My personal opinion is that the community will eventually define what radius each "camp" entails, including which spawn points/named.
I do not think the developers/GM's should be involved with this except in cases where people are training or doing something to try and hurt the other players.
vjek said:As the point of this thread, there are no camps, there is no camp stealing, there is no kill stealing, and there is no intentional training. All of those things aren't CS issues, given what has been show so far.
I'm not being facetious. The things that you're describing simply aren't CS issues in EQ1 or any other similar game, any more.
And I'm not assuming anything, what the game enforces are the only rules that will be followed, as history has shown with over a dozen MMOs. It's been that way in every MMO for well over 10 years.I completely understand and appreciate your pespective, it simply does not line up with the reality of the world we live in, in my experience.
To me this is fairly close to (if not directly) them saying it won't be permitted. But I'd prefer if they take a stronger stance on issues like camps & kill stealing by having an official play nice policy by which the community can refer to. Community policing just won't work anymore and I think we have all known at least one big guild that didn't care one bit about server reputation as they didn't need players outside their own group and even if they did, servers have so many players it's often hard to keep track of the jerks.
10.0 How is Pantheon going to handle kill stealing?
First, if you go around kill stealing and bothering other players your reputation is likely to suffer and you could even be blacklisted such that people refuse to group with you. In terms of the actual mechanic, the player or group that does the most damage will receive the experience and loot (note: this is not yet set in stone and will be evaluated during alpha and beta testing).
Repeated griefing and harassment will become a Customer Service issue. If a player consistently ruins the fun and entertainment of other players he or she will no longer be welcome to play Pantheon.
Playing the game in a way that does not contravene the TOS or EULA is not griefing or harassment. A Play Nice Policy will stop exactly nothing.
EDIT: While this is not EQ...
https://help.daybreakgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/230629007-Everquest-Rules-of-Conduct
"
There will be no first in force or engage rules arbitrated or enforced by a Game Master or Guide on any server.
We believe players can resolve disputes about camps and raid bosses between each other.
Game Masters and Guides will not help negotiate these disputes between players and guilds.
"
and
https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq/index.php?threads/dev-camp-rules-on-tlp.220283/#post-3215961
https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq/index.php?threads/dev-camp-rules-on-tlp.220283/#post-3215977
Are you sure EQ's term of service or whatever hasn't been heavily changed when the game got stripped of most human agents to be fully automatized with requests, replies and no interactions.
Wow's RP server had a specific chart to play at start, the removed it later because they didn't care or wanted to care about enforcing rules, as it required human intervention and thus, salaries.
Crazzie said:Not everyone cares about the play nice rules, they just like to grieve. Unless you are holding a camp for over 10 hrs i would be wondering why....
With the current volume of paid employees farming, I fear it could be worse than it was in the early years of MMOs. Bots have come along way, with 6 man teams being common. Pros camping multiple spawn points with multiple teams is also something seen regularly.
Having the idea that people will just play nice is somewhat delusional. 90 percent can play nice, but the 10 percent ruins the experience for the other 90.
It does sadden me to see a game with such wonderful potential, bring back some of my worst memories of EQ1.
vjek said:Playing the game in a way that does not contravene the TOS or EULA is not griefing or harassment. A Play Nice Policy will stop exactly nothing.
EDIT: While this is not EQ...
https://help.daybreakgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/230629007-Everquest-Rules-of-Conduct
"
There will be no first in force or engage rules arbitrated or enforced by a Game Master or Guide on any server.
We believe players can resolve disputes about camps and raid bosses between each other.
Game Masters and Guides will not help negotiate these disputes between players and guilds.
"
and
https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq/index.php?threads/dev-camp-rules-on-tlp.220283/#post-3215961
https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq/index.php?threads/dev-camp-rules-on-tlp.220283/#post-3215977
A play nice policy more like P1999 (which is a great look into a fair portion of the type of players who are most likely to end up in Pantheon) would be much better. If they ended up finding it necessary to implement the policy despite the servers being made up of massive amounts of EQ purists/vets then that should tell us something about how effective just hoping players police themselves is in this day and age. If it's in the rules of conduct then yes, it absolutely will dissuade/stop a LOT of cases where players/groups try to steal camps/named mobs as no one generally wants to be banned.
Apoxar said:While you'll never fix the issues involved with 'camp stealing', etc., there are ways to keep it less of an issue. More viable camps. Less 'crazy good' loot that only comes from 1 monster in 1 camp on a random 12 hour spawn.
When you really start looking at the 'camp' problems in EQ1 especially, what you end up looking at is really two issues. A large zone with very few viable exp camps, or a rare drop from a rare spawn in a single camp. Both of these type of design decisions made camps an issue. Those faults were then compounded by travel time, distance between other equal or near equal areas, and very valuable drops that weren't replaceable or obtainable any other way.
Agree. If the game is made TO BE an mmorpg, it should allow for MM amount of people. Whether its smaller servers or more mobs are bigger areas or whatever.
Leave it to the community. Wouldn't be an awful thing to have a ban or kick option like FPS games sometimes have. If the majority of the zone or server believes an individual should be kicked for whatever reason, have a vote kick option in game that just bans them from that zone for X amount of time. People could make their case in /ooc , and the rest of the zone could vote. The exact parameters would need to be sorted, maybe fellow guildmates can't vote or something like that. But that generally limited the amount of jerks in CounterStrike.
Camps in general were ok in the beginning but as numbers of players increased this got a little ugly imo. I know there are tons of us that will respect a camp designation but there are far more that will not. There is nothing to stop them from taking your target. Unfortunately, I see this more and more now. The fix was to turn up the spawn rate. When that failed they dropped the importance of the loot and in doing so killing the camp problem. I am leaning on the side that camps are a poor design. With some creativity that same camp or spawn should move around. Then it comes down to what is it everyone is after? That is another option to look at. Just ideas on this and stir up questions and options. The concept is near and dear to some, but I think in this era its going to be more trouble that it is worth.
Ox
vjek said:Playing the game in a way that does not contravene the TOS or EULA is not griefing or harassment. A Play Nice Policy will stop exactly nothing.
EDIT: While this is not EQ...
https://help.daybreakgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/230629007-Everquest-Rules-of-Conduct
"
There will be no first in force or engage rules arbitrated or enforced by a Game Master or Guide on any server.
We believe players can resolve disputes about camps and raid bosses between each other.
Game Masters and Guides will not help negotiate these disputes between players and guilds.
"
and
https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq/index.php?threads/dev-camp-rules-on-tlp.220283/#post-3215961
https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq/index.php?threads/dev-camp-rules-on-tlp.220283/#post-3215977
Right. This is not EQ. And DB EQ today is not the EQ of yore.
Why be such an Eeyore about this?
Mathir said:Leave it to the community. Wouldn't be an awful thing to have a ban or kick option like FPS games sometimes have. If the majority of the zone or server believes an individual should be kicked for whatever reason, have a vote kick option in game that just bans them from that zone for X amount of time. People could make their case in /ooc , and the rest of the zone could vote. The exact parameters would need to be sorted, maybe fellow guildmates can't vote or something like that. But that generally limited the amount of jerks in CounterStrike.
That's a situation ripe for abuse. I hope this never happens.
Oxillion said:Camps in general were ok in the beginning but as numbers of players increased this got a little ugly imo. I know there are tons of us that will respect a camp designation but there are far more that will not. There is nothing to stop them from taking your target. Unfortunately, I see this more and more now. The fix was to turn up the spawn rate. When that failed they dropped the importance of the loot and in doing so killing the camp problem. I am leaning on the side that camps are a poor design. With some creativity that same camp or spawn should move around. Then it comes down to what is it everyone is after? That is another option to look at. Just ideas on this and stir up questions and options. The concept is near and dear to some, but I think in this era its going to be more trouble that it is worth.
Ox
The loot issue I guess can be corrected by randomizing the areas that a mob can spawn. I really just like the camp playstyle, where you work your way down somewhere, and then set up camp for the night with your group in a relatively safe spot and just BS the night away while hoping for some good drops. Named mobs and rare loot really started the camp idea, and it does lead to some issues with people knowing where to go for a particular named. I thought how EQ handled that in RunnyEye where the named goblins could spawn anywhere solved the issue. That allowed people to camp an area with spawns, but since the named could pop anywhere rarely, that was a lot of camping spots for a lot of different groups and generally everyone would get a shot at the named. You just have to really decrease drop rates if you go that route, but I think it's the best way to do it. Then everyone gets a shot at a named and some good loot, it's just ultra rare so it keeps the carrot going longer.
otterley said:Mathir said:Leave it to the community. Wouldn't be an awful thing to have a ban or kick option like FPS games sometimes have. If the majority of the zone or server believes an individual should be kicked for whatever reason, have a vote kick option in game that just bans them from that zone for X amount of time. People could make their case in /ooc , and the rest of the zone could vote. The exact parameters would need to be sorted, maybe fellow guildmates can't vote or something like that. But that generally limited the amount of jerks in CounterStrike.
That's a situation ripe for abuse. I hope this never happens.
Agreed, but there's probably a way to implement it to be effective. It works in FPS games and is rarely abused. Generally people don't vote kick unless someone is cheating or being ultra annoying. It does curb bad behavior.
@Tralyan
Your second post was spot on what would constitute ownership of a camp. But I truly believe the camp is only one small element of a much larger puzzle. Camps will be completely dependent on the game Pantheon ultimately turns out to be. It needs to be molded in the spirit of "EQ".
I would argue for camp ownership to be respected, the following would need to occur:
1. Adequate forced downtime - if you can lock down the world, then there are no "camps"
2. Resource Management - similar to #1, but in order to have #1, you have to have this.
3. Need for community - You have to be forced to rely on others, players will take the easiest route, and if everyone can solo and there's server anonymity (see #4) - then no respects for camps will occur.
4. Server Transparency/Reputation (no name changes, no server transfers, etc.) - if you're an a**, it needs to be known. If you're a great player/person - likewise.
5. An absolute need to rely on groups to progress (yes like EQ, over-geared players will ultimately find a way around it, or, excellent duo/trios, etc.).
6. If community ostracization fails, and a guild of a**hats continues to grief, kill steal, etc. then GM intervention could occur. However, see #7 - just not being able to get what you want doesn't equal GM intervention.
7. Lastly, like EQ, the community would have to have an understanding and acceptance that equality of opportunity (paying 14.99/month) doesn't equate to equality of outcome in an Open World MMORPG (everyone obtaining a Cloak of Flames because they pay 14.99/month or being able to kill Nagafen).
What I think could be different than EQ and could alleviate some of Vjek's concerns would be:
1. Triggered/locked quest mobs, similar to spawning several Epic Link Quest Mobs in EQ. They still could be in the open world, but they could be coded FTE after being triggered. I would also keep some of the "normal" quest mobs that would be in the world MDD though.
2. More gear options at launch. This is a very fine balance though, maybe 3 realistic options for haste items near max level instead of "just" the FBSS. You don't want to oversaturate itemization either and water down the world. There will be some who won't be able to get everything they want as quickly as they want, but that's also part of what makes loot memorable.
Anyway, I do think traditional camps will exist in Pantheon: how much they are respected though will remain to be seen based on design decisions.
Mathir said:Oxillion said:Camps in general were ok in the beginning but as numbers of players increased this got a little ugly imo. I know there are tons of us that will respect a camp designation but there are far more that will not. There is nothing to stop them from taking your target. Unfortunately, I see this more and more now. The fix was to turn up the spawn rate. When that failed they dropped the importance of the loot and in doing so killing the camp problem. I am leaning on the side that camps are a poor design. With some creativity that same camp or spawn should move around. Then it comes down to what is it everyone is after? That is another option to look at. Just ideas on this and stir up questions and options. The concept is near and dear to some, but I think in this era its going to be more trouble that it is worth.
Ox
The loot issue I guess can be corrected by randomizing the areas that a mob can spawn. I really just like the camp playstyle, where you work your way down somewhere, and then set up camp for the night with your group in a relatively safe spot and just BS the night away while hoping for some good drops. Named mobs and rare loot really started the camp idea, and it does lead to some issues with people knowing where to go for a particular named. I thought how EQ handled that in RunnyEye where the named goblins could spawn anywhere solved the issue. That allowed people to camp an area with spawns, but since the named could pop anywhere rarely, that was a lot of camping spots for a lot of different groups and generally everyone would get a shot at the named. You just have to really decrease drop rates if you go that route, but I think it's the best way to do it. Then everyone gets a shot at a named and some good loot, it's just ultra rare so it keeps the carrot going longer.
Agreed, the situational and random locating of a mob will curb tons of conflict and force more communication in the zone when it comes to camps or named mobs everyone is after. I think the RunnyEye spawn was the one I could not remember. LOL been years, but I have seen that sort of mechanic done in other games to eliminate the nasty situation people can create over them. As far as community monitored as some had mentioned that is a really bad idea. If you have a poor mechanic and then let the player-base try to manage it you are bound for trouble. The one element that is the wild card is human nature. The ratio of good players to bad is not as equal as it used to be. The one thing I have observed over the past 15 years is the absolute downward turn of in game etiquette. Theses folks do not care what amount of time you have put in or could care less what the game rules are. It’s a sad really but it’s the nature of things.
I do remember the feeling of working your way down to a location and one getting there was rewarding and then the tough part was the mob. It was a great time but now I Am not so sure that is going to be repeated.
I do think VR can do some things to help stop the issues and make it fun to do again.
Ox
This entire debate is why FTE is the way to go. This allows everyone involved , equal chance to tag and engage a target and lock the encounter.
It also removes the entire aspect of camps , arguments via petition that waste time and effort from CS and the ability to try and monopolize content.
The only thing the 50.1% rule does is force people to become spiteful and gives a unfair advantage for higher dps class or level players. Ie tank vs wiz or level 1 vs 50.
Well while FTE favor PBae spams to tag easily, It also favor exploiting other players for loot and exp, and powerlevelling.
Catch a dragon a milisecond before a raid engage it, and you get all experience and loot from their hard work. Tag a bunch of mobs and let a pack of your friends rip therm apart for fast and efficient experience. Yeah the raid should "Stop" doing so but since you did only minor damage, you don't even risk having threat and beeing killed while they all have to run to the zone to reset. Rinse and repeat and you're a troll that require a Custom Service Ticket to be properly sorted off.
FTE was the design of choice of WoW and made powerlevelling a big thing with few involvement, and was overabused to get "level first achievements" during new expansions era (especially The Burning Crusade era, when mobs still gave a good chunk of experience with no quest involved).
With the above example , that person has to be able to defeat the dragon ... if there killed the lock is removed. This allows the raid to engage and lock it.
There is no out of group help or out of raid help.
The version of FTE I know , is based on eq2 where once a target is locked , only the people in the encounter can effect the encounter, this includes heals , dps etc.
Xxar said:With the above example , that person has to be able to defeat the dragon ... if there killed the lock is removed. This allows the raid to engage and lock it.
There is no out of group help or out of raid help.
The version of FTE I know , is based on eq2 where once a target is locked , only the people in the encounter can effect the encounter, this includes heals , dps etc.
I sincerely hope they don't go this route. Powerlevening can be a problem, sure, but I'd take it over the alternative (not being able to help strangers).
Bring back camps.
Xxar said:This entire debate is why FTE is the way to go. This allows everyone involved , equal chance to tag and engage a target and lock the encounter.
It also removes the entire aspect of camps , arguments via petition that waste time and effort from CS and the ability to try and monopolize content.
The only thing the 50.1% rule does is force people to become spiteful and gives a unfair advantage for higher dps class or level players. Ie tank vs wiz or level 1 vs 50.
Not quite equal. It gives a strong disadvantage to those with weaker internet connections and/or computers as well as to those with physical handicaps. It gives advantage to classes with stealth/invis as well as ranged instant cast abilities.
It also encourages doing nothing else but waiting for a specific spawn point because if your group is mid pull the other player/group will snatch it up. Further it just encourages that kind of player vs player/group vs group behavior to occur even more for any decent named camps.
Iksar said: servers have so many players it's often hard to keep track of the jerks.
This ^ is getting close to the heart of the issue. Hopefully server populations will be low enough that this will not be the case.
There is also part of me that thinks the "niche" game that was advertised years ago has gone full mainstream at this point. When the niche that is being focused on becomes hugely popular, when is it no longer considered niche?
Small populations per server would serve to do a number of things:
~A smaller population leads to less competition for camps/spawns...which leads to less of the jerky behavior that Iksar mentioned above. Less worry about "who owns a camp" if there are plenty of camps to go around.
~ It will make it so reputation actually does matter. You won't get lost in the crowd. Because VR has been basing a lot around reputation, if they make the average server populations medium sized I think they will be shooting themselves in the foot. Reputation won't be enough of a factor if everyone doesn't know everyone.
~It will make the game feel more niche even if it is widely popular because the player is only exposed to a very limited number of people.
The down side is that smaller populations may mean longer wait times to find a group...though there would also be more solo camps available. I think I'm ok with the down side.
I sincerely hope they don't go this route. Powerlevening can be a problem, sure, but I'd take it over the alternative (not being able to help strangers).
Bring back camps.
Camps are almost unenforceable , that is just a fact . There needs to be a game mechanic that prevents griefing. Also what are you going to do when a guild shifts a valueable spawn ? The camp will never be open.
Iksar said:Not quite equal. It gives a strong disadvantage to those with weaker internet connections and/or computers as well as to those with physical handicaps. It gives advantage to classes with stealth/invis as well as ranged instant cast abilities.
It also encourages doing nothing else but waiting for a specific spawn point because if your group is mid pull the other player/group will snatch it up. Further it just encourages that kind of player vs player/group vs group behavior to occur even more for any decent named camps.
If the internet connection / physical handicap is a valid argument , there going to have a issue regardless.
Also classes with stealth/invis ? That has nothing to do with tagging a mob first , if you are unable to engage a target first .. pull faster? I truely hope that things like see invis are in game.
Also if you lose 1 spawn , who cares .. the mechanic prevents continual lockdown of content being the point.
Also for group vs group contest , that is the nature of contested content vs high value targets. The groups have equal chance of FTE on a spawn.
I think that this sort of thing can't be left to the community, my reason in a nutshell being summed up by the term "p99". Beyond that, others have done a good job arguing my case. So here's my take on what officially enforced rules on camp ownership should look like:
What is a camp:
An exact camp involves some overall target, as deemed valuable by the community at large. In the case of irregular camps, everything within standard spell range+standard aggro range of your preferred sitting position is a reasonable designation of a "camp". A camp additionally includes any mobs, within reason, you need to remove to get to the overall targets of your camp. Reasonable additional targets may include mobs which spawn within double aggro range of the overall target of the camp.
Claiming a camp:
If you enter an unclaimed camp, you place an initial claim on it. At this point, others must give you reasonable time to deal with one of the targets of the camp. If you are succesful, that section of the camp becomes fully yours. Your initial claim lasts as long as you could reasonably deal with each target of the camp. How much of the camp you claim depends entirely on how much of it you can deal with in the reasonable amount of time alotted you. You are free to add some or all of other camps to your camp, but other players do not need to grant you reasonable time to tackle these additional areas, and you cannot steal them from other players per the camp rules.
By this token, it is possible to only claim part of a camp. It is also possible to lose part or all of your camp by no longer being capable of maintaining it.
In maintaining a camp, players must also be given reasonable time to deal with their most recent pops. Reasonable time can most likely be determined by how long it should take the average person/group player's/group's power to deal with what they are currently doing AND the sections of the camp they have not yet gotten to, plus 5 minutes.
Players who are AFK longer than standard respawn time+5 minutes and fail to maintain their camp cannot own a camp.
Borrowing or taking over a camp:
Two separate parties cannot own a camp at the same time. However, a present camper may allow others to borrow it as they see fit. By the same token, campers can restrict borrowers as well, so long as they are present.
If you are not currently present at a camp which is fully yours, then others can reasonably borrow it until you get back, but they must give it back if you want it while it is still your camp. Borrowers cannot deal with rare spawns of any sort (nodes and monsters, for example) at the camp until it is their camp, you give them permission, or they reasonably HAVE to deal with it (your wandering rare spawn attacked the player, without any apparant incitement from the player, and he killed it; not really anyone's fault).
Those who borrow a camp, and have done apparant work on it within a reasonable amount of time, have first dibs over the camp when the original owner no longer lays claim upon it. If you can prove that someone is maliciously using this rule to constantly claim a camp that includes some highly unique target over a very long period of time (longer than 48 hours), GMs may step in to enforce a rotation of some sort.
Significantly higher level than a camp, or multiple camps:
Players who could no longer get experience from the camp (by assumption rather than fact in the case of fully leveled characters) must give up the camp to those who can get experience from it (and can handle the camp). This must happen within a reasonable amount of time (probably once the high level has finished up his current fight and had a convo with the low levels about it). Otherwise, the high level is the owner of the camp over all other high levels.
The exception to this rule happens if there are reasonably similar camps near by, involving the same quality of rare spawns/drops if applicable, where the low level should instead go and claim his own camp. It may be up to the high level to explain this to the lower level, in the common case of clueless low levels. Low levels who remain unreasonably clueless have no right to the claimed camp of a high level.
A camper team made up of a much higher level and a like leveled player counts as a high level in the case of low levels wanting the camp. The same high level/low level team counts as a low level in the case of high levels who have claimed the camp (bring a noob!). This way helping others is promoted, but players accomplishing challenging tasks without "extreme" help (such as that provided by someone who is significantly higher level than a camp), is still first and foremost in game values.
Players who own more than one camp must designate one camp as their "main camp". They are considered as high levels for all other camps. This helps to ensure that every reasonably leveled individual gets a piece of contested content.
____
Two separate parties at the same camp:
In the case of two players reaching or borrowing a camp at relatively the same time, it is best that they group. If this is not possible, then the one who arrived first AND (in the case of arriving at the exact same time) gets to work on it, even by seconds, does own it. Beyond that, the players unfortunately will need to work it out among themselves, perhaps even sharing the camp based on which parts they individually got to work on first. GM intervention is not needed unless the bashing of heads reaches a point where game rules are broken.
Someone who is currently breaking gameplay rules cannot own a camp.