I hope you guys realize this is basically 25% of all forum topics on MMOs circa 2004-2006. There is no right answer.
The only way that restaurant metaphor would make sense is if waiter A clocked in 30 mins before waiter B but waiter B was the first to the table so he got it. There's nothing about camping that makes you own a rare spawn, that's ridiculous.
I like to look at things like this by seeing what new technologies are available. As it is, I think the answer is pretty clear:
I the end precisely this is as much as part of old school mmos as grinding monsters in camps, I don't think this is a problem that needs some sort of policing solution. At that point you start running into the carebear rules we literally came here to escape.
But yeah **** a pvp server if this was very prevalent.
Kobrashade said: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 cumminuty 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.
If you're helping why do you care about experience or loot rights? The more the community creates rules and defines right and wrong, and the less the devs have to place mechanics in game to do so, the better. Bad things are gonna happen. That's life. When good things happen, the reason they're so sweet is because they are a departure from the bad. Trying to solve all the problems means you will have a game devoid of any joy.
Krixus said:If you're helping why do you care about experience or loot rights? The more the community creates rules and defines right and wrong, and the less the devs have to place mechanics in game to do so, the better. Bad things are gonna happen. That's life. When good things happen, the reason they're so sweet is because they are a departure from the bad. Trying to solve all the problems means you will have a game devoid of any joy.
From the perspective of the "helper" in a scenario, I don't care. I love to help people as I pass by in current mmos I play today.
From the perspective of being engaged and having it ripped away, It's a possible turn off.
Bad experiences such as wiping on a raid boss until you figure it out, pulling too many mobs as you quest, dieing from rough terrain and jumps are not the same bad experiences as having other players come in and #&*$ you over essentially. Especially because of a damage wins all model when the game tenets are promoting a "quaternity". (Not a Damgehierachy)
Look at it this way:
If damage dealt is the only qualifier of mob "ownership" (like EQ), then "kill stealing" is an invalid term, because it inherently implies an alternative means of determining mob ownership, which invalidates damage dealt as a metric. Holding both positions at once is cognitive dissonance.
The only reason the mechanic exists in EQ is to allow players to steal mobs from other players and be punished for it. It's practically entrapment.
"Here's a game mechanic that only exists to potentially get you suspended if you use it."
No thanks.
Beefcake said:Or, just leave other people's mobs alone.
You missed the entire point of my post, miraculously.
What is the qualifier that means a mob belongs to a specific player? If the only metric we have to go by is >50% damage dealt, then no, kill stealing can not exist in the conventional meaning. If first to engage is what qualifies, which is what many people believe it should be, then >50% damage shouldn't be a consideration. It should just be locked from the start.
Allowing "first to engage" and ">50% damage dealt" to exist simultaneously is pants on head.
Edit: With simple logic.
If (Me.FirstToEngage) && (Me.TotalDamageDealt>50%)
Enjoy your loot.
If !(Me.FirstToEngage) && (Me.TotalDamageDealt>50%)
Enjoy your vacation.
Liav said:Beefcake said:Or, just leave other people's mobs alone.
You missed the entire point of my post, miraculously.
What is the qualifier that means a mob belongs to a specific player? If the only metric we have to go by is >50% damage dealt, then no, kill stealing can not exist in the conventional meaning. If first to engage is what qualifies, which is what many people believe it should be, then >50% damage shouldn't be a consideration. It should just be locked from the start.
Allowing "first to engage" and ">50% damage dealt" to exist simultaneously is pants on head.
That's because you are referring to systems, I am referring to community policies.
I do not want a system to prevent people from getting a mob by first tagging it. I am fine with the >50% model as a system for loot rights.
However, I still think it's a #^%* move to take a mob that someone else has been waiting for the spawn. For the first few years that I played EQ, I remember a specific zone, I think it was in the Desert of Ro, where there were 3 or 4 camp spots. When a new group came into the area, they would shout camp check, and people would let them know which spots were already camped. It worked and people cooperated. When they did not, people solved the problem on their own.
Similarly, when there was a specific mob, people would create a line/order and people would cooperate. If not, the others there would get together and solve it on their own.
The >50% option allows the community a chance to band together to stop bad behavior. First to tag encourages bad twitch behavior. Without the >50%, there cannot be effective community policing.
If the community does not band together to prevent bad behavior, then the community obviously does not believe the issue is important enough to care about.
And, regardless of your definitions, my definition of kill stealing still includes purposely taking a mob that some else has been waiting to spawn or currently trying to defeat.
Here is a real world example of why I favor the first tag/claim:
A fugitive is on the run and the authorities have issued a bounty. Bounty Hunter A & B both go seeking the fugitive in a lawful world (PvE). It is a contest for the bounty prize, but they both want it. They have a few options:
1. They could join forces and split the prize, which is possible but not likely (Cant really split rare loot). 2. One of them could give up the bounty, which isnt realistic. Why would they do that? They are bounty hunters, this is there thing. (Camp Check and walk away). 3. They could directly compete against eachother for the fugitive and may the best man win. (aka : first to claim/tag). 4. In an unlawful world (PvP) you could also just kill your competition and have the bounty all to yourself (PvPvE).
Beefcake said:That's because you are referring to systems, I am referring to community policies.
Systems are intrinsically tied to community politics. Without systems, the game wouldn't exist in the first place. Community comes after systems, because the entire fabric of how the community can interact and behave is contingent on how the game itself is configured.
I'm intimately aware of how EQ works in terms of camps, camp checks, etc. I still consider it to be inferior in many ways to alternative systems.
Beefcake said:The >50% option allows the community a chance to band together to stop bad behavior. First to tag encourages bad twitch behavior. Without the >50%, there cannot be effective community policing.
The >50% option shouldn't exist if using the mechanic constitutes "bad behavior". Removing the >50% mechanic doesn't diminish community policing, it instead means that it isn't required in the first place. Your argument here basically says that if we had the ability to 100% prevent theft from ever occurring, that we should allow it to occur anyway so we can give police officers jobs. It's ridiculous.
Beefcake said:And, regardless of your definitions, my definition of kill stealing still includes purposely taking a mob that some else has been waiting to spawn or currently trying to defeat.
I'll never agree with that definition. I can stand at a mob for 5 minutes and lie to the next guy who comes up and tell him that I've been there for 5 hours. In neither scenario is it justifiable, to me, to just stand around the place where a mob spawns and pretend like I'm entitled to it.
Amsai said:Here is a real world example of why I favor the first tag/claim:
A fugitive is on the run and the authorities have issued a bounty. Bounty Hunter A & B both go seeking the fugitive in a lawful world (PvE). It is a contest for the bounty prize, but they both want it. They have a few options:
1. They could join forces and split the prize, which is possible but not likely (Cant really split rare loot). 2. One of them could give up the bounty, which isnt realistic. Why would they do that? They are bounty hunters, this is there thing. (Camp Check and walk away). 3. They could directly compete against eachother for the fugitive and may the best man win. (aka : first to claim/tag). 4. In an unlawful world (PvP) you could also just kill your competition and have the bounty all to yourself (PvPvE).
The difference is, this is a game and not a job. If you want people to pay to play this instead another game that might make them equally happy, you have to make it fun.
In my opinion, first to tag offers more potential for unhappiness.
Hopefully the devs agree. From the latest stream, I think they do.
Liav said:Beefcake said:That's because you are referring to systems, I am referring to community policies.
Systems are intrinsically tied to community politics. Without systems, the game wouldn't exist in the first place. Community comes after systems, because the entire fabric of how the community can interact and behave is contingent on how the game itself is configured.
I'm intimately aware of how EQ works in terms of camps, camp checks, etc. I still consider it to be inferior in many ways to alternative systems.
Beefcake said:The >50% option allows the community a chance to band together to stop bad behavior. First to tag encourages bad twitch behavior. Without the >50%, there cannot be effective community policing.
The >50% option shouldn't exist if using the mechanic constitutes "bad behavior". Removing the >50% mechanic doesn't diminish community policing, it instead means that it isn't required in the first place. Your argument here basically says that if we had the ability to 100% prevent theft from ever occurring, that we should allow it to occur anyway so we can give police officers jobs. It's ridiculous.
Beefcake said:And, regardless of your definitions, my definition of kill stealing still includes purposely taking a mob that some else has been waiting to spawn or currently trying to defeat.
I'll never agree with that definition. I can stand at a mob for 5 minutes and lie to the next guy who comes up and tell him that I've been there for 5 hours. In neither scenario is it justifiable, to me, to just stand around the place where a mob spawns and pretend like I'm entitled to it.
You love to exaggerate and use ad hominem attacks, but it doesn't make your argument better.
The existing system of >50% system allows the community to decide if the behavoid is acceptable or not. Changing the system to a new tagging system woud be the devs taking this choice away from the community.
The devs do not need to decide if kill stealing is acceptable or not, the community does. The devs do not need to decide what kill stealing is, the community does. The current system works by allowing the players to make the choice. Choice is important. The consequences of that choice is important. The community should and will decide.
I haven't personally attacked anyone on these forums in a long time. I learned my lesson. If you're offended by something, it's not my intent. I'd challenge you to find ad hominem in my post. Attacking ideas is not the same as a personal attack. Ad hominem is the latter.
If the >50% is included, it will unanimously be decided that it is unacceptable, just like people do in EQ. That is the consensus and has been in EQ for years, I see no reason why a game comprised of EQ veterans wouldn't follow the same path.
The developers have a responsibility to make a game that isn't shitty to play. The >50% rule was a conscious choice they made in EQ, the community didn't have anything to do with it. Community policing is a tyranny of the majority. I have less faith in the average person than you do.
Fair enough. But dont forget about the quotes from the AMA either. Im thinking for regular experience mobs it probably will be percent damage as per the stream. But for Named it will in most (maybe not all) cases be like what was said in the AMA or as others have stated like VG. Neither of these are exactly what I want but for the Named content it would be cloase enough. For normal mobs I know how to deal with people who are greifing me. If its just a one time thing or accident then whatever. If it continues, then if I dont feel like putting up with their crap, I might move camps myself just to avoid the headache. If that isnt possible or Im feeling fiesty I might return the favor with interest. But if they are taking mobs from my camp, then I just take some from theres as well. Tit for tat, not a huge crisis.
Beefcake said:If I have learned anything from modern politics, I am more concerned about the tyranny of the minority.
While I agree, online communities are notorious for bandwagoning. It's just unnecessary, to me, to give people a mechanic to steal mobs from people if the criteria for who a mob belongs to lies outside of that mechanic.
Amsai said:Fair enough. But dont forget about the quotes from the AMA either. Im thinking for regular experience mobs it probably will be percent damage as per the stream. But for Named it will in most (maybe not all) cases be like what was said in the AMA or as others have stated like VG. Neither of these are exactly what I want but for the Named content it would be cloase enough. For normal mobs I know how to deal with people who are greifing me. If its just a one time thing or accident then whatever. If it continues, then if I dont feel like putting up with their crap, I might move camps myself just to avoid the headache. If that isnt possible or Im feeling fiesty I might return the favor with interest. But if they are taking mobs from my camp, then I just take some from theres as well. Tit for tat, not a huge crisis.
I definitely agree here.
Liav said:Beefcake said:If I have learned anything from modern politics, I am more concerned about the tyranny of the minority.
While I agree, online communities are notorious for bandwagoning. It's just unnecessary, to me, to give people a mechanic to steal mobs from people if the criteria for who a mob belongs to lies outside of that mechanic.
Our experiences are clearly different. I find that it is usually the loud minority that gets their way and ruins games. The silent majority spends their time enjoying the game until the minority gets their way. Then the game dies.
I came here because I believe the silent majority that believe in the listed tenants of this game will come here and happy.
I hope its true, or I wasted my pledge.
I see vocal minority vs. silent majority to just be another false dichotomy that easily categorizes people with differing opinions.
I don't believe that either >50% or FTE are in conflict with the tenets of the game. One has less negative consequences, and doesn't fundamentally change the way the game works. That's the way I see it.
So I remembered something from school when reading the last few posts, and I thought you guys might be amused by the knowledge that the U.S. justice system itself disagrees with "time spent camping" as a metric for ownership: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierson_v._Post
I know it's comparing apples to ambulances but it's just funny how these arguments are universal.
Liav said:I see vocal minority vs. silent majority to just be another false dichotomy that easily categorizes people with differing opinions.
I don't believe that either >50% or FTE are in conflict with the tenets of the game. One has less negative consequences, and doesn't fundamentally change the way the game works. That's the way I see it.
It al breaks down to system control or community control, and I will almost always choose community control unless the community is significantly harming the minority.
Of course, as always, you will just call it another false dichotomy. But that's your way of expressing yourself; it's all good.
Hopefully, we will all see how it shakes out soon enough.
Jimmayus said:So I remembered something from school when reading the last few posts, and I thought you guys might be amused by the knowledge that the U.S. justice system itself disagrees with "time spent camping" as a metric for ownership: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierson_v._Post
I know it's comparing apples to ambulances but it's just funny how these arguments are universal.
LOL. Its kinda funny how related it is to this discussion. Nice find. If nothing else it was interesting to see people having this same disagreement over 200 years ago.
Beefcake said:It al breaks down to system control or community control, and I will almost always choose community control unless the community is significantly harming the minority.
Of course, as always, you will just call it another false dichotomy. But that's your way of expressing yourself; it's all good.
Hopefully, we will all see how it shakes out soon enough.
I see silent majority vs. vocal minority as a false dichotomy. System control vs. community control isn't. I don't know what you mean by "that's your way of expressing yourself". Yes, if I feel that something is a false dichotomy I'm going to call it one. I also things red if they're red, and blue if they're blue.
However, communities only have control insofar as the system allows them to. We're basically arguing about how intrusive the rules of the game should be. I want to give players freedom, but not to the extent that mechanics that exist to allow them to MAYBE be dicks, and only for that purpose.
Editr: Fixed.
There will always be abusers of freedom. No amount of policing by anyone will stop it all. The system doesn't have to control us. We can control it. Don't create new systems to do what players can already do. The current system gives the community the most control. Leave it as it is.
Big Brother controls enough of our life as it is. Big Brother does not define social norms, the community does. Whenever Big Brother tries, the result is what was intended.
The system works, don't "fix" it.
Unfortunately, the whole conversation is about game politics, what the community sees as acceptable and what it wants done about it.
Other than someone posting a relevant article about a real life case, no one is posting anything about real life politics.
If you believe Big Brother is a real life reference, it is not. It is a reference to those in control, the powers that be, or the devs in other words.