.e., agro), and summon into a fixed radius, anyone in the zone who is part of the first-to-tag player's group or raid.  The only way to be removed from the agro list would be to die or gate.  The point being, basically, that if you are first-to-tag, you better be ready to complete the encounter, or you'll be doing corpse recovery while the next group tries.

    Thanks Gnog! I didn't experience KStealing first hand. It just stories I have read from posts that has built up this skepticsm. I was more of a casual player in EQ2 and became a more hardcore raider in following mmos.

    In regards to the dungeon crawl, it doesn't necesarily need to be a overgeared group to be a possibilty. It's just one scenario that came to mind. It could easily be a less geared group with more dps players. Also, With a possible mentoring system, geared groups could still mentor down to help alts in content which could persuade players to speed through and kill steal.

    Maybe you are on the right track with a "new" system of claiming camps or some sort and raid ideas. Thanks for your input

    • 72 posts
    December 14, 2016 12:38 PM PST

    Backin said:

    Kobrashade said:

    In regards to the Loot "give everyone a prize": What if there was only a specific group/player threshold for a given mob depending on the type of content (zone/dungeon/world named).

    For example, if it is just a measely bee in the forest (trash mob) than a high threshold for shared loot. A dungeon boss that might typically average 6 kills on it by groups an hour would only allow 2 groups or (ten people) who meet requirements for credit to be able to loot. A world boss that might require more players obviously would have a higher player/group count.

    This is only specific to loot and not quest credit. There are probably some problems with what I just mentioned though and I'm sure people can voice them. I haven't really thought it through, just figured I'd write the first idea that came to mind :P

    Still brings us back to square one kinda. What determines who is within that threshold? 

    Same questions get asked basically. It pushed the underlying conflict/issue/concern in one level of design without solving the underlying question

    Would have to be tested: But Points alloted by damage done to mob, player healing to players damaged by mob, CC done to mob, time in battle with mob. All of the points add up to an internal score. However, I kind of cringe while typing this because it reminded me of RIFT's open world rewards initially. And I'm not a fan

    I just know having things stolen especially on a limited play session would affect myself and friends in such a negative manner. I don't know how I can convince someone to continue to play a game if it happens to them frequently (not saying it will, but it seems like the possibilities are there).

    The other things is we are all HOPING that the community is much more respectful, friendly and mature than what some mmo game communities currently are. Because we hope players won't do this or that doesn't mean that in today's current atmosphere, it will be much different than we hope.


    This post was edited by Kobrashade at December 14, 2016 12:39 PM PST
    • 72 posts
    December 14, 2016 12:42 PM PST

    kelenin said:

    Having had to deal with KSers in EQ1, I have no problems with the way EQ1 did it.  The only thing I'd say is give a little bonus to whoever tagged the mob.  For example, if I tag the mob I get a bonus of 10% when considering the amount of damage I've done.  So anyone else coming along trying to steal it would have to do not just more damage than me, but more than 10% more damage than me to get it.

    That would be for normal mobs.  For some raid mobs, tie them to the mobs around them.  If a raid comes along and is clearing out the trash near the raid mob, then the raid mob should lock to them for a certain period of time and disallow another raid from engaging during tha time.

    Another option for raiding could be involving a "quest" to complete it.  A raid gets a quest, and it locks a specific raid mob or mobs to them.  Once engaged, if the raid mob loses agro on all players, then it would reset and someone else could pick up the quest.

    Unfortunately there is going to be no perfect answer to this one, as everyone is going to prefer different mechanics.  Hopefully the VR team can come up with something that both makes sense, is fairest possible and works without much complexity.

    I definitely get this is a complicated issue. Thanks for your feedback as well. You have some neat ideas. I guess I'm just worried of the possibilities of Kill stealing turning away good, respectful and friendly players from the game and allowing the types of players opposite of Pantheon's approach to take charge.


    This post was edited by Kobrashade at December 14, 2016 12:45 PM PST
    • 109 posts
    December 14, 2016 12:45 PM PST

    Kobrashade said:

    Would have to be tested: But Points alloted by damage done to mob, player healing to players damaged by mob, CC done to mob, time in battle with mob. All of the points add up to an internal score. However, I kind of cringe while typing this because it reminded me of RIFT's open world rewards initially. And I'm not a fan

    I just know having things stolen especially on a limited play session would affect myself and friends in such a negative manner. I don't know how I can convince someone to continue to play a game if it happens to them frequently (not saying it will, but it seems like the possibilities are there).

    The other things is we are all HOPING that the community is much more respectful, friendly and mature than what some mmo game communities currently are. Because we hope players won't do this or that doesn't mean that in today's current atmosphere, it will be much different than we hope.

    Metadata will also different from server to server so to speak. Each server will be unique in its own respects even beyond what VR will designate. Just cause one server is great doesn't mean another will be. The "good' part of the community is what will be key for any server and it will be up to them to keep the 'bad apples' in check.

    I did it in EQ2 from time to time. There is always a way to get a players attention who is causing issues.

    One thing that started in EQ2 was EQ2flames > Rate a Retard. Was very amusing. Lot of griping and anger on it but I saw it work in some situations.

    EDITED - Forgot to quote


    This post was edited by Backin at December 14, 2016 12:46 PM PST
    • 580 posts
    December 14, 2016 12:46 PM PST

    Outside of raid scenarios, you will rarely ever see these things. Most of the people that want to and choose to play these types of games already know what camps are and do respect them. So these situations will be few and far between. Raid bosses on the other hand, will be highly contested if they take the EQ approach on them. Guilds will DPS race each other with 1 being highly pissed off when they lose. Hopefully, they put lockouts with quick respawns on bosses to make this a non thing but if not they could at least cap raid sizes to a set number so people can't just zerg. 

    • 3103 posts
    December 14, 2016 12:48 PM PST

    Good post, important issue. No answer that will always work well.

    My bias is towards cooperation over competition (outside of a pvp setting of course). I also recognize that there may be different considerations for quest credit, experience rewards and loot.

    Quest credit is often given, these days, to anyone that damages a quest mob or alternatively to anyone that does significant damage. I like that more modern approach - I've seen far too much griefing where people have major issues finishing a quest because other people run around in large groups or at very high levels killing the quest mobs very quickly. Sometimes they do this for bad motives - sometimes they have legitimate objectives (get crafting materials for example) - but it can still be most frustrating.

    Loot from "trash mobs" won't be a big issue - by definition it is trash loot. Loot from major bosses is another thing and a major focus of this thread. If only the puller and his or her group get the loot - assuming they don't wipe - larger, more aggressive, better geared guilds can almost monopolize some of the important content unless it is instanced or protected by anti-greed mechanics such as "take turns" coding on bosses when they respawn. If whoever does the most damage gets the loot - they can do the same and "kill steal" the boss after the pull. If everyone with a significant contribution gets the loot it trivializes it.

    I don't have a good answer. if it was easy MMOs would have found it and used it already.

    Is a ...less bad answer ... to have anyone significantly contributing (that includes healing and tanking and crowd control not just dps so it may be a terrible thing to program in) have a percentage chance to get loot but the mob doesn't drop any more loot than it sould have had one group/raid killed it without help? Maybe a bonus to the loot chances for the pulling group/raid. That way if another group or raid came over they could at least not killsteal all of the loot, just some of it. And if someone snuck in and pulled a boss other people were already camping in force, that puller might get little or nothing depending on contribution more than the pull bonus if any.

    • 109 posts
    December 14, 2016 12:50 PM PST

    Enitzu said:

    Outside of raid scenarios, you will rarely ever see these things. Most of the people that want to and choose to play these types of games already know what camps are and do respect them. So these situations will be few and far between. Raid bosses on the other hand, will be highly contested if they take the EQ approach on them. Guilds will DPS race each other with 1 being highly pissed off when they lose. Hopefully, they put lockouts with quick respawns on bosses to make this a non thing but if not they could at least cap raid sizes to a set number so people can't just zerg. 

    Given there will not be instances, it could easily extend to grouped named for the 'good' gear dropping named.

    Another thing to do is making encounters require actual strat rather than pure DPS to overcome.

    I am also a fan of the game calling out a players mistake to the group, raid, world. Im evil in that regard.


    This post was edited by Backin at December 14, 2016 12:51 PM PST
    • 1986 posts
    December 14, 2016 1:25 PM PST

    It seems like most damage is in the cards for normal mobs/xp parties. But if you go back and read the info from Brads Reddit AMA, there will be certain things in place for Named. Ill see if I can find it, but cant just now.

     

    But for the record this isnt the first time this topic came up. I have brought it up in many threads as well as I am actually in favor of option 2 because thats what was in FFXI. But I was satisfied with the direction the AMA was going so at this point content with that.

    • 793 posts
    December 14, 2016 1:36 PM PST

    1v1 targets, if one splits from a 2 pack, while pulling it is fair game by those counts.

    If you pull it from a small "Camp" then that is KS and should be reported.

     

    Example, I pull from a spot and tag 3 mobs. 3 follow me, and then 2 splits off to another person.

    There is nothing that anyone can complain about when 2 people pulling at the same time. It is best to apploigize and move on, sharing mobs as you go.

    If a person just walks up to your group and kills them all, thats KSing and punishable or bannable. You deserve it for griefing others.

    But play nice rules should be in effect and respect others, simple.

     

    • 2157 posts
    December 14, 2016 1:39 PM PST

    Bannable lol.

    Camping is too ambiguous to define. That's why the EQ devs never did, and never really enforced it too terribly.

    Who decides what mobs are part of a specific camp? If my group kills fast enough I could probably pull two "camps" at once. Am I going to be punished then?

    Jeeze.

    • 643 posts
    December 14, 2016 1:41 PM PST

    Just leave it as it is, in the 5 or more years I played EQ this was a problem only a handful of times. Most times someone attacks your mob is simply they didnt see you before they engaged. We dont need the game making all these systems to protect us from us. The reason Pantheon even exist is that most of us are sick to death of the hand holding and molly coddling that we have to endure from games now days. Most gaming companies treat the player as if they are a brain dead zombie and cant think for them selves and so must be led by the nose from point to point all the while protecting them from the slightest annoyance. No, I want there to be kill stealing. That way when the asshats show their faces the community can band together and react. I have seen it happen, hell on Firiona Vie rp server in EQ I know people who had to reroll their character because the name the started with was rejected by the community. (Patiofurniture) is one example, he simple couldnt get a group on a regular basis.

    My whole point is, VR needs to just let the community police itself and stay out of it (their are of course exceptions to that where the GMs stepping in is needed but they are rare and not for a silly issue like KSing)

    • 109 posts
    December 14, 2016 1:47 PM PST

    Sevens said:

    Just leave it as it is, in the 5 or more years I played EQ this was a problem only a handful of times. Most times someone attacks your mob is simply they didnt see you before they engaged. We dont need the game making all these systems to protect us from us. The reason Pantheon even exist is that most of us are sick to death of the hand holding and molly coddling that we have to endure from games now days. Most gaming companies treat the player as if they are a brain dead zombie and cant think for them selves and so must be led by the nose from point to point all the while protecting them from the slightest annoyance. No, I want there to be kill stealing. That way when the asshats show their faces the community can band together and react. I have seen it happen, hell on Firiona Vie rp server in EQ I know people who had to reroll their character because the name the started with was rejected by the community. (Patiofurniture) is one example, he simple couldnt get a group on a regular basis.

    My whole point is, VR needs to just let the community police itself and stay out of it (their are of course exceptions to that where the GMs stepping in is needed but they are rare and not for a silly issue like KSing)

    Thats far too adult like, lol.

    Had to say that. This made me smile.

    • 1986 posts
    December 14, 2016 2:16 PM PST

    Brad from the AMA on reddit:

     

    No, nothing instanced, although it is possible specific encounters would be locked to the guild doing that content such that others could not interfere. Its still too early to talk about how many people would be in a raid at any given level.

    No instanced combat. Dungeons will be huge and shared. Certain areas and specific mobs may be assigned to the group that got their first, leaving others to more passive roles, but you will be in the same environment. As for zerging and other similar behaviors, mobs in Pantheon will not simply stick around and be destroyed by vast numbers of players -- they will act and react, whether that means leaving the area, calling in friends, etc.

    • 2157 posts
    December 14, 2016 2:25 PM PST

    @Amsai

    Sounds just like Vanguard. Yes please.

    • 109 posts
    December 14, 2016 3:03 PM PST
    I didnt play vanguard for a long time. I dont remember it well
    • 72 posts
    December 14, 2016 3:18 PM PST

    Sevens said:

    Just leave it as it is, in the 5 or more years I played EQ this was a problem only a handful of times. Most times someone attacks your mob is simply they didnt see you before they engaged. We dont need the game making all these systems to protect us from us. The reason Pantheon even exist is that most of us are sick to death of the hand holding and molly coddling that we have to endure from games now days. Most gaming companies treat the player as if they are a brain dead zombie and cant think for them selves and so must be led by the nose from point to point all the while protecting them from the slightest annoyance. No, I want there to be kill stealing. That way when the asshats show their faces the community can band together and react. I have seen it happen, hell on Firiona Vie rp server in EQ I know people who had to reroll their character because the name the started with was rejected by the community. (Patiofurniture) is one example, he simple couldnt get a group on a regular basis.

    My whole point is, VR needs to just let the community police itself and stay out of it (their are of course exceptions to that where the GMs stepping in is needed but they are rare and not for a silly issue like KSing)

    If it truly doesn't become a significant issue then that is great! I am up for giving it a shot. I love the direction Pantheon / Devs are going in so many aspects. I don't like the hand holding and systems in place in other mmos as well.

    With that said, If it did become an issue: example, my brother has to work in 5 hours, we progress through a 3 hour zone, wait an 1 1/2 for mob and then it appears to have it ripped away the last minute... We probably wouldn't last long with the game. I don't want to feel like I just wasted the last 4 hours to something like that. If we wiped on the boss on our own, or failed to kill the boss: That would be entirely acceptable.

    Hopefully, you guys are right and it doesn't become nearly as significant a problem. I appreciate all the feedback and confidence portrayed. It boosts me up a little each time :P

    • 109 posts
    December 14, 2016 3:52 PM PST
    To deny kill stealing is ever an issue is misleading. It does exist

    To say it is widespread is false

    A good community works wonders. You will always have people come help and defend against bad players.

    Making a good name for yourself really does work. People you might not know will come to your aid through the grapevine. Happens all the time. Especially among respected guilds. A guild tag means a lot sometimes.

    Certain people will know the bad apples and will make their time in the game unpleasant