Zorkon said:Yes and you responded to the quote in the name of "most people" you sir are not "most people" and you do not speak for most people... when you do I will feel obliged to speak up for THIS person and correct you.
Dude... you responded and added 0 to the conversation at hand. Had you responded with an explanation for what you think kill stealing is, it would have made sense. I have a newsflash for you. Camps weren't recognized in eq1 and yet the community still respected them (to a large degree) and therefore created definitions for things like kill stealing and the such.
I repeat what I said. MOST PEOPLE would still consider that kill stealing.
Nephele said:- Characters that are too far above or below the level of the mob/encounter, or who are too far from the fight, or not actively on the mob's hate list are not included in the calculation, to help eliminate bottom-feeding and power-leveling scenarios, as well as potential exploits.
- "Trivial Loot Code" is in effect for named/boss mobs.
These can only work if the game has a robust loot system and a proper tradeskill system.
If at level 50 I'm required to kill level 20 mobs to gain my best in slot gear, I shouldn't be penalized just because I out level the content.
Same with tradeskilling. If I need too kill lower level mobs to level up, I shouldn't be punished because I chose too wait until 50 to do blacksmithing
dorotea said:This is why we seem to disagree so strongly on this point.
...
So in summary I think MDD *is* a better system if camping nameds is more important than killing landscape mobs, but first-to-engage is a better system for doing quests and killing trash.
I think everyone who tags a mob (or at least does significant damage) is a fair system for quest mobs and perhaps landscape mobs but a truly terrible system for the named you need to camp for hours.
Some of this debate isn't because some of us have ...strange ... views on how the different mechanics work. It is because we use the term killstealing *very* differently because games we played used the terms very differently than in EQ and because we focus on different elements of Pantheon which *will* have quests and killing of landscape mobs as well as camping nameds.
I think this sums up the wandering path of this thread well (I didn't clarify it really when I started the thread). And while I originally said I supported open tagging, I agree with dorotea in that which method is best does depend on the type of target and playstyle of the game and I agree with their assesment.
zoltar said:If you're sitting back, nuking mobs for 20% HP from a distance before anyone else agro's them
- The mob is going to be coming for you, so you better be ready to do the other 80% without getting your face blown off
- I think it's a safe assumption that you'd be able to hit 51% damage done quite easily
I don't see how that is gaming the system. If you can do a fifth of the damage before anyone else, either it's a trivial mob (in which case you could easily burn it down ) or you've had a decent head start on everyone else (i.e. working as intended)
I guess what I am thinking of is a corner case for 2. If someone is doing a little bit of damage in the first 20% to break the 20% rule then waits for the party to knock it down to 75% at which point you burn it down 51% and out damage a slower party that can also no longer shed agro.
One of the reasons I liked my idea is that a healer/tank pair would be able to work together on at least one mob and not be able to have their kill stolen by a random DPS that walks by. I also like the idea of the game acknowledging something other than who has the biggest DPS.
Trasak said:zoltar said:If you're sitting back, nuking mobs for 20% HP from a distance before anyone else agro's them
- The mob is going to be coming for you, so you better be ready to do the other 80% without getting your face blown off
- I think it's a safe assumption that you'd be able to hit 51% damage done quite easily
I don't see how that is gaming the system. If you can do a fifth of the damage before anyone else, either it's a trivial mob (in which case you could easily burn it down ) or you've had a decent head start on everyone else (i.e. working as intended)
I guess what I am thinking of is a corner case for 2. If someone is doing a little bit of damage in the first 20% to break the 20% rule then waits for the party to knock it down to 75% at which point you burn it down 51% and out damage a slower party that can also no longer shed agro.
One of the reasons I liked my idea is that a healer/tank pair would be able to work together on at least one mob and not be able to have their kill stolen by a random DPS that walks by. I also like the idea of the game acknowledging something other than who has the biggest DPS.
Right. So, the idea isn't to completely eliminate the ability to kill steal. If someone is repeatedly abusing a loophole to make other people tank a mob while they steal the credit, that clearly falls under griefing. At the very least, they should face consequences form the community... and probably face consequences from VR in the form of a ban.
Maybe I didn't word it exactly right, but the main idea is to give a window where being there first gets you the rights without the issues of sniping. And while it could prevent some kill-stealing issues (clearly not all), it's really about giving an advantage to ppl that get there first. That kind of feels right to me, but I'm open to the idea that who's there first shouldn't matter really.
And yea, if you're really concerned with treating all types of engagment with a mob equally (in terms of dmg/tanking/healing) then your idea has the most merit. I definitely see your arugment, but I have some mild reservations about using threat because it's less tangible compared to dmg/healing.
Naunet said:I agree with Dorotea. Credit based on damage done is far too open to exploitation. In addition to the scenarios described by Dorotea, it also encourages stacking of DPS in groups at the expense of tanks/healers, to maximize a group's chance of getting credit on kills for world bosses and the like.
Honestly, I don't really see the problem with open tagging systems and consider them to be one of those modern MMO innovations that hugely improved communities. Instead of seeing a player or a group of players and feeling like you need to avoid them (or worse, be a jerk and steal mobs), everyone can work together without conflict.
I disagree completely. I'd rather suffer loot loss than be subject to guild wars 2 style mass zerg auto attacking a boss, where nothing matters because the boss can't kill anyone due to sheer numbers/balance, and people go afk after tagging something. It turns the fight into a meaningless button mashing mess. I'd much rather see a system that encourages people to respect other's camps where the fight can stay balanced and meaningful to the group and not alter the landscape of combat because of bad behavior.
zoltar said:Right. So, the idea isn't to completely eliminate the ability to kill steal. If someone is repeatedly abusing a loophole to make other people tank a mob while they steal the credit, that clearly falls under griefing. At the very least, they should face consequences form the community... and probably face consequences from VR in the form of a ban.
Maybe I didn't word it exactly right, but the main idea is to give a window where being there first gets you the rights without the issues of sniping. And while it could prevent some kill-stealing issues (clearly not all), it's really about giving an advantage to ppl that get there first. That kind of feels right to me, but I'm open to the idea that who's there first shouldn't matter really.
And yea, if you're really concerned with treating all types of engagment with a mob equally (in terms of dmg/tanking/healing) then your idea has the most merit. I definitely see your arugment, but I have some mild reservations about using threat because it's less tangible compared to dmg/healing.
TLDR: Kill credit based on Total Agro rather than Total Damage or First to damage.
Fair point that jerks are going to find a way to be jerks in any system. I would alter your first 20% suggestion to 20% out of the first 25% to prevent someone from tagging early just to nullify the rule, at least on boss fights.
Dorotea’s example of the difference between Kill Stealing and Camp Stealing with Boss Stealing being a mix of the two do call for different approaches. I could see if a group/raid does 20 out of the first 25% its fair to say that they were fully engaged first and properly controlling the encounter. A polite person would acknowledge that they were inline first and should be respectfully permitted to finish. In a PvP game where control of raid drops was a very big deal then the second raid would just attack and kill the first and a war would begin. In a community PvE game though the developer has the only authority to enforce politeness. Unfortunately they also are effectively stuck with defining what is polite by what the game system enforces.
On single mobs and trash mobs in general first to truly engage is often a much more of a grey area. There are lots of tricks that can be used to steal credit for a kill based on which mechanic is measured and which criteria is judged against. The second sticky wicket is that kill stealing rarely occurs between two different full groups but camp stealing or intruding can. As the game is about competing for resources then truly having a mob does not start until you have agro locked down on it. In farming situations on the other hand you usually have one or two people competing against a similar number of the same level or full groups of significantly lower level players. Damage done mechanics favor the high level player over the low level group.
I would choose to recognize ownership of a mob by the group that has the majority of the compound agro on the target. Agro itself is a little bit of an odd metric to use but I feel it captures what the system views as the contributions of the players to the kill, this would be base agro and not special mechanics due to mob types. Things like Taunt are forced target changes and not true agro, though it may have a built in flat +agro mechanic. I would also have damage done (and or perhaps mitigated damage) to tank classes added as agro to the tanks credit. Then healing done on the Target of the mob would also count as agro to the healer (might be interesting if the top 3 on the mobs agro table count as targets). Finally CC agro and DPS agro would fall in line with the agro generated by their tank and healer to generate the group/raids total agro score.
Taunting would not be enough to steal a mob as the target would revert to its single highest agro target at the end of the forced target change, though the tank may be able to lock agro in that time window. Agro wiping tools should also clear the kill credit of the player that cleared the agro, if they are not willing to die then they don’t get credit. Exactly how different abilities are programed and how agro is calculated is up for debate as the game continues to develop.
>I disagree completely. I'd rather suffer loot loss than be subject to guild wars 2 style mass zerg auto attacking a boss, where nothing matters because the boss can't kill anyone due to sheer numbers/balance, and people go afk after tagging something. It turns the fight into a meaningless button mashing mess. I'd much rather see a system that encourages people to respect other's camps where the fight can stay balanced and meaningful to the group and not alter the landscape of combat because of bad behavior.<
Just to see how much disagreement there still is here (and nothing wrong with disagreement).
I have clarified that my dislike of MDD applies to killing quest and landscape mobs, and that for a named boss I would prefer MDD to everyone sharing or only the puller getting credit.
Do you feel that MDD is good for the circumstances where I feel it is bad, or is your opinion limited to camped bosses as discussed in this quote? In which case we wind up in fairly complete agreement.
Trasak said:I would choose to recognize ownership of a mob by the group that has the majority of the compound agro on the target. Agro itself is a little bit of an odd metric to use but I feel it captures what the system views as the contributions of the players to the kill, this would be base agro and not special mechanics due to mob types. Things like Taunt are forced target changes and not true agro, though it may have a built in flat +agro mechanic. I would also have damage done (and or perhaps mitigated damage) to tank classes added as agro to the tanks credit. Then healing done on the Target of the mob would also count as agro to the healer (might be interesting if the top 3 on the mobs agro table count as targets). Finally CC agro and DPS agro would fall in line with the agro generated by their tank and healer to generate the group/raids total agro score.
You've just moved the problem somewhere else. Now groups or classes that generate more aggro, however your system is implemented, will be able to KS more easily. Additionally, it requires yet another game system to track, while with damage that system is already in place. I don't see how this solves anything.
I'd rather they be off working on systems that are actually going to impact people on a daily basis, like content creation, performance optimization, acclimation and perception, etc, etc.
You're basically saying use the word aggro, but actually don't use aggro as it exists in the game right now, create another stat and balance it out across dps, healing, and other abilities(that already have aggro generation but aren't balanced for your purpose). You aren't using the actual aggro that is already generated by skills and abilities that actually determine who has aggro in the game, is that not a red flag? This issue simply does not warrant such a convoluted solution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
Jerks are going to be jerks and it's up to all of us to stand up for what's right.
Keno Monster said:
You've just moved the problem somewhere else. Now groups or classes that generate more aggro, however your system is implemented, will be able to KS more easily. Additionally, it requires yet another game system to track, while with damage that system is already in place. I don't see how this solves anything.
I'd rather they be off working on systems that are actually going to impact people on a daily basis, like content creation, performance optimization, acclimation and perception, etc, etc.
This issue simply does not warrant such a convoluted solution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
Jerks are going to be jerks and it's up to all of us to stand up for what's right.
I am just saying use agro rather than damage. Agro is absolutely something already tracked as part of the mob target choice system and I am just suggesting we use that instead of damage.
I agree that the agro system could still be manipulated but it is a lot more resilient to sniping and a better representation of the contributions of the entire party and not just the DPS.
*edit* Threat/Agro/Effective HP Delta/Threat Assesment level all are different terms for the same concept and will be a function of the general targeting system *end edit*
Trasak said:Keno Monster said:
You've just moved the problem somewhere else. Now groups or classes that generate more aggro, however your system is implemented, will be able to KS more easily. Additionally, it requires yet another game system to track, while with damage that system is already in place. I don't see how this solves anything.
I'd rather they be off working on systems that are actually going to impact people on a daily basis, like content creation, performance optimization, acclimation and perception, etc, etc.
This issue simply does not warrant such a convoluted solution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
Jerks are going to be jerks and it's up to all of us to stand up for what's right.
I am just saying use agro rather than damage. Agro is absolutely something already tracked as part of the mob target choice system and I am just suggesting we use that instead of damage.
But you also said to not use abilities like taunt, or at least to give them some kind of other base aggro value. Presumably this would also have to affect all of the other specific aggro generating abilities we've seen released. It seems like you're saying to avoid the classes that have the aggro generation abilities having an advantage, that those abilities wouldn't be counted or would have to be altered. And again, I say this is too much.
Aggro is currently tracked for the purpose of...determining aggro, it is a running count, who has the most? There would absolutely be more work required to keep a cumulative total of it between every group engaged on a mob. Is that a big deal? Not necessarily, it could be done in a few hours probably, but with damage that is already in place.
How about Percent Damage Done * Percent Aggro Time? If you do 70% of the damage and have aggro for 30% of the time the mob since it was engaged, then you have a "score" of 2100. 80% of damage and 10% of aggro time would lose to 20% of damage and 90% of aggro time. If you do 80% of the damage, but never hold aggro, then you have a score of 0. This would encourage some sort of balance in the group that is trying to compete for mob rights - you would at least have a tank with your wizards and that tank would have to be supported with heals (whether in the group or not). Big mob fights would be battles for aggro and damage, rather than a passive aggressive "you tank it while I kill it" thing.
A potential problem would be kiting mobs with little damage for a long time, then training them onto a group assuming they will mop up for you?? This seems pretty fringe though and would inherently take time, would be quite obvious, and you would have to have done damage, so the mobs wouldn't stick to the group unless they did more damage than you.
Kiting boss mobs around prior to engaging - not really a downside, since it encourages groups to start fighting for aggro as soon as you have the capability to do so, even if it's just fighting for kite aggro.
Powerleveling would be an issue and would require some work - after one hit on a mob a high level player could insta-nuke the mob down (0 aggro time, but 99% of damage), leaving the exp for the lower level player.
Just a thought. I still argue that the main effort should be in providing enough content alternatives so that players can simply back away from KSers and camp stealers without losing out on too much.
Ainadak said:A potential problem would be kiting mobs with little damage for a long time, then training them onto a group assuming they will mop up for you?? This seems pretty fringe though and would inherently take time, would be quite obvious, and you would have to have done damage, so the mobs wouldn't stick to the group unless they did more damage than you.
The whole argument is fringe! lol
Porygon said:Nephele said:- Characters that are too far above or below the level of the mob/encounter, or who are too far from the fight, or not actively on the mob's hate list are not included in the calculation, to help eliminate bottom-feeding and power-leveling scenarios, as well as potential exploits.
- "Trivial Loot Code" is in effect for named/boss mobs.
These can only work if the game has a robust loot system and a proper tradeskill system.
If at level 50 I'm required to kill level 20 mobs to gain my best in slot gear, I shouldn't be penalized just because I out level the content.
Same with tradeskilling. If I need too kill lower level mobs to level up, I shouldn't be punished because I chose too wait until 50 to do blacksmithing
Having high level players come back to low(er) level areas because there is loot they would wear or quests items they need is actually a fantastic thing. It makes the world bigger by providing a reason for higher level players to revisit previous zones, it creates another social dynamic by mixing a wide range of levels into a single zone, and it creates trade opportunities.
Allow me to rename a few things and it should help to simplify the concept and erase confusion.
StandardMonsterTargetFunction ( Target MaxValue on ThreatAssessmentList while TauntedStatus=False )
Monster has 1000HP
Puller Action 1: 5HP damage throw
ThreatAssessmentList (Add Target to List)
ThreatAssessmentList (Add 5HP damage from Target 1)
ThreatAssessmentList (FirstTargetTrigger add 1% Monster HP credit from Target 1, (10HP))
Debuffer Action 1: Casts Snare on Target
ThreatAssessmentList (Add Target to List)
ThreatAssessmentList (2% Monster HP credit from Target 2, (20HP))
Tank Action 1: 15 damage Taunting Strike
ThreatAssessmentList (Add Target to List)
ThreatAssessmentList (Add 15HP damage from Target 3)
ThreatAssessmentList (Add 20HP bonus credit from Target 3)
ThreatAssessmentList ( Set Taunted Status from Target 3)
Monster attacks Target 3 for 40 damage ( 13 damage mitigated)
ThreatAssessmentList (Add 13HP bonus credit from Target 3)
DPS 1, 2 and 3 each do 25 Damage
ThreatAssessmentList (Add Target to List)
ThreatAssessmentList (Add 25HP damage from Target 4)
ThreatAssessmentList (Add Target to List)
ThreatAssessmentList (Add 25HP damage from Target 5)
ThreatAssessmentList (Add 25HP damage from Target 1)
Healer Heals Tank for 20HP
ThreatAssessmentList (Add Target to List)
ThreatAssessmentList (Add 13HP Bonus from Target 6)
Jerk 1 attacks 150 Damage
ThreatAssessmentList (Add Target to List)
ThreatAssessmentList (Add Target to Group 2)
ThreatAssessmentList (Add 150 damage from Target 6)
ThreatAssesmentList
Group 1: Total ( 171)
Target 1: 40
Target 2: 20
Target 3: 48
Target 4: 25
Target 5: 25
Target 6: 12
Group
Group 2: Total ( 150)
Target 1: 150
Group 1 would retain Kill rights and after taunt wears off the mob will attempt to kill Group 2 Target 1 until someone else is higher or the target is once again Taunted.
dorotea said:>I disagree completely. I'd rather suffer loot loss than be subject to guild wars 2 style mass zerg auto attacking a boss, where nothing matters because the boss can't kill anyone due to sheer numbers/balance, and people go afk after tagging something. It turns the fight into a meaningless button mashing mess. I'd much rather see a system that encourages people to respect other's camps where the fight can stay balanced and meaningful to the group and not alter the landscape of combat because of bad behavior.<
Just to see how much disagreement there still is here (and nothing wrong with disagreement).
I have clarified that my dislike of MDD applies to killing quest and landscape mobs, and that for a named boss I would prefer MDD to everyone sharing or only the puller getting credit.
Do you feel that MDD is good for the circumstances where I feel it is bad, or is your opinion limited to camped bosses as discussed in this quote? In which case we wind up in fairly complete agreement.
My concerns were with preventing zerg-like playstyle that trivializes fights. I think mass tagging + rewards for all does that. I don't think rules should switch based on content type, I think devs should pick a solution and stick to it throughout. Whether it is MDD, MAD, first tag, etc. First tag is good because the time to KS is significantly lower, where as MDD has a higher time to KS, resulting in more time spent in KS scenarios. I think MDD is interesting because you can say does tagging an npc first really mean it is yours? I think MDD is good if you are looking for the game to have some sort of competition in it between groups to solve problems. If two groups want an npc, they can settle it via damage. It's a good in game differentiator that doesn't involve changing gameplay. Have a simple rule, and let the community solve it. If you have to call in friends for extra fire power or walk away to another place so be it. You can't always get what you want.
ghost7 said:dorotea said:>I disagree completely. I'd rather suffer loot loss than be subject to guild wars 2 style mass zerg auto attacking a boss, where nothing matters because the boss can't kill anyone due to sheer numbers/balance, and people go afk after tagging something. It turns the fight into a meaningless button mashing mess. I'd much rather see a system that encourages people to respect other's camps where the fight can stay balanced and meaningful to the group and not alter the landscape of combat because of bad behavior.<
Just to see how much disagreement there still is here (and nothing wrong with disagreement).
I have clarified that my dislike of MDD applies to killing quest and landscape mobs, and that for a named boss I would prefer MDD to everyone sharing or only the puller getting credit.
Do you feel that MDD is good for the circumstances where I feel it is bad, or is your opinion limited to camped bosses as discussed in this quote? In which case we wind up in fairly complete agreement.
My concerns were with preventing zerg-like playstyle that trivializes fights. I think mass tagging + rewards for all does that. I don't think rules should switch based on content type, I think devs should pick a solution and stick to it throughout. Whether it is MDD, MAD, first tag, etc. First tag is good because the time to KS is significantly lower, where as MDD has a higher time to KS, resulting in more time spent in KS scenarios. I think MDD is interesting because you can say does tagging an npc first really mean it is yours? I think MDD is good if you are looking for the game to have some sort of competition in it between groups to solve problems. If two groups want an npc, they can settle it via damage. It's a good in game differentiator that doesn't involve changing gameplay. Have a simple rule, and let the community solve it. If you have to call in friends for extra fire power or walk away to another place so be it. You can't always get what you want.
I respect that there should be a solution throughout the whole system. Currently they are using 51%. This is a modified MDD and for all intents and purposes is the most fair. For how often KS'ing does or does not actually occur its best to have a simple limited MDD. However, i disagree on one point, if your group triggers a quest mob that quest mob should transfer to a Locked loot system for the person holding the perception trigger. If your group/raid dies mob simply despawns and you have a cool down on triggering quest again. If your entire guild/raid has leveled thier perception skill and by killing the boss you get a perception flag than all those present with proper perception skill should receive that flag. This should eliminate the need for zerg mass tagging + rewards or could help facilitate it?
In an open world competative environment I can see where MDD would be sought after. With MDD the potential for Kill-stealing is there, but with such a community I think the practice will be generally frowned upon. Also MDD allows a struggling group to be aided by a passing group where the passing group can through a few nukes, a snare or a slow to help things along for the struggling group without breaking the MDD line and not KS'ing the monster at the same time.
But personally I prefer first to tag. If my group tags a monster because we want to test ourselves and we fail and 4 out of 6 die, then the monster is open season and I would also be ok with a nearby group then tagging the monster at 60% health from our leftovers and surviving and getting the loots. I am thinking once we die, my asummed "flag" or "greyed-out" on the monster is then re-set. This could also be automatically re-set after a certain amount of time from first to tag, so if tagged and no damage is done or X amount of damage is not done within 10min then the monster gets re-set. The problem with first to tag as I see it, is one person could continually tag the monster untill reinforcements show up.
So the crux of the issue is, with MDD those that tag-to-hold can get muscled out by MDD because the tagger does not have the force. Whereas with tagging, the taggers risk getting KS'd by ubers that come in and MDD their target. I heard Vanguard had a good mechanic for this that wasmostly succesfull so I am hoping VR Devs are making improvements to the mechanic for Pantheon.
Iksar said:I'd rather MDD with disincentivized camp/kill stealing. A group at a named camp getting a boost for each PH/named killed at said camp so that after a few clears they only need to do 30% of the damage to claim loot/exp.
This is the best solution in my mind unless you are trying to kick bot campers out of a spot. Guess you rely on GM/Guides at that point.
Something that relates to this would also extend to factions.
I remember back in EQ (early days at least) where factions were based not on the kill but simply whomever was involved. Casting a heal on someone engaging a mob would affect your faction standing with that mob when it died. I know there were times when people would not cast heals on others if they had accidentally engaged a faction-friendly NPC because the faction hit wasn't worth it.
I don't know if factions should be on the same distribution as MDD (KS-ing for faction rather than loot becomes a more real scenario) but at the same time just simply open-tagging would lead to more faction exploits for adjusting faction (casting a heal on someone in a group engaging the mob to get some faction adjustment, doing miniscule damage to an engaged mob to get some faction adjustment).
It's certainly not an easy thing to balance - especially if factions are going to have meaning and consequences. If factions won't have as much meaning or consequences and are easy to change then "why even bother with factions" is my stance.
Maximis said: This is the best solution in my mind unless you are trying to kick bot campers out of a spot. Guess you rely on GM/Guides at that point.
So, this is the same as EQ1 today. Which means the behavior, for those who treat MMO's as a job/income, will be the same.
They don't break the EULA/TOS, they multi-box (permitted) multiple accounts.
They never leave, or will train you repeatedly until you leave, if you try to encourage them to leave.
They never communicate using in-game communication methods unless a GM /tells them.
There will likely not be 24x7 in-game live paid-by-real-money-vr-employee GM's, at launch, for Pantheon. (they don't have the manpower, nor can they afford it)
I mean, look, I get the nostalgia rose-colored-glasses, but Visionary Realms has left nothing to chance on this. Given the current public design goals, it will be the same as EQ1 in this one respect. They haven't even confirmed named non-quest mobs won't have static spawn locations. They have never said multi-tag will exist for quest mobs. So far, there's a whole bunch of really bad things that are going to be in Pantheon, if they go ahead with their current public design goals. And when I say really bad things, I mean things that have the very real possibility of shrinking the target demographic below minimum sustainable target numbers to pay wages for 30+ employees.
Yet, the fanboy yes-men echo chamber rings on. :)