Kalok said:Personally, I think you and Iksar are REALLY wearing out the "griefers" argumen.
Basically neither of you seem to want anything challenging in the game because of what MIGHT happen. Maybe it's time you expand your vision beyond looking for non-existent trouble.
Have you played many non PvP focused online games lately? If there is any mechanic in a game that can lead to a player or group of players logging in just to **** with people's fun....it happens. This type of player collision does not add danger or challenge. It adds a way for people to sabotage other players fun.
I say leave it off across the board.
Concerning Preechr's idea, what happens when an ogre autoruns into the wall next to the bank door or the zone line? Wouldn't that still open up players to unnecessary griefing?
If someone abuses mechanics to deny content or disrupt other players, we should hope the GMs would quickly respond to reports and get rid of that person
I hope that with all this player feedback and discussion during the design phase of the game, when combined with all the experience these devs have, the game is build on solid mechanics that clearly draw a line between players that get their kicks from aggravating other players and the rest of us to the point that jerks just don't have the kind of target rich environment in Pantheon they can more easily find in so many other games
...and if they go to the trouble of finding a way to exploit the mechanics, the GMs kick them out of the game
Brad has consistently responded to this type of conversation with things like "we are going to design the game the way we see being the most fun. If these situations create a CS issue the CS team will deal with it" type stuff. We've seen character collision in the game, i believe, and I dont see it going away unless you can show an extreme problem it creates in beta. If people afk in certain areas you can petition to have them moved. I'm sure these types of events will be logged so if there is a recurring problem it will get eventually flagged as griefing.
Iksar said:Player collision adds next to nothing other than headaches for a PvE server/game.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCEMrTWL8gk
Or Star Wars Galaxies where people would lure others into houses then block them inside for hours.
Too bad they couldn't climb on/over those guys. Pantheon does have a climbing skill.
Also, why does a hit box need to go all the way to the ground... crawl under the Ogre in the doorway.
Solve the individual problems, don't take the easy way out and totally remove player collision. And yes, that's the EASY way to fix the problem... just a Pop was the easy way to fix the "travel problem" in early EQ.
Hadekin said:Concerning Preechr's idea, what happens when an ogre autoruns into the wall next to the bank door or the zone line? Wouldn't that still open up players to unnecessary griefing?
What does player to player collision add that can possibly overshadow the massive amount of problems it brings from griefers to honest unintentional yet easy to do area denial (and the hazy line between the two)? What (PvE server) MMOs have had it and been celebrated by the community instead of abhored? It's often hard enough to see/click on AH brokers, bankers, mailboxes, etc even when you can move through the crowds.
Is it reasonable to add such a massive policing chore to the petition queue of GMs?
Bonechip said:Simple solution would be:
- Have the game auto-afk characters after a certain amount of inactivity.
- Give players the option to hide other afk characters.
You underestimate the trollness of some people. I wouldn't be surprised if someone stood there for hours intentionally keeping their character awake just to block doors.
That said, I like collision and hope they can find a way to put it in but prevent griefing.
vjek said:Kalok said: ... Like the other two, I think you're borrowing non-existent trouble. That seems to be eveeryone's answer to any challenging content... "Oh noes!! It might get exploited by griefers!!"That's because in every MMO I've personally played in the past 20 years, every single mechanic that CAN be used to negatively affect the gameplay experience of another player? It IS used to negatively affect the gameplay experience of another player. Continuously. Until removed or changed so it can't be used in that way.
I only say it because I've seen it. It's not non-existent trouble, from my perspective. Rather it is historically demonstrated evidence.
I could say the opposite. I've never seen anyone exploit character collision INTENTIONALLY to cause crap. I have, however, seen it ACCIDENTALLY. There is a huge difference.
The griefer argiument is getting old because it's brought up EVERY SINGLE TIME that someone says something that adds any sort of "realism" to the game. It's beginning to feel that everyone here, that uses the "Oh noes!! Griefers!!!" wants to turn Pantheon into a padded room with rails. It's being pulled out that often. Heaven forbid that the game be challenging and even semi-realistic.
vjek said:Fear not, Kalok, there will be plenty of ways to grief in Pantheon. :) Malicious training, kill "stealing", no "camps", charm, open world raid bosses, and more.
I'm not sure it needs MORE ways to grief, though.
I still don't see how it's MORE ways to grief.... You guys keep saying that almost literally everything will lead to griefing. I just don't see it happening nearly as much as you think it will. I, personally, think thaat you guys are borrowing trouble. Brad has already stated that zone lines are no longer bottle necked. That means you are not all zoning in the same "three feet of space". In addition, collision detection on zoning solves that problem. The chances of some ****** parking themselves on a precarious bridge just to be a dick,I just don't see happening nearly as much as you guys seem to think it will. Especially when you consider that, with collision, if handled properly, could enable pushing. So let's say there IS some griefer ****** parked in the middle of the bridge not letting anyone pass. You could push them out of the way/over the side. Believe it or not there ARE ways of dealing with it.
Isaya said:I am hoping that zones will not get bottled up if one person goes afk during zoneing. Early in eq1 I was trying to zone and when I finished zoneing there was this Uglyogre sitting on the zone line and I could not move. He was there for a good 10-15 minutes. After he finally came back he said his 2 year old fell and was hurt. I was sympathetic with him and being a grandfather at the time completely understood.
I tried backing around him but only to rezone out. When I returned there he was again.
My issue is with verant and why they did not give eople more room to move once zoned. this happened a few times but never as long as the first time. Will there be a "buffer zone" when you log in so you can get aroung someone stuck in zone mode.
This whole thread started from the quoted. If the game didnt work like it did then those two people never would of had a conversation. +1 to emergent phenomenas.
If you take away all the negatives then people won't have these type of moments which make these encounters memorable. This memory is still a talking point like 18 years later. Imagine if none of these things happened. EQ would of been a forgotten memory along time ago.
I think we all need to place some value on the negatives because without those, its all just a borning blur of time wasted and the only thing you will say about the game was, "Oh yeah, I played that game."
Kalok said: ... Brad has already stated that zone lines are no longer bottle necked. ...
And yet, every video demonstrating an interior dungeon zoning transition has everyone piled on top of each other on the destination side. So, sure, it may eventually be better, but for now, what's been publicly shown does not back up this claim. Yes, I'm aware it's pre-alpha. Yes, really, I'm aware it's pre-alpha. For real, yes, I'm aware it's pre-alpha. That they haven't addressed this particular issue means it's not a priority, yet. Why has it never been "fixed" in EQ1? Not a priority, yet?
Of course, for outdoor zones, like West Karana <-> North Karana, for example, that's not what this is about. It's possible his claim was in reference to outdoor vs. indoor zones, or a variety of other situations. Once it's been demonstrated publicly they have implemented or are working on some viable options, then it's possible the griefing potential might be lessened.
vjek said:Kalok said: ... Brad has already stated that zone lines are no longer bottle necked. ...And yet, every video demonstrating an interior dungeon zoning transition has everyone piled on top of each other on the destination side. So, sure, it may eventually be better, but for now, what's been publicly shown does not back up this claim. Yes, I'm aware it's pre-alpha. Yes, really, I'm aware it's pre-alpha. For real, yes, I'm aware it's pre-alpha. That they haven't addressed this particular issue means it's not a priority, yet. Why has it never been "fixed" in EQ1? Not a priority, yet?
Of course, for outdoor zones, like West Karana <-> North Karana, for example, that's not what this is about. It's possible his claim was in reference to outdoor vs. indoor zones, or a variety of other situations. Once it's been demonstrated publicly they have implemented or are working on some viable options, then it's possible the griefing potential might be lessened.
Neither I, nor Brad, can answer for why it has not been fixed 18 years later in EQ1... With that being said, I'd really not go into why you think that Brad may be not telling the truth about zoning. I'm not going to get into his battles. I only know what he SAID. With that being said, you completely, more than once, have completely ignored my "collision detection on zoning" and handling. That would ALSO work in tight dungeons, you know....
Kalok said:The griefer argiument is getting old because it's brought up EVERY SINGLE TIME that someone says something that adds any sort of "realism" to the game.
It isn't realism though and it detracts from the gameplay unless they can make the system EXTREMELY tight. If there is player to player collision and I can't climb over, crawl under, squeeze between, or otherwise shove someone out of the way then I would say it is LESS realistic than having players pass through one another and assuming one of those events took place to get them on the other side.
Iksar said:Kalok said:The griefer argiument is getting old because it's brought up EVERY SINGLE TIME that someone says something that adds any sort of "realism" to the game.
It isn't realism though and it detracts from the gameplay unless they can make the system EXTREMELY tight. If there is player to player collision and I can't climb over, crawl under, squeeze between, or otherwise shove someone out of the way then I would say it is LESS realistic than having players pass through one another and assuming one of those events took place to get them on the other side.
It is realism. Try walking through another person sometime and tell me how it goes.
Kalok said:Iksar said:Kalok said:The griefer argiument is getting old because it's brought up EVERY SINGLE TIME that someone says something that adds any sort of "realism" to the game.
It isn't realism though and it detracts from the gameplay unless they can make the system EXTREMELY tight. If there is player to player collision and I can't climb over, crawl under, squeeze between, or otherwise shove someone out of the way then I would say it is LESS realistic than having players pass through one another and assuming one of those events took place to get them on the other side.
It is realism. Try walking through another person sometime and tell me how it goes.
Iksar's point is that in the real world, you can just push people out of the way or squeeze through. If you can't do that in-game, it's not realistic, it's just frustrating. Even if people aren't griefing by doing it on purpose, it can be very annoying. And not in a rewarding way.
To me, player collision really matters most in battle... What I don't want is for the best way to play is everyone stand in the same spot
I believe FFXIV is like that, or was when I played it
That being said, a dwarf, halfling or gnome should be able to run between a giant's legs
A tank should be able to push right up against a mob without passing through it
While a certain segment of people in every game have proven to take delight in frustrating others, its pretty clear that those players are not the ones enjoying the actual gameplay
I think the players that will stick with Pantheon and pay the sub each month will be here for the unique gameplay, not for trolling or griefing
I think that this kind of behavior becomes more common when the community has a lot of younger people in it, as trolling and griefing is something immature people enjoy
I'm comfortable that Pantheon just being what it is will sufficiently insulate us from immature behavior, and when it does happen, we can rely on each other and VR GMs to deal with it
If the day comes where it actually is a problem, maybe then we can come up with ideas to fight a problem that actually exists
The only thing I think I'd worry about at this stage would be assuring the foundations of the game, in this case collision detection and boxes, are being built sufficiently flexible to allow for easy tailoring down the road
If the collision system is situational (Run/In Battle: Large Collision Zone, Walk: Smaller, Standing: None) then we have options, and the developers can make appropriate adjustments as needed
We have all played games that were stretching what the game engine was designed to do, and we have all learned to just deal with silly bugs and work arounds based on game engine limitations
These conversations are great for showing just how deeply we can be divided on certain issues, because they highlight where time should be spent on providing options
I doubt any of us that find ourselves in a particularly hardocore opinion camp will ever be convinced to change their mind
Preechr said:To me, player collision really matters most in battle... What I don't want is for the best way to play is everyone stand in the same spot
...
I think the players that will stick with Pantheon and pay the sub each month will be here for the unique gameplay, not for trolling or griefing
I think that this kind of behavior becomes more common when the community has a lot of younger people in it, as trolling and griefing is something immature people enjoy
I'm comfortable that Pantheon just being what it is will sufficiently insulate us from immature behavior, and when it does happen, we can rely on each other and VR GMs to deal with it
...
If that's a big concern for folks then why not just limit player collision to be on when it comes to mobs but otherwise only have player to player collision with those in your own group/raid?
I think it feels nice to think that trolling/griefing/immature behavior is more a young person thing and to a degree it is true (18-29 being most prominent), however there are tons of trolls over the age of 30. I don't believe Pantheon is going to be as niche as a lot of people make it out to be and it's not going to be some isolated utopia of friendly/helpful players. The genre is stale and has been devoid of anything big for quite some time. I'd say Pantheon will garner a lot of attention closer to release/beta (especially given Brad is at the helm), and a LOT of gamers today value a challenge and enjoy difficult but rewarding gaming experiences.
Bazgrim said:Iksar's point is that in the real world, you can just push people out of the way or squeeze through. If you can't do that in-game, it's not realistic, it's just frustrating. Even if people aren't griefing by doing it on purpose, it can be very annoying. And not in a rewarding way.
Precisely, thank you.
Iksar said:If that's a big concern for folks then why not just limit player collision to be on when it comes to mobs but otherwise only have player to player collision with those in your own group/raid?
I think that this is a great idea. That would eliminate the griefing aspect, as it gives the affected player the ability to stop the griefing.
Kalok said:Iksar said:Kalok said:The griefer argiument is getting old because it's brought up EVERY SINGLE TIME that someone says something that adds any sort of "realism" to the game.
It isn't realism though and it detracts from the gameplay unless they can make the system EXTREMELY tight. If there is player to player collision and I can't climb over, crawl under, squeeze between, or otherwise shove someone out of the way then I would say it is LESS realistic than having players pass through one another and assuming one of those events took place to get them on the other side.
It is realism. Try walking through another person sometime and tell me how it goes.
Just tried. They moved.