philo said:I understand the point you are making but I don't feel it hits the mark.
Reputation only matters when you are established in the community. That takes time.
Im sure the group was upset at you but you were looting a mid lvl item. The reason why there was no repercussion is because it didn't really matter so you didn't notice any backlash. If you had been on a high end raid and ninja looted a rare drop item I guarantee you it would have been different.
When using early EQ as an example, mid level players...even high level players that didn't raid... always had a difficult time earning reputation because they were never participating in challenging content that people really cared about.
I get that, but what you are talking about is top level play. I for one won't fund a game that only worries about, and creates safety nets, for it's top level players.
Once you join a top tier guild you won't have to worry about trolls isn't good enough.
What about everyone else?
Newer players especially aren't gonna care if you tell them the item that just got ninjad is only mid level and they shouldn't worry because someday the ninja won't be able to join a really big guild.
VR Kilsin Has said they plain on locking raid pulls to the raid that pulls aka first in force. If they dont put this for all mobs they are say Just that trolls are ok to grief lower level players non raiders. That is admiting its a problem or they would not lock raid incounters.
I agree with the disappointment in the seeming "only guilds are important" message.
I will probably do the guild/raid thing, but I have friends who aren't as interested in that stuff and have been put off in the past when 'normal' camps/mini-bosses and 'casual' encounters are a free-for-all.
The message that GMs/devs are indifferent to annoyance and grief unless you are a 'big' player is not good.
That may not be the message as intended, but we all know that is how it reads.
If it is accepted that certain behaviours are undesirable and mechanics are needed to overcome them in 'important' situations, then it's pretty clear to me that devs don't consider the vast majority of encounters 'important'.
In my not-so-humble opinion, the 99.999% of encounters that average players have day-to-day are much more important to be free of toxicity, grief or annoyance.
A whole bunch of players will never bother getting to the 'important' raid encounters if the rest of the game is habitually unpleasant.
Yes, there is a lot to be said for keeping most encounters truly 'open world' and if it is deemed that only 'raid' encounters should have mechanics to stop 'bad' action, then other 'normal' encounters should at least be covered by publicised, and enforced Play Nice Policy.
I agree with disposalist and others here. To go into more detail on my own approach:
1. Treating raiders differently from others is a bad move that undercuts the very basic principles of the game. Raiding is not more important than other content - it may be *less* important. It is not harder and more complex it is generally easier and *less* complex other than the effort needed to assemble a raid and keep a raid under control. Just as Pantheon will have a niche where grouping is more important than soloing, grouping should be more important than raiding. Many games focus on raiding and treat the rest of the game as an inconvenience needed to overcome to get to the only important thing - endgame raids. I have hoped and still hope that Pantheon will not be another in the endless stream of such games.
2. Regardless of point one - MMOs live and die based on first impressions - certainly in the early stages of their life cycles. If as a level 5 I need to kill pigs (for quests or because those are the primary available mob to camp) I will never become a level 50 enjoying the carefully protected raids if I cannot kill pigs because they keep getting taken away by higher level characters, griefers and killstealers. I will become an ex-subscriber. Getting people to enjoy landscape quests and camps is absolutely essential to having them stick around to enjoy dungeons and the game's focus on guilds and grouping.
3. Many players view MMOs as more cooperative than competitive. They view other players they see in the world more as potential allies and future groupmates and guildmates rather than enemies to steal nodes and mobs from because if you don't do this to them they will assuredly do it to you. This is definitely my own bias. Game mechanics should discourage or prevent outright stealing of mobs that other people have already gotten to. Not just as a matter of philosophy as a matter of game survival. New customers are unlikely to want a cutthroat game of players stealing mobs and nodes from other players. Not because all players are "nice" - they are not. But because our advertising and reputation will be along the lines of "come play Pantheon where the world will be enjoyed with other players not enjoyed solo until maximum level as in other MMOs". That *is* our intended niche and it *will* attract players who on average gravitate towards cooperation over competition. So have encouters lock when the mob is pulled (first-to-engage) or give anyone that tags a mobs and contributes significantly to the kill quest credit and some of the loot.
dorotea said:3. Many players view MMOs as more cooperative than competitive. They view other players they see in the world more as potential allies and future groupmates and guildmates rather than enemies to steal nodes and mobs from because if you don't do this to them they will assuredly do it to you. This is definitely my own bias. Game mechanics should discourage or prevent outright stealing of mobs that other people have already gotten to. Not just as a matter of philosophy as a matter of game survival. New customers are unlikely to want a cutthroat game of players stealing mobs and nodes from other players. Not because all players are "nice" - they are not. But because our advertising and reputation will be along the lines of "come play Pantheon where the world will be enjoyed with other players not enjoyed solo until maximum level as in other MMOs". That *is* our intended niche and it *will* attract players who on average gravitate towards cooperation over competition. So have encouters lock when the mob is pulled (first-to-engage) or give anyone that tags a mobs and contributes significantly to the kill quest credit and some of the loot.
This is what i would like to see as well I think EQ2 every one on a quest gets credit if in the group was a great system you invited people to work quests with because it was a win for all. I would also like to see a system with the havesting nodes that it spawns its up for say 10mins any one that has the skill can tap it then it despawns you can only tap a node once. Every one that is there gets to tap it once there is no need to fight over them your better off working togeather. This would make group play the Meta in questing and havesting building cooperation over competition.
Some here aren't being realistic.
We should all understand that VR will never be able to regulate most infractions in an open world game.
That is why their perspective has always been that reputation will matter in a game with harsh penalties for failure and the community will police itself to some extent and VR would only step in for very egregious acts. (hopefully the penalties they implement will be harsh enough to matter...im concerned with no level loss)
There are ways to solve these issues but they all end up being against many of the values of this game. Instancing solves it. Personal loot solves some of it. These type of systems are looked upon negatively here.
In the end part of what comes with an open world game is having to interact with other players, both good and bad. You can't only have 1 or the other.
Expect there to be some negative interactions with other players.
(on the bright side, my experience is that purely subscription games with no other way to pay/play have an infinitely more mature community than other type of payment formats)
I agree with philo as well.
But a game design that minimizes abuse is better than one that doesn't. A game design that results in most players thinking the system is fair is better than one where most do not. A game design that minimes the need for VR to step in is better than one that doesn't.
In terms of "play nice" I don't see a good way of solving camp disputes by game mechanics for the reasons discussed above. It just gets too hard to determine with certainty what is a camp, who has it, and did they lose it. Unless VR sets camps up and determines their boundaries - which I doubt if they will or should.
In terms of kill stealing I do see a good way of minimizing problems. Have a simple easy to understand rule that always applies. To oversimplify - either shared credit which makes things too easy but keeps almost everyone happy and encourages cooperation among players; first-to-engage which will strike almost all players as fair (you pull it you own it) though it can be abused when a group is trying to trigger a boss to spawn; or most-damage-done which has advantages but will trigger the maximum number of petitions claiming killstealing and griefing.
There is, of course, a balancing act between freedom and anarchy, same as in real life. But, as in real life, to leave it up to the participants is pretty much crazy.
(As a quick side-note, it's an interesting thought to appreciate that an MMORPG *is* 'real life' - it is real people interactiing with real people with real feelings involved and real consequences. It is perhaps because some people don't treat their online interactions as 'real' that so many problems occur... anyway, back to the post)
Play Nice Policy doesn't have to somehow 100% 'solve' the issue, it just has to provide enough guidance and info to let people know the issues and give indication of what is 'good' for the community.
I do believe that most people want to be 'good' or at least don't want to be 'bad', but things like kill stealing and camping can quickly become quite technical and complex situations and if people don't even know what might be 'right' or 'wrong' or even know what might be considered rude or annoying, then you are simply ignoring the issue and asking for trouble.
It would be crazy for VR not to use its accumulated and combined decades of experience to produce some kind of Play Nice Policy to help guide the community. They can make it clear it is not a legal document and, rather than make it prescriptive and law-like, make it full of broader guidence and examples, but to just not bother and hope for the best? Good grief, why?
Some examples might help?
'Helping'
You might be tempted to help another player in their fight or just get randomly involved in others' combat. It's great to help!
BUT please consider that they may have invested considerable effort and time into the planning of that fight and be happily testing their capabilities. Your 'help' may be unwanted and unappreciated. Ask before getting involved. If it seems they are in serious and imminent danger and you want to 'save' them and don't have time to ask, at least be prepared for them to not be pleased you got involved and apologise if they are angered.
Kill Stealing
If you get involved in others' combat you may end up (especially if more powerful than them) gaining the credit for the kill, even if they were quite capable on their own. This may cause ill feeling and it is advised you try and avoid this.
'Beating' other players
Competition can be fun, but some will not want to 'fight' players over the encounters they are enjoying. Ask before getting involved. Agree to share an area if you find yourself competing for it. At least recognise the situation and communicate about it.
That's clearly not ideal and is just off-the-top-of-my-head right now with no forethought. You get the idea, though, and it would surely be worth VR putting their heads together and coming up with something. They will have had to think about these things when coming up with the mechanics, so why not get it down on pen and paper.
As I imply, you don't even have to tell people explicitly what is 'right' or 'wrong', just explaining the potential points that might cause issues so that people at least have the opportunity to be considerate is going to avoid a lot of grief.
I would actually find it a very interesting read, if done right, to hear the amalgamated thoughts of experienced MMORPG player about player behaviour. It could be done as a guide for communities and list the positive ideas just as much as warn about the negatives.
I could help fiddle with the wording but that is not the point. You are suggesting what is essentially advice to the community rather than rules. Not to the exclusion of also having rules but to supplement them. Just as some games have naming information and advice to help those that care about the lore choose lore-friendly names but the actual *rules* are far more limited even on roleplaying servers.
Good idea - I agree.
If VR does this they should consider posting drafts for community comment. Both to help them correctly state what the community consensus is on courtesy and politeness and to get opinions on what is important enough to mention in such a play nice guide. For example "blind" guild invitations, group invitations, challenges to duel etc. may or may not be considered rude by a consensus of the community. I mention them not to invite discussion on those pointe but purely to add what is entirely obvious -that a "play nice guide" can go beyond encounters with mobs.
Took less than a year for EQ to realize they needed a Play Nice Policy back in 1999. The waters of internet gaming are far more choppy today than ever in the past. Just because they can't 100% enforce such rules doesn't make them useless, plenty enough people change their behavior just by having the rules present.
Xxar said: Why not have a coded solution and simply not have a issue in the first place?
Because being able to say "just code a solution (to greed, agressiveness and deliberately toxic behavior)" doesn't mean that it is possible to do so without fundamentally changing the game into something other than what is intended by the Devs and sought after by the Players.
Which is why starting with coded restrictions PLUS having a stated set of rules that are enforced PLUS having a stated policy (advice that isn't rules) are all three likely to play a necessary part in diminishing such negative behavior to tolerable levels.
@Jothany having encounter locks changes nothing in what "you" consider what was intended by the Devs. What I mean is overall it changes nothing in the aspects of racing , the encounter itself (there mob design) , or any fundemental core aspect of the game ie skills , abilitys or combat itself or how it is handled. It promotes there design goals if anything , since it removes the ability to have malicious game play and for players to complete encounters or zones as intended.
As for a encounter lock itself, if a raid encounter is truely locked to prevent the above type of game play.
Why , not just go the entire way and just do it entirely encounter based instead of creating two types of encounters or any of the negative aspects that come with that type of game play, is my point of view.
Is lower end content not as important ? If anything , it is more important if one of the core tentatives of the game is the journey and community so to speak.
Encounter locks or FTE does alot more to promote the type of enviroment you are trying to create in the first place imo without removing any type of competitive or positive aspects of a designed encounter or area, not to mention freeing up resources ie GMs , guides , CS or whatever to you know... solve real issues in the game or exploits.
Xxar said:@Jothany having encounter locks changes nothing in what "you" consider what was intended by the Devs. What I mean is overall it changes nothing in the aspects of racing , the encounter itself (there mob design) , or any fundemental core aspect of the game ie skills , abilitys or combat itself or how it is handled. It promotes there design goals if anything , since it removes the ability to have malicious game play and for players to complete encounters or zones as intended.
As for a encounter lock itself, if a raid encounter is truely locked to prevent the above type of game play.
Why , not just go the entire way and just do it entirely encounter based instead of creating two types of encounters or any of the negative aspects that come with that type of game play, is my point of view.
Is lower end content not as important ? If anything , it is more important if one of the core tentatives of the game is the journey and community so to speak.
Encounter locks or FTE does alot more to promote the type of enviroment you are trying to create in the first place imo without removing any type of competitive or positive aspects of a designed encounter or area, not to mention freeing up resources ie GMs , guides , CS or whatever to you know... solve real issues in the game or exploits.
Encounter lock is one of the things that made EQ2 feels outside of the MMO pace when it was released. It's only beneficial to the points you gave (like competition), and negative to immersion and the feeling to share the game with others, which is the main point of MMO (far before Competion, which is a side effect of player trying to show themselves).
FTE / Encounter lock is as much exploitable as MDD, because humans want to circle around rules to get to their needs, there is no easy or coded solution here.
FTE does not need to work as it did in eq2 it can give kill to the first to damage and still allow others to heal or damage from out side. Yes I know this will make that a way of Power leveling but so what MDD healing out group and slaying mobs at 45% health PL works with MDD.
Every one keeps talking about real world this is a Fantasy game and setting you want real full pvp lets have a plague roll every moon loose the roll your dead get killed you have to reroll piss off the other player they can kill you and loot all your stuff. Go to town with a bit much gold gaurds toss you in a cell and take it this was real.
Vixx said:FTE does not need to work as it did in eq2 it can give kill to the first to damage and still allow others to heal or damage from out side. Yes I know this will make that a way of Power leveling but so what MDD healing out group and slaying mobs at 45% health PL works with MDD.
Every one keeps talking about real world this is a Fantasy game and setting you want real full pvp lets have a plague roll every moon loose the roll your dead get killed you have to reroll piss off the other player they can kill you and loot all your stuff. Go to town with a bit much gold gaurds toss you in a cell and take it this was real.
Those are things that can be adjusted or removed ie healing outside of group.
You know, did anyone stop to think that a play nice policy and that, start the rise of the solo player? The people that want to play solo are probably some of the same people that played EQ when it came out, and probably couldn't be bothered with being yelled at for trying to be community oriented and social, by wanting to help people if they saw them in trouble or just wanted to do good; only to be screamed at by other players for doing said good. You all want this to be a social game and community oriented, but at the same time, want mechanics (or lack thereof for whatever reason) and policies that give off the clear vibe that the very behavior you seek is unwanted. the examples given contradict what everyone here keeps advertising this game as. Some here have even spoken about people not inherently wanting to do bad, but then suggest in the very same or next post, something that suggests that the person doing good is going to be screamed at and that they should apologize for the good action. This is what leads to people just walking by, people no bothering to group, people not bothering to help with anything, people not bothering to participate in anything, people not caring about other people...which is what a lot of people in these forums complain about being an issue in modern MMOs today.
I would talk to the individual and explain the situation, if that didn't work I would note the name and guild and then play within the rules of the game and community. I would talk to the guild he is in and then let the community know of the situation and see what happens.
If the community or game does nothing to resolve the issue? I would continue playing the game so I guess I would just carry on. If these sort of issues kept popping up and the game or community doesn't respond to them then I would most likely leave the game. I am not going to spend my time in a game that continues to support behavior that I don't like. If that is how Pantheon turns out then the game isn't for me. That is fine though and I have had that happen before, I just move on at that point.
OCastitatisLilium said:Some here have even spoken about people not inherently wanting to do bad, but then suggest in the very same or next post, something that suggests that the person doing good is going to be screamed at and that they should apologize for the good action.
Lol, seeing as that describes exactly some of what I said, I'll explain my thoughts a bit more. It is precisely because I believe that most people want to be 'good' that I suggest VR would be well advised to guide players in this area. If you don't even know what might be considered 'good' or 'bad', then it just means there is more potential for issues.
If I go to a particular foreign country, sit down, take off my hot shoes and stretch out my bare feet and I don't realise it's rude to show the soles of the feet in that country, that doesn't make me a rude person or make the local custom bad, it is simply a misunderstanding. Someone telling me that that is a rude thing in that country wouldn't make me feel bad or make me less sociable, it would make me more confident at being sociable in that country. The more knowledge, the better. Even better if I'd known beforehand. Personally, when I plan to go to a foreign land, I read up on the local language and customs and, yes, rules and laws, so I will feel more confident and be more able to be sociable.
In ones own country you can still fall foul. Perhaps you'd offer to help an old lady cross a busy road and she would get angry at you impying she is too old and incapable of doing it herself. You would apologise for offending her and move on, no? And you wouldn't stop helping people, you'd just be aware that not everyone will want or appreciate unsolicited help, no?
A Play Nice Policy or a Guide to MMORPG Community or whatever you would call it would simply be a way to avoid those misunderstandings and would not in any way put people off being social - quite the opposite - it would give people the confidence to jump into social situations knowing very well what the issues can be.
Issues like kill stealing and camping and loot sharing etc etc are really quite complex. They are even disagreed upon in communities like this one where the majority are very experienced MMORPG players. I don't doubt they have been disagreed upon within VR (in fact, we know they have).
I firmly believe though that a knowledgeable and professional team like VR could come to a concensus on most issues and, where there is none, list the issues and let people decide themselves but at least be aware.
And, no, I don't think that would suppress any community feeling at all. Quite the opposite. Maybe with some people who just can't stand rules in any form, but, as I said, it would be better not being 'rules' but being guidance and examples.
I did say in my post that I had come up with those points in my post on-the-fly with no forethought and that I'm pretty sure VR with some thought would do much better in content and tone.
The counter argument is simple, you can not have a organic social server based enviroment with outside influences dictating what are acceptable norms.
That is what the server decides , that is also what makes a living breathing player driven world.
Walpurgis said:I would talk to the individual and explain the situation, if that didn't work I would note the name and guild and then play within the rules of the game and community. I would talk to the guild he is in and then let the community know of the situation and see what happens.
If the community or game does nothing to resolve the issue? I would continue playing the game so I guess I would just carry on. If these sort of issues kept popping up and the game or community doesn't respond to them then I would most likely leave the game. I am not going to spend my time in a game that continues to support behavior that I don't like. If that is how Pantheon turns out then the game isn't for me. That is fine though and I have had that happen before, I just move on at that point.
The same exact issue that the EverQuest team was faced with in 1999.
Also like any society, we have our underbelly, a relatively small number of people who live to prey upon the honorable. It is frequently the goal of these people to see to their desires, no matter the effect of their actions upon others around them. They are the ones who claim ownership of servers, zones, or spawns, and cause or threaten harm to anyone who does not share their disregard and contempt. They are the ones who live, not to enjoy the game with everyone else, but to enjoy at everyone else’s expense.
For the first few months after EverQuest’s release, we felt that a policy of non-interference in many of these matters was warranted. However, we continued to lose good players. This was not due to any deficiency or dissatisfaction in the game, but due to dissatisfaction with the treatment that they received from their fellow players, and the perceived inability of our Customer Service department to intervene. Late last year, we made a commitment to our players to begin playing an active role in many of these situations.
The intent of these policies is to provide the players with general guidelines for what is or is not acceptable behavior in EverQuest, and give them the opportunity to work out differences prior to involving the EverQuest Customer Service Staff. Naturally, in a game as multifaceted as EverQuest, we are not able to cover every possible issue that could arise as part of these policies. In these cases, it is the spirit of a rule that will prevail over any discrepancies in the letter...
@Iksar Why, even set that mind set or crutch for a player to even think its realistic for customer service to be involved in a player dispute in the first place.
There are reason's why EQ removed the play nice policy , it was unenforceable , costly and or viewed biased.
This is the entire argument of a FTE type of system , it removes the dispute entirely without customer service even being involved.
Xxar said:@Iksar Why, even set that mind set or crutch for a player to even think its realistic for customer service to be involved in a player dispute in the first place.
There are reason's why EQ removed the play nice policy , it was unenforceable , costly and or viewed biased.
This is the entire argument of a FTE type of system , it removes the dispute entirely without customer service even being involved.
And when exactly in the 22 years of EverQuest did they remove the PnP?
When has no barring in the debate , if anything it supports the argument further since there removed.
EQ had the luxury of being the #1 MMO for multiple years, Pantheon will not be afforded such a luxury to make major critical mistakes.
So once again , I do not see the reason to waste resources on nothing productive in essence.
This goes more into the evolution of MMO's at this point , why make mistakes and not learn from the genre since it does not work long term due to reasons already addressed.
Welp , I have given my point on this topic ...
I will play it either way be it the 5+1 cleric box wiz/necro burn group with a 51 % damage rate or if its camp based by having the specific camp rotated inside my guild for the life of a expansion so its perma locked.
But these are the entire types of situations im trying to avoid without the need of the company to try and mediate a solution , when a solution can be implemented from the start.
Xxar said:When has no barring in the debate , if anything it supports the argument further since there removed.
EQ had the luxury of being the #1 MMO for multiple years, Pantheon will not be afforded such a luxury to make major critical mistakes.
So once again , I do not see the reason to waste resources on nothing productive in essence.
This goes more into the evolution of MMO's at this point , why make mistakes and not learn from the genre since it does not work long term due to reasons already addressed.
Welp , I have given my point on this topic ...
I will play it either way be it the 5+1 cleric box wiz/necro burn group with a 51 % damage rate or if its camp based by having the specific camp rotated inside my guild for the life of a expansion so its perma locked.
But these are the entire types of situations im trying to avoid without the need of the company to try and mediate a solution , when a solution can be implemented from the start.
Everquest and EQ2 still have a play nice policy in there rules of conduct you can find it on there support page. What are the EverQuest Rules of Conduct? – Help Home (daybreakgames.com)
So your going to be toxic to others players regaudless you just said it and that is why VR needs a PNP and MUST enforce it.