We understand the concept of a camp , the argument is there will be a lack of CS to enforce 50 + petitions about someone stole my camp. Also who is going to define camps? You ?
Also no offense , P99 is horrid example. The entire reason camps being defined can be seen in p99 , any top end camp you will never see due to being perma camped. I have no problems owning a camp and then shifting it with my guildys for a entire expansion and selling you drops.
The point im making is you seem to want to ignore the root cause of the issue. The issue is the ability to monopolize content pure and simple, with camps that does neither.
Xxar said: ... I have no problems owning a camp and then shifting it with my guildys for a entire expansion and selling you drops.The point im making is you seem to want to ignore the root cause of the issue. The issue is the ability to monopolize content pure and simple ...
Yep, trying to drive that point home seems an exercise in futility. Every game that has static competitive drops, static spawn points, static respawn timers, and static named/special mob locations (like Pantheon, so far) will have this problem, forever.
Which is why most modern games solved/would solve this by NOT having static competitive drops, NOT having static spawn points, NOT having static respawn timers, and NOT having static named/special mob locations. Instead they used or would use innovative and fun mechanics that remove the social toxicity and content monopolization of all of these 1999 implementations.
And by all means, the first one of you white knights ready to stand up and say "pantheon won't be like that". Awesome. Great. I couldn't be happier if that's true.. Just as soon as there's a video demonstrating that, or a dev quote from 2018 that claims that, I will be wrong, and happy to be wrong. So far, though? Every video, interview, quote, podcast, demo, posting or newsletter indicates it will be: static competitive drops, static spawn points, static respawn timers, and static named/special mob locations.
Which means what Xxar said will be the comic reality of Pantheon, post launch, forever, until changed.
X
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.
I definitely think this is the better way to go. Any of the problems people have mentioned about FTE seem so minor to all posts on peoples opinions on camps and how camps are managed.
The most successful mmo's have had this system, and I definitely prefer it.
Xxar said:We understand the concept of a camp , the argument is there will be a lack of CS to enforce 50 + petitions about someone stole my camp. Also who is going to define camps? You ?
Also no offense , P99 is horrid example. The entire reason camps being defined can be seen in p99 , any top end camp you will never see due to being perma camped. I have no problems owning a camp and then shifting it with my guildys for a entire expansion and selling you drops.
The point im making is you seem to want to ignore the root cause of the issue. The issue is the ability to monopolize content pure and simple, with camps that does neither.
No, the argument is:
Beefcake said:Camps, what are they and who owns them?
Please see the original post for further details on what this thread is about.
When it comes to petitions, recent tech simplifies it. Most people can take and send screenshots/videos quickly. These things are pretty easy to view and analyze, so it should help. Beyond that, it's VR's problem, and if they need help with getting more staff or simplify-ing their jobs, I imagine they will start a thread that is actually about that.
If needed, VR will define ultimately what a "camp" is, perhaps based on player input. It's what they do. I don't really see an issue with them defining that; it's their game. I trust VR enough to come up with something that is at least somewhat reasonable.
In the mean time, OP asked us to define "camps" on our own for the sake of this particular thread.
As to your second paragraph, I believe you were making my point? Camp rules are needed to stop things like what we see in p99 from happening IMO. But again, that's not really what this thread is about.
Finally, of course I'm ignoring the "root cause" of the issue. It's not the topic of this thread.
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
This has absolutely been changed from the way it was in Vanilla EQ...Daybreak is another company, is not SOE. I guess its their right to reform the rules, and make it hands off and devil take the hindmost when it comes to enforcing any rules, whatsoever. Its yet another reason why I left Agnarr...it was a freeforall there.
vjek said:Xxar said: ... I have no problems owning a camp and then shifting it with my guildys for a entire expansion and selling you drops.The point im making is you seem to want to ignore the root cause of the issue. The issue is the ability to monopolize content pure and simple ...
Yep, trying to drive that point home seems an exercise in futility. Every game that has static competitive drops, static spawn points, static respawn timers, and static named/special mob locations (like Pantheon, so far) will have this problem, forever.
Which is why most modern games solved/would solve this by NOT having static competitive drops, NOT having static spawn points, NOT having static respawn timers, and NOT having static named/special mob locations. Instead they used or would use innovative and fun mechanics that remove the social toxicity and content monopolization of all of these 1999 implementations.
Which means what Xxar said will be the comic reality of Pantheon, post launch, forever, until changed.
And yet it might not even matter if a guild locked down a specific spawn in the event named mobs are static in location. It's entirely possible that crafters will play into the mix and be able to craft most items that might end up being locked up by some shitty guild intent on content blocking.
Per the FAQ:
With as many horizontal content paths as we’re going to have, you’re going to want to seek crafters for those very specific situations. Instead of having to farm a specific piece of gear, it might be more beneficial to find a crafter with that recipe.
Some items drop when you kill a mob while others are harvestable and others are crafted. Other than a few class-specific rewards, such as epic quest items, many items will be craftable.
Also FTE doesn't solve anything, any half decent named spawn devolves into a PvP nightmare that shuts down any potential exp grouping in the location since pulling something means you might miss the named spawn so you have a bunch of groups just standing around eyeing one another or spamming aoe.
The only effective means is a solid Play Nice Policy respecting camps. People aren't going to be running around being asses and stealing camps when their account could be on the line.
FTE solves that entirely , if you tag a mob that mob is locked to you.
The mob will not engage another player only you , also other players can not interfer with the encounter this makes training either extreamly hard or intentional being a rules violation.
The play nice policy , once again has already been proven not to work ... it did not work in eq1 or current eq and still has not addressed the ability to lockdown encounters forever.
I will play devils advocate and lets say we have a play nice policy.
We are in a low population zone , with a high value item , crafting drop or whatever you want to say xxx item is that drops at this specific camp.
There are no other picks due to the zones population , I own the camp. What are you going to do ? Wait? Thats fine.. because once im done or close to camping im inviting Bob in my guild to continue the camp with my guild and as we all log off , we will continue to own the camp and use the play nice policy as a excuss by keep inviting guildys into the camp FOREVER if the value of the item is deemed worth the effort.
Do you want the drop ? You need it for a epic lets say , well im going to charge you 5 x market value for it or even worse RMT it. Do not like that .. tough luck. Because of the play nice policy vs a chance to engage in a FTE enviroment.
If you train us , because there is no FTE it becomes a bannable offense since we owned the camp remember. Trust me we know fraps inside and out , if we are not live streaming.
This also becomes a CS nightmare , guide nightmare whatever because guess what. There are probably 500 petitions about the exact same thing spread through the game.
The point im making is the camp concept is dead and has been since 99.
If you have a valid suggestion , or can enlighten me on how you think the above situation will resolve itself that prevents the monopolization of content I am all for it.
The entire concept of camps is a logistical nightmare and almost unrealistic to enforce.
Iksar said:Also FTE doesn't solve anything, any half decent named spawn devolves into a PvP nightmare that shuts down any potential exp grouping in the location since pulling something means you might miss the named spawn so you have a bunch of groups just standing around eyeing one another or spamming aoe.
The only effective means is a solid Play Nice Policy respecting camps. People aren't going to be running around being asses and stealing camps when their account could be on the line.
Xxar said:FTE solves that entirely , if you tag a mob that mob is locked to you.
The mob will not engage another player only you , also other players can not interfer with the encounter this makes training either extreamly hard or intentional being a rules violation.
The play nice policy , once again has already been proven not to work ... it did not work in eq1 or current eq and still has not addressed the ability to lockdown encounters forever.
I will play devils advocate and lets say we have a play nice policy.
We are in a low population zone , with a high value item , crafting drop or whatever you want to say xxx item is that drops at this specific camp.
There are no other picks due to the zones population , I own the camp. What are you going to do ? Wait? Thats fine.. because once im done or close to camping im inviting Bob in my guild to continue the camp with my guild and as we all log off , we will continue to own the camp and use the play nice policy as a excuss by keep inviting guildys into the camp FOREVER if the value of the item is deemed worth the effort.
Do you want the drop ? You need it for a epic lets say , well im going to charge you 5 x market value for it or even worse RMT it. Do not like that .. tough luck. Because of the play nice policy vs a chance to engage in a FTE enviroment.
If you train us , because there is no FTE it becomes a bannable offense since we owned the camp remember. Trust me we know fraps inside and out , if we are not live streaming.
This also becomes a CS nightmare , guide nightmare whatever because guess what. There are probably 500 petitions about the exact same thing spread through the game.
The point im making is the camp concept is dead and has been since 99.
If you have a valid suggestion , or can enlighten me on how you think the above situation will resolve itself that prevents the monopolization of content I am all for it.
The entire concept of camps is a logistical nightmare and almost unrealistic to enforce.
Sorry to push you back, but FTE is against any immersive situation. You engage, no one can help, where is the RPG or even the MMO aspect ? If you're playing MMO's to fights mobs alone or exclusively with your grouped teamate, that's not an MMO, that's instancied fighting to some extent.
You seem to consider the play nice policy is solely a "First here served", but it also includes letting things go when you're done, and not inviting people to skip the line. Whatever failure it is to you eyes, is only relevant to the risks or reward or doing so. But whatever failure it is, it remains better than "overlockdown fighting" that EQ2 brought, as it was the major breakdown I had when playing the game when it released.
I'll follow you example putting another situation :
You have a FTE hard coded rule, and camp an epic drop or whatever. 5 hours straigth, you didn't sleep to keep the camp up, the night feel lonely but whatever.
The sun rises outside while you await, and then a guy comes to your 5 hours long camp and wait next to you.
Whatever, this is FTE right ?
The placeholder spawns and it's the rare ! He cast an instant PBAOE and tag the mob, kills it, and loot the drops before gating away. 5 hours straight in the camp, sleep deprivated, and a day off just to get your rare snapped away. How many times did you clean the PH ? How long before it respawns ? Is there an internal timer of several hours before he comes back ?
What FTE will favor, is not people going in, or out, beeing in line or waiting for their turn. Everyone will just amass in the same spawn spot and spam skills in order to tag it first, no one will care about helping others or making things faster, because there is no such need. You come, whenever you want, you try your luck in the slotmachine, and you can be done in 5 min skipping every hard waiter's turn, or wait hours long spamming to tag the named.
I know MMO's players can be pretty extreme with permacamps and people never sleeping or working, but my guess is Pantheon will be built around the specific observations of EQ1's experience, and no longer like an online RPG. Wide zones, less static camps, should help distillate a problem that cursed every FBSS in the world.
Xxar said:FTE solves that entirely , if you tag a mob that mob is locked to you.
The mob will not engage another player only you , also other players can not interfer with the encounter this makes training either extreamly hard or intentional being a rules violation.
The play nice policy , once again has already been proven not to work ... it did not work in eq1 or current eq and still has not addressed the ability to lockdown encounters forever.
I will play devils advocate and lets say we have a play nice policy.
We are in a low population zone , with a high value item , crafting drop or whatever you want to say xxx item is that drops at this specific camp.
There are no other picks due to the zones population , I own the camp. What are you going to do ? Wait? Thats fine.. because once im done or close to camping im inviting Bob in my guild to continue the camp with my guild and as we all log off , we will continue to own the camp and use the play nice policy as a excuss by keep inviting guildys into the camp FOREVER if the value of the item is deemed worth the effort.
Do you want the drop ? You need it for a epic lets say , well im going to charge you 5 x market value for it or even worse RMT it. Do not like that .. tough luck. Because of the play nice policy vs a chance to engage in a FTE enviroment.
If you train us , because there is no FTE it becomes a bannable offense since we owned the camp remember. Trust me we know fraps inside and out , if we are not live streaming.
This also becomes a CS nightmare , guide nightmare whatever because guess what. There are probably 500 petitions about the exact same thing spread through the game.
The point im making is the camp concept is dead and has been since 99.
If you have a valid suggestion , or can enlighten me on how you think the above situation will resolve itself that prevents the monopolization of content I am all for it.
The entire concept of camps is a logistical nightmare and almost unrealistic to enforce.
FTE just makes any camping an absolute nightmare. Any half decent drops will be a massive lottery and guilds can STILL completely shut down others by showing up en masse. In fact, without any sort of respected player camps it will likely become common practice to just roll guilds from named camp to named camp in a big circle hitting things as they spawn. FTE with a complete wild west approach to camps blows so very hard. Having to fight tons of other groups for rare mobs and rarer drops to get every single drop you need (especially in later levels) is awful, hands down.
It also means players wont have much to be excited for when leveling. In a level appropriate dungeon? Don't even think about trying to level up while camping a named/rare mob. If you are actively pulling and trying to get experience with a group then you aren't likely to get any decent drops as other groups will show up to put your group on edge. Best just stick to regular mobs. Think anyone in any pugs will be keen to do any sort of need before greed (as I see a number of players like) when they have to basically engage in PvP for every single drop? Not too likely, that time would better be spent doing other things than sitting in a room doing nothing but staring at a spawn point to help a random get any loot.
That kind of nonsense and lack of camps is a huge reason MMOs ended up with instancing in the first place. That kind of hardcore competition over spawns with no sense or order/rules is not fun for the majority of players. WoW picked instancing up because that's what the old hardcore EQ raiders wanted in raiding/dungeons (people Blizzard hired for their EQ raiding experience or that already worked at Blizzard like Jeff Kaplan, Rob Pardo, Alex Afrasiabi, and even Chris Metzen).
"The play nice policy , once again has already been proven not to work ... it did not work in eq1 or current eq and still has not addressed the ability to lockdown encounters forever."
That's because EQ and the TLP servers don't have a play nice policy that includes camps? It works just fine on P1999 and they have an absolutely tiny CSR team, because they actually enforce camp ownership. As for locking down encounters forever? Give us alternate means to obtain most items like very similar items in multiple zones, crafting, or a means to force spawn named mobs in some way, or even long lockout timers on named mobs so guilds can't lock down spawns (and they would be foolish to have any epic quest mobs able to be locked down and gated by guilds/groups). But don't turn it into a giant cluster of stepping all over one another at every named spawn. If the game does end up like that then I probably won't want to play it or perhaps I'll happily engage in RMT to just buy whatever items I need because that sounds more fun than fighting tons of players over and over and over again to try and fill my characters slots.
FTE (and MDD) in the absence of a play nice policy establishing and respecting player camps is like Black Friday at Walmart. Doors open to people getting trampled (and killed) as hordes make mad dashes for the best items; even those that get what they are after don't have a good time and usually leave with bruises. I'd much rather have waiting in a line however long with numbers handed out to those who have been camping outside the door the longest. First come, first served.
The alternative is the 5 necro box with a wiz that just sits on top of a spawn point.
We can go back and forth all day long, I stated my reasons and view point on it. I prefer to have a viable option for lower level players vs higher level players.
The same can be stated for DPS raced checks ie 50.1%... I guess it sucks to be that warrior or paladin vs a wizard even if the content is trivial.
I do not see how FTE engage is a nightmare from a CS view point in the comparison , removing the option to even make it be a /petition solves the issue out of the gate.
In comparison to some imaginary circle that you think is justified as a camp, that I might not even view it as such ? See there is already issues because that mob over there is not part of the camp. Why , even make it a issue is the point im trying to make. Are the dev's going to color code each camp or say what each area is a defined camp ? I do not think so...
Moving on !
The reality is P99 is exactly how I stated, if you do not think so then try and run some top end camps , there perma camped period. Also no offense , the P99 staff are flat out corrupt but that is a entirely different topic.
There are reason's that eq moved away from a play nice policy , because once again it is almost entirely unable to be enforced from a CS standpoint .
If you even had a dedicated staff for it the sheer amount of /petions is almost counter productive not to mention solves nothing at the specific time. I train you ! OK ! /petition guess what you are still dead , lost the camp and reality is it probably will not be addressed , if at all for hours. This once again , has not solved the core issue of monopolizing content , waste of time for everyone involved , sheer amount of frustration for all involved and no offense a flat out waste of a CS time that can be used like solving real issues in the game..
This can be compounded when we start talking bots (they will be around) where the ban effect has no effect what so ever and that is being generous. So why not have a mechanic in place ?
Also if you do not think content will be gated and can't be locked down for epics being a example or even progression then either you are viewing eq with rose colored glasses or I don't know wtf you are talking about.
That is the exact reason servers started rotations on raid targets in the first place, because it was doable and it started to become a CS nightmare. Also using P99 since you seem familiar with that ... look at the fricken raid suspension listing .. in a commercialized game those be bans a large % of the time.
I stated my piece and am good either way, if its camps gl il be selling loot rights :)
Xxar said:The alternative is the 5 necro box with a wiz that just sits on top of a spawn point.
We can go back and forth all day long, I stated my reasons and view point on it. I prefer to have a viable option for lower level players vs higher level players.
The same can be stated for DPS raced checks ie 50.1%... I guess it sucks to be that warrior or paladin vs a wizard even if the content is trivial.
Which is they I suggested alternatives to get the drop(s) in other places/by other means. Also no need to worry about racing others with PNP camps.
Xxar said:I do not see how FTE engage is a nightmare from a CS view point in the comparison , removing the option to even make it be a /petition solves the issue out of the gate.
In comparison to some imaginary circle that you think is justified as a camp, that I might not even view it as such ? See there is already issues because that mob over there is not part of the camp. Why , even make it a issue is the point im trying to make. Are the dev's going to color code each camp or say what each area is a defined camp ? I do not think so...
It's a nightmare from a player perspective (FTE or MDD without PNP backed camp claims) and does the opposite of building a strong cooperative player community as the entire community outside of ones group/guild are the enemy/competition. A cutthroat community where players don't trust one another and seeing another group near puts players on edge. A camp isn't incredibly difficult to define: a camp includes a specific named/rare mob and it's placeholders, all other NPCs in the area are up to the players to find a compromise.
I imagine most players would MUCH prefer being able to just chill with their group and camp a spot leveling and possibly getting a rare spawn pop vs. being in a tense group situation with everyone on edge trying to beat other players to the punch. But maybe I am crazy for thinking that?
Creating order for camps/rare spawns falls FAR more in-line with "If a player consistently ruins the fun and entertainment of other players he or she will no longer be welcome to play Pantheon." Compared to having a group hold down a spot camping a named for a few hours only to have another group stroll up for 5 minutes and snatch up the named pop "should have been faster to tag the mob, bro."
Xxar said:The reality is P99 is exactly how I stated, if you do not think so then try and run some top end camps , there perma camped period. Also no offense , the P99 staff are flat out corrupt but that is a entirely different topic.
There are reason's that eq moved away from a play nice policy , because once again it is almost entirely unable to be enforced from a CS standpoint .
If you even had a dedicated staff for it the sheer amount of /petions is almost counter productive not to mention solves nothing at the specific time. I train you ! OK ! /petition guess what you are still dead , lost the camp and reality is it probably will not be addressed , if at all for hours. This once again , has not solved the core issue of monopolizing content , waste of time for everyone involved , sheer amount of frustration for all involved and no offense a flat out waste of a CS time that can be used like solving real issues in the game..
Training and camp theft is a far more risky endeavor these days where most anyone can record with the touch of a button. It isn't very demanding on even lower end PCs anymore and the software is even baked into Windows as well as offered with graphic cards and plenty of places online. I'm sure the devs could also configure means to keep track of all kinds of player & group locations/activities. "Well it shows here you went around picking up mobs then ran to this out of the way room and feigned death next to this other group."
Xxar said:This can be compounded when we start talking bots (they will be around) where the ban effect has no effect what so ever and that is being generous. So why not have a mechanic in place ?
Also if you do not think content will be gated and can't be locked down for epics being a example or even progression then either you are viewing eq with rose colored glasses or I don't know wtf you are talking about.
That is the exact reason servers started rotations on raid targets in the first place, because it was doable and it started to become a CS nightmare. Also using P99 since you seem familiar with that ... look at the fricken raid suspension listing .. in a commercialized game those be bans a large % of the time.
I stated my piece and am good either way, if its camps gl il be selling loot rights :)
Not sure why banning bots would have zero effect. And this isn't EQ, yes things were gated in EQ at times but I'd like to think lessons have been learned and it can be planned around by now. Simple solution to stopping players from gating something like that would be, again, giving other means for players to force spawn the mob they need. Could be as easy as having very rare drops from any mob in the zone where after x number are collected they can be turned in/used to spawn the mob they need for whatever item it the quest requires.
There are better solutions than a thinly veiled PvP/Group vs Group FFA on any and all camps/named/rare mobs.
Xxar said:The alternative is the 5 necro box with a wiz that just sits on top of a spawn point.
We can go back and forth all day long, I stated my reasons and view point on it. I prefer to have a viable option for lower level players vs higher level players.
The same can be stated for DPS raced checks ie 50.1%... I guess it sucks to be that warrior or paladin vs a wizard even if the content is trivial.
I do not see how FTE engage is a nightmare from a CS view point in the comparison , removing the option to even make it be a /petition solves the issue out of the gate.
In comparison to some imaginary circle that you think is justified as a camp, that I might not even view it as such ? See there is already issues because that mob over there is not part of the camp. Why , even make it a issue is the point im trying to make. Are the dev's going to color code each camp or say what each area is a defined camp ? I do not think so...
Moving on !
The reality is P99 is exactly how I stated, if you do not think so then try and run some top end camps , there perma camped period. Also no offense , the P99 staff are flat out corrupt but that is a entirely different topic.
There are reason's that eq moved away from a play nice policy , because once again it is almost entirely unable to be enforced from a CS standpoint .
If you even had a dedicated staff for it the sheer amount of /petions is almost counter productive not to mention solves nothing at the specific time. I train you ! OK ! /petition guess what you are still dead , lost the camp and reality is it probably will not be addressed , if at all for hours. This once again , has not solved the core issue of monopolizing content , waste of time for everyone involved , sheer amount of frustration for all involved and no offense a flat out waste of a CS time that can be used like solving real issues in the game..
This can be compounded when we start talking bots (they will be around) where the ban effect has no effect what so ever and that is being generous. So why not have a mechanic in place ?
Also if you do not think content will be gated and can't be locked down for epics being a example or even progression then either you are viewing eq with rose colored glasses or I don't know wtf you are talking about.
That is the exact reason servers started rotations on raid targets in the first place, because it was doable and it started to become a CS nightmare. Also using P99 since you seem familiar with that ... look at the fricken raid suspension listing .. in a commercialized game those be bans a large % of the time.
I stated my piece and am good either way, if its camps gl il be selling loot rights :)
I have a hard time understanding how you can be against any other opinion than yours, and end up saying if yours is not chosen, you will abuse it as much as possible nonetheless.
Having a moral and getting rights into your own shoes also implies favoring community positive attitudes. If you end up saying "If it's not like it it will be against community and I will do it myself", just means you accept having a moral attitude only if everyone is forced so, end trash it if you feel on the shorter end of the stick.
Fortunately, for communities to prosper and games to feel good for everyone, not everyone is acting as bad as possible because they pretend they are forced to, or even the whole world would be an awfull mess in every country.
TLDR: Who owns camps? First combat-ready group there. I want a mechanic for people to "lay claim" to their camp spot.
Who owns a camp - Doesn't matter what kind of mob claiming system there is. The only system of camp ownership that makes sense to me is first come first serve. You need to be physically present and killing or protecting an area (some leeway for wipes and group member replacements, but leeway is subjective and not mandatory/enforceable). To that end, I would argue that a mechanic should be included to indicate how long a group has been protecting an area. I don't want anything that tries to enforce ownership of camps, just something that can be used to provide information to settle disputes. E.g. if you have kept your campfire burning in the throne room (assuming that requires physical presence and defending against nearby enemies) for 1 hour, then you can use that as evidence against someone who steals mobs from the throne room. I would love a system that allows you to lay claim over a variable region size (like placing 1 campfire per group member), but enemies will put them out if you don't protect them.
(WARNING: This is just me thinking and not based on sociology) I'm sure the devs have taken a look at real life social situations and "community enforcement" of rules. People are discouraged from acting against accepted social norms by consequences, which can come from an authority, by vigilantism, or by social pressure. When it comes to camps the authority figure (CS reps) must have some form of rules and adequate information to enforce. As previously stated, information is easier to come by (vids/screenshots), but how do you prove camp ownership with those? Vigilantism only really works in PvP servers, unless we are talking about trains, which seems a bit griefy to me. In my opinion social pressure is an important piece of the puzzle, but also one that is tough to implement in camps. Nobody outside your group really has a vested interest in whether you or a camp-thief ends retains ownership of your camp. Even if they do, how can they make judgement without information in a he-said-she-said situation? If you provide information based on some loose rules (CS reps can work with loose rules because they can subjectively enforce rules), then I think the community can start to get involved.
Stealing of individual mobs (not camps) - This is impacted by FTE/MDD. In MDD if you want to claim/steal a mob you have a bit of a struggle on your hand, as the opposing side will fight back. I believe that having to struggle against your opponent will provide a bit of social pressure not to do it, but that's only a minor effect. In FTE if you want to claim/steal a mob, then the opposing side cannot fight back, so there is less social pressure at play discouraging mob theft. I don't think the FTE/MDD debate has a huge impact on how camps function. It just changes how things are stolen and has little impact on determining who is the owner or thief.
Just throwing out here that the only reason P99 is a bad example of camps, at the moment, is because of how top-heavy and stagnated the content is. When you have such a giant population of top level players in a game that doesn't throw out more content, you'll obviously get some perma-camping going on. Since we all assume, and hope, that VR will be chugging out new content and xpacs on a regular basis, that won't be nearly as big of a problem.
Throw Luclin and PoP out to the P99 masses, and many of those perma-campers would disburse.
Guilds will hold camps for 72 plus hours! I certainly hope their are no static one room boss spawns. In everquest prior to any expansions our guild held the camp for FFBSS for over a week. Had a line up the whole time to join the group including non-guild members during off hours.
The 50.1 percent damage rule stinks to high hell. A lone high dps toon can out damage a small group able to tank and kill a mob while the lone high dps would be killed but since they pile on the damage they get the kill. Saw this happen a number of times in eq usually a wizard kill steels a small groups of 3 or 4 peeps boss mobs.. In crushbone we were camping emperor Crush. We had a shaman, warrior, ranger and enchanter. Up comes a wizard who would just wait for us to pull the emperor then steel the kill. No way in hell could that wizard solo the emperor and did not want to join our group. I ended up challenging her to a duel which she accepted we faught at the zone line and i killed her kill stealing arse. Had buffs from practically the whole zone all were watching the duel. Apparently said wizard was doing the same thing to others. She though a ranger would be easy pickings she found out how wrong she was. Of course she came back and started kill stealing again and would not except challenges. Something can be said about pvp. if it was pvp she would be perma killed by the whole bloody zone.
Perhaps the mob should go to the person who mitigates the most damage instead of doing the most damage for a change! To be honest if mmos got rid of dps things would go a lot better. Tank, healer, buffer, crowd control, specialist. All do similar damage some may be better at ae damage others single target. But thats a different arguement for a different thread.
Cynwulf said:Guilds will hold camps for 72 plus hours! I certainly hope their are no static one room boss spawns. In everquest prior to any expansions our guild held the camp for FFBSS for over a week. Had a line up the whole time to join the group including non-guild members during off hours.
The game is not out yet and content skipping has been said unwanted. Not sure it will be possible to reach a "camp" area alone with invis/ FD/ hide or hold it in close numbers. If respawns are sometimes erratic, and way over the usual level of the camp, it might also wipe any solo camper.
Cynwulf said:The 50.1 percent damage rule stinks to high hell. A lone high dps toon can out damage a small group able to tank and kill a mob while the lone high dps would be killed but since they pile on the damage they get the kill. Saw this happen a number of times in eq usually a wizard kill steels a small groups of 3 or 4 peeps boss mobs.. In crushbone we were camping emperor Crush. We had a shaman, warrior, ranger and enchanter. Up comes a wizard who would just wait for us to pull the emperor then steel the kill. No way in hell could that wizard solo the emperor and did not want to join our group. I ended up challenging her to a duel which she accepted we faught at the zone line and i killed her kill stealing arse. Had buffs from practically the whole zone all were watching the duel. Apparently said wizard was doing the same thing to others. She though a ranger would be easy pickings she found out how wrong she was. Of course she came back and started kill stealing again and would not except challenges. Something can be said about pvp. if it was pvp she would be perma killed by the whole bloody zone.
Perhaps the mob should go to the person who mitigates the most damage instead of doing the most damage for a change! To be honest if mmos got rid of dps things would go a lot better. Tank, healer, buffer, crowd control, specialist. All do similar damage some may be better at ae damage others single target. But thats a different arguement for a different thread.
Not to argue against you, I agree this issue had been lived and is not unhappening, but is it truly a common issue ? I mean, how often on various play session do you get KSed by a toxic player like that ? I played Eq for probably 3+ years, casual at first, every evening at last, and I am SURE I got Ksed sometimes but not enough to remember it freshly. Neither zones, classes, names or bosses can come to my mind and I really see it as an isolated issue.
KSing is as bad as griefing, as it is some sort of griefing. But does the game need a complex mechanic or complete overhaul at the risk of creating as much bad situation, only to solve a bad behaviour that can be either solved community wise (forced to be alone), or Customer support wise ?
Joppa said that griefing will become customer support issue, and while one or an other KS won't be an argument to act against a player, multiple and frequent issues about the same player won't be ignored I'm sure.
I haven't met much griefers in EQ1, and way more bad behaviour on P99, I would then call it an issue that need a mechanic to deal with outside of Community / Customer's support.
Sometimes I think we all worry too much about the toxic sesspool of players we have encountered in many recent games, and forget how little of a problem it truly was in a game where community and reputation count.
Yes, there is the issue with Toxic guilds, but that should be too hard for VR to police. If an entire guild is partaking in play that in generally considered rude/wrong, it would not be hard to prove, and then lay down the hammer.
While I understand the worry about guilds using the rules of a camp to own a camp for a long time, I do think we can make more generalized rules with VR playing as judge and jury to counter it. In one of my previous posts I made up an example of where, if you can prove someone is camping "maliciously" for longer than like 48 hours, you can petition gms to maybe enforce a rotation or something along those lines.
By having at least a "soft" rule in place you can enforce things like this on a case by case basis without much worry. Honestly just a warning message from VR stating that; 'if you do "this" for much longer, you will be forcibly removed from the camp', would be more than enough to make most groups move on.
And of course, depending on how crafting and "different camping options" play out, overly camping any one thing might not be much of an issue. (But it's not guaranteed yet, we just don't know how small the gear world really is gonna be).
Without reading through the entire post, and I will and edit if necessary, I will provide my input:
After playing through both Everquest 2, and Rift, I have to side with first to engage being coded into the game. Everquest 2 had a lock feature that didn't allow people to interfere with your encounter: meaning once your group engaged only your group could fight the mob. This prevent zerging contested raid mobs as well as group content, and made trolling just a little more difficult. ( there was a point where raid encounters wouldn't autolock and you could literally pull overworld raid mobs away from a rival raiding guild).
Rift also was first to engage, although it didn't matter who had agro. Additionally, if two groups damaged a mob (even if they weren't linked in a raid) I believe it still gave quest updates.
As a competitive person, I would rather FTE where rewards are locked to one group would be the choice, vice the way it was done in Rift. However the way it was done in Rift did allow for more people to get updates for quest monsters, in addition to preventing trolling. My arguments against DPS race is that method has absolutely no way to prevent against trolling, over-geared or over-leveled players could easily troll other groups for total aggro and DPS, and prevent them from claiming the camp. Additionally, stealing aggro and running the mob around could be another potential issue if players are not allowed to lock the camp.
To address some of the posts I have read: Scripting. This was a problem in EQ1, and eventually was a farming technique that was used in EQ2. This is something that's often against EAOS and can be reported against. There's no method for controlling a camp that will prevent scripting. They could just as easily run a 6 player script with max aggro/DPS rotations that could still steal your camp just as easily.
Second, community. I'm sorry, but every single MMO I have ever played there are enough toxic players in the community that without locking encounters trolling will become an issue. Especially if the game has end-game raiding as a focus. Do you think competing guilds wouldn't lock down key progression mobs to keep their rivals from moving forward? I know 10 years ago that I would have. Your community attitude will do nothing to address this issue. I know there are a lot of P1999 players here, and this game won't be your tight knit community. The MMORPG market is hungry for a game that's done right, and if Pantheon isn't a total failure out of the gate I would expect somewhere in the range of 1-2 million players pretty early. Competition brings out the worst in people, and I'd rather just race them to a camp rather than have to fight them for it while I kill it, too.
Skaer said:Without reading through the entire post, and I will and edit if necessary, I will provide my input:
After playing through both Everquest 2, and Rift, I have to side with first to engage being coded into the game. Everquest 2 had a lock feature that didn't allow people to interfere with your encounter: meaning once your group engaged only your group could fight the mob. This prevent zerging contested raid mobs as well as group content, and made trolling just a little more difficult. ( there was a point where raid encounters wouldn't autolock and you could literally pull overworld raid mobs away from a rival raiding guild).
Rift also was first to engage, although it didn't matter who had agro. Additionally, if two groups damaged a mob (even if they weren't linked in a raid) I believe it still gave quest updates.
As a competitive person, I would rather FTE where rewards are locked to one group would be the choice, vice the way it was done in Rift. However the way it was done in Rift did allow for more people to get updates for quest monsters, in addition to preventing trolling. My arguments against DPS race is that method has absolutely no way to prevent against trolling, over-geared or over-leveled players could easily troll other groups for total aggro and DPS, and prevent them from claiming the camp. Additionally, stealing aggro and running the mob around could be another potential issue if players are not allowed to lock the camp.
Good points
To address some of the posts I have read: Scripting. This was a problem in EQ1, and eventually was a farming technique that was used in EQ2. This is something that's often against EAOS and can be reported against. There's no method for controlling a camp that will prevent scripting. They could just as easily run a 6 player script with max aggro/DPS rotations that could still steal your camp just as easily.
I had forgotten about his tactic and I can remember many games where it was used.
Second, community. I'm sorry, but every single MMO I have ever played there are enough toxic players in the community that without locking encounters trolling will become an issue. Especially if the game has end-game raiding as a focus. Do you think competing guilds wouldn't lock down key progression mobs to keep their rivals from moving forward? I know 10 years ago that I would have. Your community attitude will do nothing to address this issue. I know there are a lot of P1999 players here, and this game won't be your tight knit community. The MMORPG market is hungry for a game that's done right, and if Pantheon isn't a total failure out of the gate I would expect somewhere in the range of 1-2 million players pretty early. Competition brings out the worst in people, and I'd rather just race them to a camp rather than have to fight them for it while I kill it, too.
This has had me concerned for a while. I know there is a large number of us that will obey the rules or even community controlled. The number of people that flat don't care is far larger than I care to admit and unless some form of camp control is enforced it will be open season in Terminus. Competitive guilds are far more aggressive than they were back in the EQ days. Yeah, we had a few that were over the top but now you have groups wearing that game play as a badge.
I can remember getting trained and losing my spot because of it. I know I will be playing a bunch but the sitting and waiting for hours on end like I used to may not be possible. Not saying lock them down or force the mechanics to claim or ownership but a solid look at this practice is needed.
Good discussion guys!
Camps are a pretty easy thing to understand and enforce via player self-policing.
The way I defined "owning a camp" was easy: 1) Nobody was there when I/we got there, 2) I/we "broke" the camp by getting however many spawns inside the camp's radius into a proper, regulated spawn/kill cycle, 3) I/we are clearly there, working that spawn/kill rotation.
In my EQ1 time, my necro broke and held many camps, and on plenty of occasions, people playing classes not nearly as suited to that process as necros would decide I needed to share my rotation, almost always with a /tell of "SOE doesn't recognize camps". In every case, maybe just because my frustration led to gaming poorly, I tended to overpull and would need to feign death to avoid being killed, and oh darn, the camp stealer got all those mobs on them...my bad, so sorry.
Everyone knows what a camp is. Everyone knows when someone has it locked. You can grief the camp holder and use the "no recognize teh campz" nonsense, or you can find other stuff to kill/do, and maybe even toss a pleasant request to ask camp holder to ping you if they are going to leave so you can take over maybe? If I ca hold a rotation down that is 2-3x what you can, that doesn't mean I have to share, it means you can go elsehwere and find your own camp to break, and I will sit where I am and grind exp.
Self-policing by the players worked just fine for years in EQ1. It can work again in Pantheon.