It worked in EQ without TLC. I still fail so see a reason to even think about it.
Scared of people camping zones? I thought Pantheon does not plan to be easymode. So how could a player camp a whole zone? Even if maxed out, it was impossible in EQ. Unless you count a few expansions further. But why would a level 70 camp a level 30 zone for money if every trash mob at 70 drops more?
Scared of people camping a spawn without breaks? What good does it bring to force them away with code? They don't log out, they just move to a differend camp. And if their camp was wanted there will be hundreds of others that want that spot.
Also think about the non forum warriors. "We" know this discussion. "We" talk about possibilities. But does "random bob" that play the game know about TLC? No. They visit a zone and get creamed. Coming back 20 levels later to check out what they missed. See no loot and think to themselves "well, what a wasted zone, unfinished, boring, no loot, glad i did not spend my time here".
Whatever was mentioned in this topic would solve something and start a new issue. Most of what i saw here would start problems that i consider way worse then what we get if we simply don't do anything facny to loot and camping. Loot and camping are one hell of a big part of a MMO. Many people just play to camp or just play to loot stuff. Discouraging that is a desaster waiting to happen.
Especially if you put in some INVISIBLE CODE that you have to learn outside the game world to understand what happens.
And no, fun is not subjective. You will have a hard time finding people that don't think blizzard games are fun. Even the ones they don't personally like or play. Very few people would argue about that. Well, obviously the ones that just need to claim that for the sake of argument ;-)
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
Here is a similar item to the Fishbone earring. It was quite sought after on our server.
It has a shrink click. It's no drop, but it could have been droppable too.
It has a lot of value to higher level players, it has almost no value to lower level and casual players. Shrinking is extremely valuable during raids for tanks, corner tanking, it's not very valuable anywhere else in the game. Not only that, it's targetable which makes it even more valuable.
It was a random drop from an easy zone. But the difference was that it was from an instance. Many higher level players took newbees into the instance, since you needed 3 people to start it iirc.
I helped several newbees play the game again, and not be depressed they couldn't find a group, because I had no problem having 5 player tag along with me in the instance. The newbees were happy they got XP, I was happy I got my ring, and no one was bothered because it was an instance.
I know not everyone is a huge fan of instances, but .. I will always defend their use, sporadic use of instances solved many many problems.
Putting valuable items in those zones, caused higher level players to group with lower level, which is how the lower levels got introduced to guilds and the wider community.
If this item would have been placed in a non-instance zone, in the middle of a newbee zone, it would have caused nothing but camp stealing and issues.
It worked in EQ without TLC. I still fail so see a reason to even think about it.
Scared of people camping zones? I thought Pantheon does not plan to be easymode. So how could a player camp a whole zone? Even if maxed out, it was impossible in EQ. Unless you count a few expansions further. But why would a level 70 camp a level 30 zone for money if every trash mob at 70 drops more?
Scared of people camping a spawn without breaks? What good does it bring to force them away with code? They don't log out, they just move to a differend camp. And if their camp was wanted there will be hundreds of others that want that spot.
Also think about the non forum warriors. "We" know this discussion. "We" talk about possibilities. But does "random bob" that play the game know about TLC? No. They visit a zone and get creamed. Coming back 20 levels later to check out what they missed. See no loot and think to themselves "well, what a wasted zone, unfinished, boring, no loot, glad i did not spend my time here".
Whatever was mentioned in this topic would solve something and start a new issue. Most of what i saw here would start problems that i consider way worse then what we get if we simply don't do anything facny to loot and camping. Loot and camping are one hell of a big part of a MMO. Many people just play to camp or just play to loot stuff. Discouraging that is a desaster waiting to happen.
Especially if you put in some INVISIBLE CODE that you have to learn outside the game world to understand what happens.
And no, fun is not subjective. You will have a hard time finding people that don't think blizzard games are fun. Even the ones they don't personally like or play. Very few people would argue about that. Well, obviously the ones that just need to claim that for the sake of argument ;-)
Things aren't the same as they were during EQ. Gold selling was in its infancy back then, today it is a world market with thousands working to produce for them.
While I understand your concern about running into these stupid invisible code walls, only those who are abusive in such will even know they exist if they are designed right and if your point is to argue that those abuses are part of play, well... that makes me highly suspicious because in all of my years, I have never known a single reasonable player to argue that abuse was "part of the game" unless they were a primary abuser.
Again, as I said, a good implementation of this should not be noticed by most of the player base, it should be something that is only noticed by the abusers.
As for your reasoning of a level 70 camping a level 30 item for cash sales on the AH? Seriously? Did you start gaming yesterday?
That sort of anti-farm mechanic would have to be pretty advanced for players to not just circumvent it by having other players loot the corpse. I can think of 50 ways around that mechanic, and they are all members of the guild I play games with.
Yes, in a simple form (and I did describe it simplistically), it would indeed be easy to circumvent.
My question to you and the others:
1. What about the idea in general?
2. If you like the idea, could you think of a system that isn't so easily circumvented?
I'm not certain I can think of a limitation that I would be 100% satisfied with and I'm not sold on any of the suggestions so far. Everything is either too restrictive and/or unrealistic but your suggestion has the most potential though I'd probably decrease spawn chance rather than drop chance. Decreasing the spawn chance leaves more of an air of mystery regarding mobs, where and how often they spawn, as well as what they drop and how often. If they are still spawning at a normal rate but simply don't have the rare item people want, that will make everything much easier to analyze and calculate (and create online databases). Naturally none of this info should be available to the public.
I do like the idea of mobs having somewhat of a consciousness that affects the likelihood of spawns once a player has acquired a rare drop. The only problem with mobs spawning less (or dropping a rare drop less) is that one player getting an item could have a negative impact on the rest of the group. If the presence of other group members negates that mechanic, then you will have players farming while in a group, though the other group members aren't even nearby or in the zone. You would then have to expand it to factor group members only if they contribute damage to the mob or damage nearby (this is already getting really complicated).
The more I consider these things, the more I feel like this is getting out of hand. EQ didn't need all these gimmicks; it just worked. I'm not convinced anything would need to be changed. As I've said many times, I think the real solution to this (and similar) issues is to focus on 1) creating challenging multiplayer content (interdependence), 2) having content yield progressively better rewards (both item and coin - which encourages players to move on from older content), 3) having an adequate amount of content for all level ranges and 4) having less predictable mob spawn locations and encounters. If your problem cannot be solved by those 4 things, its time to consider opening a new server or having a GM follow up on tips of gold farmers monopolizing content.
Number four is the big one. My solution is not limitations, but increasing the challenge and mystery (predictability) factors. Not every mob can be mobile or spawn completely at random. You will have scenarios where a king spawns on his throne or an alchemist in his lab etc. However, you could have "static" mobs spawn randomly in locations (close enough that it isn't disruptive to other groups or camps) and/or with an entourage. Maybe at times the king spawns nearby and then paths to his throne. This would make everything far less predictable and much harder for a single player to lock down (even at high levels), but manageable by a group.
It also goes back to number 1 - multiplayer content. Sometimes you need other players to pull a mob further from camp while you watch another area. Sometimes you might need to do 2 or 3 things around the same time (like close a door, flip a switch, or dispel a mob while also breaking his channeling). Even a player that is higher level would struggle in those situations, thus preventing him from single-handedly monopolizing that content. Multiplayer is the key here.
With any other mob that isn't bound to a certain location, you could do a karnors skeletal warlord type of deal where he has spawn points all through a dungeon so parties throughout have a chance at him. To me, these are the real solutions, not just limitations on how often mobs spawn or how often they drop rare items.
I get your point, but I think players would circumvent the "timer." Think of Gukbottom - there was plenty to camp in that zone that would have taken the player longer than 7 days to obtain (especially if your luck was awful). Further, whats to stop a person from camping alts or guild members near the spot and log in after the drop occurs. Also, like others have suggested, you could easily use guild groups to circumvent the restriction and rotate players in and out.
I'm not a huge fan of the reducing exp from mobs as I think it would cause more harm to the legitimate players than truly restrict the gameplay you're seeking.
Example: Again, in Gukbottom, I camped the FBSS for months (literally) as I was extremely unlucky - thanks RNG. If your proposed system were in place, I would have been severely penalized for legitimately trying to obtain an item. Further, there were many times that my group wanted to stay in an area to obtain experience, and, any loot that we obtained was just a bonus. So, it would penalize groups that weren't crawling as well (unless the timer was set extremely high, which would defeat the purpose anyhow).
And, I was trying to think of solutions that could be used to restrict camping, and I continually found ways to circumvent my ideas. Like, using creative implementation of the "Lore item" tag by making items unidentified (similar to Diablo) and /no drop prior to being identified. And, you could have the identify item be skilled/trade skill/spell based which required components and/or a device in town. That way it would restrict the individual farmer from being able to perma-camp an item, but not a group of and/or guild of. It also wouldn't restrict players from camping alts nearby. Further, it wouldn't prevent the player from coming back either.
So, the more I thought about it, the more I'm in agreement with Dullahan - tackle the problem of why someone is wanting to "Camp" those low level items with progressively better gear matched with appropriate content. Will you still get players farming for their alts in low level dungeons at times? I'm sure and it would be unavoidable to completely remove without a very restrictive loot code. However, if it's more lucrative to "Farm" in the higher level dungeons and buy the alt gear (takes less time) versus farming it than the problem will be decreased at least.
I get your point, but I think players would circumvent the "timer." Think of Gukbottom - there was plenty to camp in that zone that would have taken the player longer than 7 days to obtain (especially if your luck was awful). Further, whats to stop a person from camping alts or guild members near the spot and log in after the drop occurs. Also, like others have suggested, you could easily use guild groups to circumvent the restriction and rotate players in and out.
Well, the idea is not to stop people from camping, rather to disallow a single person to indefinitely tie up a spawn. The timer idea could be extended as well, so that wasn't set in stone, you could make it 3-4 weeks if you wanted.
If a player has many alts that can solo the group content or if there is a guild coordinating to farm it... like I said, that is extreme cases and honestly, as I said, at the point you likely have bigger issues with that behavior already.
Anyway, the point was to limit a single person or a small number of people locking it down indefinitely, not try to combat some major nefarious exploiting work around.
I agree that these types of problems won't have a perfect solution and I also agree that putting in the draconian measures is not a good approach either, but also know that in this day and age, turning a blind eye to it won't work either. The community can only do so much, especially if VR isn't going to make accounts publicly visible and if they allow server transfers, name changes, etc... then community policing will be as pointless as it became in EQ when they started allowing that. Add in FTP starter accounts and no buy box in to start subbing and what you have is zero means to deal with the issues outside of game mechanics.
I don't want to see TLC code, I hated it, I would rather deal with the problems without it, but make no mistake, it won't be like it was in the old days, even EQ wasn't EQ once they started allowing certain things and mainstream took interest.
Honestly, I don't know what they can do, but I do think some solutions can be put in to help curb easy abuses. As in my example, it won't stop it from happening, but if you make it where it isn't easy or it requires multiple people to coordinate to any effect, well... it is kind of achieving its purpose.
That sort of anti-farm mechanic would have to be pretty advanced for players to not just circumvent it by having other players loot the corpse. I can think of 50 ways around that mechanic, and they are all members of the guild I play games with.
Yes, in a simple form (and I did describe it simplistically), it would indeed be easy to circumvent.
My question to you and the others:
1. What about the idea in general?
2. If you like the idea, could you think of a system that isn't so easily circumvented?
I really am firmly against arbitrary invisible walls and limitations. They generally do more harm then good.
I am with Dullahan, the issue is we need to look at the root cause, not the symptom. High level players camping low level items was a symptom of a bigger problem. That problem was there wasn't enough ways at the higher levels to adequately make money to buy items you need, or to farm items you needed to sell on the market etc. What we need to have is a reason for higher level players not to go back to low level dungeons outside of maybe a quest item, etc.
Other issues with TLC is that it is a really great way to make a world feel dead. It kinda sorta helps in the short term during the early days of a games release, but when you take a simple example of Kunark vs original old world EQ, TLC would have 100% completely killed the reason for any of those level 60's to go back to any of the old zones. Not only would this have translated into less players running around (just making the world feel less populated), it also means that all those low level players don't get to see the high level player run by with his broadsword of badassery, and think "wow that's cool, I want to get to where that guy is!".
I feel the ultimate solution is a combination of 2 things. 1. As dullahan said, properly incentivize higher level zones so high level players have less of a reason to camp lower level zones. 2. Those "special" items, such as things like fishbone earrings, make them no drop. This means that the high level players will only farm the item insomuch as they can get them for themselves, rather than as a money making item that they can sell, etc.
As far as number 1, i'll leave the details up to the professionals, but one easy thing is to have the "trash loot" from the mobs be worth significantly more than it was in a game like EQ, where it was basically useless.
Some periphery things, when I played EQ, I very rarely thought, "wow there is some high level douchebag taking all the camps". Realistically more often I was relieved because that high level would come buff people, or if your group wiped he might be willing to pull corpses, or help you beat your way back, etc etc etc. It fostered community in a multitude of ways. Also, because of how EQ's stats and skills worked, a level 50 wasn't essentially a god running around in a say level 30 zone. He might be able to take a single camp, but he certainly isn't going to take over the entire zone.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
One potential way to limit farming is to do what they did in the old days in MUDs: if you are killing the same mob over and over again, slowly but surely you get less and less exp., and eventually it doesn't drop the item. Thoughts?
Can you go into detail what you want as a goal?
Reading this topic over and over... i am not sure we are all on the same boat as to what goal we try to discuss here.
As for my thinking: I hate invisible code walls. And getting less and less exp does sound like discouraging xp camps. And i pray to the (pantheon) gods, that xp camps will make their return to MMOs.
Bosses spawning less over time sounds like an even worse problem tho: What happens if a group of 6 camps a boss for 6 hours. Will it already start? What if the group is replaced by a new group after 6 hours? Will they suffer the diminishing returns of group 1? What if Group 1 replaces just 3 players after 6 hours?
I can post my take on a possible fix as soon as i understand what goal we really want to achive here. Most likely it will involve more content, bigger dungeons, more variations and less invisible code tho. :-)
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
Maybe what needs to be done is that VR plans on no implementation of any such feature at launch, but put in some data collecting points that see how many times players are hitting the same mob and track that items to see if they are being put on the AH, passed to alt or friend, etc... Then, after enough data is collected, what the common problem is can then be focused on rather than trying to put in a bunch of general implementations that may be trying to stop a problem that does not exist.
I think these logs could be practical (ie not interfere with performance) if they are just a simple tagging of basic info on certain events that is stored for later analysis. Also, such a logging system might come in handy when dealing with gold selling and other abuse activities. I can't stress enough how important it is to have a very solid logging system for tracking all sorts of aspects of various systems. If designed well, it could make a lot of later problems much more manageable.
It may also be good to see just how much conflict comes out of not having these features on launch and beta, then if need be make adjustments.
I would like to say that I am against making it so there's no reason for a high level player to want to go to low level areas other than for quest items. This was part of the magic of EQ for me, the fact that if I couldn't find a group or maybe wasn't in the mood to socialize I could go camp something by myself in a relaxed state and still be productive. Sometimes on my druid I would even camp multiple things in multiple places using ports/gate to make it to the location in time for the spawns.
It may also be good to see just how much conflict comes out of not having these features on launch and beta, then if need be make adjustments.
I would like to say that I am against making it so there's no reason for a high level player to want to go to low level areas other than for quest items. This was part of the magic of EQ for me, the fact that if I couldn't find a group or maybe wasn't in the mood to socialize I could go camp something by myself in a relaxed state and still be productive. Sometimes on my druid I would even camp multiple things in multiple places using ports/gate to make it to the location in time for the spawns.
Nothing wrong with that, I don't see such activities as abusive personally, rather it is the very specific and extreme issues that are the problem and what such code should be designed to curb. The trick is to make sure such an implementation is targeting only the extreme cases and normal users never even know it exists. That is the perfect type of anti-code.
Sinist said: I don't see such activities as abusive personally, rather it is the very specific and extreme issues that are the problem and what such code should be designed to curb. The trick is to make sure such an implementation is targeting only the extreme cases and normal users never even know it exists. That is the perfect type of anti-code.
While i agree with the idea,.. what exactly do you consider extreme cases? Some people find their greatest enjoyment in playing the AH (if there is one) or the Commons Tunnel (if there is no AH).
Are these people a "extreme issue" if they farm for their goods? What if they barter for their goods?
Id love to talk about specifics here, since it definitly is a huge part of the game and every rule (or possibly lack thereof) can effectivly make or break the game. Very few things can have as much of an impact as tinkering with loot and experience rules. Should go into detail and specifics here.
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
Sinist said: I don't see such activities as abusive personally, rather it is the very specific and extreme issues that are the problem and what such code should be designed to curb. The trick is to make sure such an implementation is targeting only the extreme cases and normal users never even know it exists. That is the perfect type of anti-code.
While i agree with the idea,.. what exactly do you consider extreme cases? Some people find their greatest enjoyment in playing the AH (if there is one) or the Commons Tunnel (if there is no AH).
Are these people a "extreme issue" if they farm for their goods? What if they barter for their goods?
Id love to talk about specifics here, since it definitly is a huge part of the game and every rule (or possibly lack thereof) can effectivly make or break the game. Very few things can have as much of an impact as tinkering with loot and experience rules. Should go into detail and specifics here.
You mean farm indefinitely? Like for instance a guy who perma farms a camp 24/7 to farm the same drop over and over to not only provide a source of supply to the AH, but also keep the spawn locked down to increase the demand and manipulate the cost on the market?
Yes, those are extreme and that is exactly why I hate player trade markets. Why should a person who only wants to play a certain part of the game be able to have such a large effect on the rest of it?
This whole conversation and mechanics like TCL are just another push for modern convenience in an old style game. Part of the appeal of EQ to me was the fact that not everything came easy; you had to work for your supper. It wasn't just one of those games where everything was bestowed upon you merely for being present or even for your participation. While there was still a lot to enjoy for the average player, there was also the social dynamics and time investment that had to be overcome to achieve many of the greater rewards. This was especially the case when it came to obtaining rare items.
In other words, that meant you actually had to talk to people, or else wait your turn. If someone has something camp you want, you can talk to them and work something out (perhaps a group), you can barter with them, or you can wait until they leave (or, on PvP servers, fight them). Those are real options, that exist in the real world and those interactions, and unique multiplayer experiences, were part of the reason why EverQuest was so memorable. That thankfulness you had when a higher level allowed you to join them out of the kindness of their heart. That appreciation of finding people to group with in a dangerous place, especially when they were after the same thing as you. Even that frustration or anger when a disreputable player or guild locked down an area for longer than was gracious. Those were real emotions brought on by a game, and the mechanics and circumstances that evoked them have largely gone by the wayside for things like trivial loot code.
This is not to say that Pantheon should be nothing but a series of nearly insurmountable obstacles that only the unemployed should hope to overcome; that would not be fun, and after all, it is still a game. However, they must balance that struggle to advance and the wants of the player with the challenge necessary to preserve the sense of reward.
Sometimes, that should mean dealing with a player that has a camp (or something else) that you want. Forcing that player to leave by placing a level based or item based (nodrop) restriction isn't really a solution, because now you are providing fun for one player at the expense of another.
Again, the only real solution here is to properly balance the amount of content against the number of intended players on a server, to adjust the value of higher level items against the lower, and to incorporate challenging multiplayer combat mechanics to encourage (NOT force) groups of level-appropriate players to engage in particular content. I know that solution isn't as easy as slapping a nodrop tag on an item in a database or a script that prevents a higher level player from looting an item, but it is the way to bring back player interaction, player freedom, and the true sense of reward that existed in EverCrac- err, EverQuest.
You mean farm indefinitely? Like for instance a guy who perma farms a camp 24/7 to farm the same drop over and over to not only provide a source of supply to the AH, but also keep the spawn locked down to increase the demand and manipulate the cost on the market?
Yes, those are extreme and that is exactly why I hate player trade markets. Why should a person who only wants to play a certain part of the game be able to have such a large effect on the rest of it?
First of all, thats a strawman. I played classic EQ heavily for the first 3 years, then off and on for another 10 years on emulators, and never have I seen anyone farm anything that often for any real length of time. I've known a few guys to go day and night for a day or two, stocking up on a few items, but even they are the exception and need a change of scenery eventually. Without something to automate the process, that sort of farming will suck the joy out of the game for even the most hardcore.
And honestly, even that rare exception of a guy who goes at it day in and day out for weeks at a time, what real impact does he have on a server of thousands of people? I'd argue not much.
You mean farm indefinitely? Like for instance a guy who perma farms a camp 24/7 to farm the same drop over and over to not only provide a source of supply to the AH, but also keep the spawn locked down to increase the demand and manipulate the cost on the market?
Yes, those are extreme and that is exactly why I hate player trade markets. Why should a person who only wants to play a certain part of the game be able to have such a large effect on the rest of it?
First of all, thats a strawman. I played classic EQ heavily for the first 3 years, then off and on for another 10 years on emulators, and never have I seen anyone farm anything that often for any real length of time. I've known a few guys to go day and night for a day or two, stocking up on a few items, but even they are the exception and need a change of scenery eventually. Without something to automate the process, that sort of farming will suck the joy out of the game for even the most hardcore.
And honestly, even that rare exception of a guy who goes at it day in and day out for weeks at a time, what real impact does he have on a server of thousands of people? I'd argue not much.
Straw man? No. A reason you think is unsound, maybe. I didn't twist his argument into something it was not. He asked for an extreme example, I gave one.
Time will tell, which is why I suggested that maybe waiting until release to watch the habits of players might be a better approach than implementing solutions that we are not sure is the problem.
I played EQ heavily as well, and I remember the FBSS camp perma camped by Necros to farm for sale in the EC (FBSS was a big money maker). I know this because the necro in my guild did it personally. Between him and two other necros, a single class locked down a camp for months. This behavior was carried on into Kunark with the same behavior applied to the hundred fists staff camp, again with a solo necro camping the spawn indefinitely to sell the item on the AH. Another issue was the Staff of Flowing Water in PoP which was a hot money item. This camp was perma camped by a duo usually to farm the staff indefinitely.
I think it will be a problem, partly because I saw it before, but more so because times have changed concerning this. While you may think the average player won't camp as such, gold sellers will and gold selling today is nothing like it was back then. Like I said though, they can wait and see, I am fine with that. Obviously, my goal is to protect game play and if this isn't an issue, then there is no point in putting in a system. They should however have thought long and hard about the issue before it occurs as if they wait until it becomes a problem, time will be a factor that can cause them to rush a poor implementation.
Maybe when you loot the item, it buffs the item with a
"bind on pickup/Lore" buff for a period of time, but
will eventually wear off allowing the item to be traded to anyone, have multiples, etc... which would achieve the result of wanting to be able to trade and give items to anyone without all the restrictions we are used to with poor TLC implementations.
So, lets say the item drops Rare A and the player loots it. The item gets flagged with a "Bind on Pickup/Lore" flag with a timer for a period of time VR determines to be appropriate to avoid extreme issues and begins to tick down. The player can not trade it and they can not have more than one until that timer on that gear expires. Once the timer expires, the gear is completely trade able, can be passed to another, mailed if they have it, put on the AH, whatever... You will also be able to have multiples when the timer expires (you just make the flagged item a different item when it is looted to avoid issues with Lore and already having one in the bank or on you that has expired.)
This might be the simplest solution to implement and it is temporary, but achieves the ultimate goal of fully trade able gear, yet a means to implement restrictions for those who would perma-camp a spawn.
Also, you could even work Brads idea of allowing some diminishing returns by making it a lore+3 item for instance which says you can have 3 of those items with a timer before they become "truly lore". I would imagine there are many ways to implement such a temporary tag to an item.
I am with Dullahan on this one. That extremne example sounds like one that never happens. I have yet to see that since i started MMOs in 1998. So i have a hard time debating a "fix" for that since it really sounds like a very rare case., not warranting doing anything that may hurt everyday joe. Not even warranting hurting the extreme version of everyday joe.
A single person locking down a spawn 24/7 to inflate prices on one drop? That could only work if a guild does it. And only if there is no alternatives (small world, few items, few bosses), also the item would have to be VERY saught after to even make it worth it for a whole freaking guild.
Edit: regarding FBSS and Staff examples: It needed a VERY geared Necro that hardly needed the money AND there used to be so many alternatives that it hardly mattered at all. Also i got in into these camps whenever i tried with very few days that had a list that was too long.
Even if we consider this a possibiliy, a fix would simply be to offer more alternatives and don't make a single item that high in demand. If the item is not mandatory for a huge part of the community, then there would be very few people that are willing to pay inflated prices and the issue would not exist. Noone camps an item to inflate it's price if there is no market that is willing to pay.
In short: This issue COULD happen, but ONLY if we are talking about a VERY small world and single items being mandatory and definitly BIS for a majority of people, WITHOUT any alternatives. That sounds like a bad design in the first place, but something that should be fixed at the root, not by screwing with invisible code as a bandaid fix.
How about we try and find some examples that are actually happening, or can happen. Something that is not as rare or pure fiction so a discussed "fix" is actually worth the time?
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
I am with Dullahan on this one. That extremne example sounds like one that never happens. I have yet to see that since i started MMOs in 1998. So i have a hard time debating a "fix" for that since it really sounds like a very rare case., not warranting doing anything that may hurt everyday joe. Not even warranting hurting the extreme version of everyday joe.
It has happened, I even explained where they did occur and the given camps. If you are going to argue to counter my point with "sounds like", then don't bother. It isn't even a sound argument, it is a dismissal. These problems exist with the extreme cases of players which consist of the EQ players who can play 8-12 hours a day and those who farm for gold sales. The former was always present in EQ, the latter has become a massive force today that wasn't as large as it was in early EQ.
Consider one other thing, if this wasn't a problem, why did Sony start implementing tons of loot control policies? If this wasn't an issue, why would they waste the development time? Not very cost effective to implement solutions to things that don't exist?
A single
person locking down a spawn 24/7 to inflate prices on one drop? That
could only work if a guild does it. And only if there is no alternatives
(small world, few items, few bosses), also the item would have to be
VERY saught after to even make it worth it for a whole freaking guild.
Edit:
regarding FBSS and Staff examples: It needed a VERY geared Necro that
hardly needed the money AND there used to be so many alternatives that
it hardly mattered at all. Also i got in into these camps whenever i
tried with very few days that had a list that was too long.
No it didn't. It needed a skilled player. Gear in early EQ was not like WoW, gear didn't make or break a class, the players skill did. A group geared necro and a raid geared necro in release EQ were not much different in power. Heck, all we had at release was Naggy/Vox and then PoA a bit later (which only the top guilds were even partly into at that time.)
As I said, our necro in the guild who was only group geared at the time was locking down that camp every moment he was on and if he wasn't another necro was. Now I will concede the difference back then was that in many of the cases, they would add someone to group with them, or if a full group was looking to run it, they would relinquish it. This didn't always happen, there were some that were asses and told people to piss off.
That said, today's players have the manners of a petulant child, I think the latter case is going to be a lot more common and that isn't even getting into the gold sellers (which you seem to keep skipping over).
Point is, your reasoning is loose examples of why someone "would likely not" and while it is a reasonable evaluation, I have already said I have personally seen the other cases.
Even if we consider this a possibiliy, a fix would simply be to offer
more alternatives and don't make a single item that high in demand. If
the item is not mandatory for a huge part of the community, then there
would be very few people that are willing to pay inflated prices and the
issue would not exist. Noone camps an item to inflate it's price if
there is no market that is willing to pay.
So make all items generic, common and bland in order to combat desire and keep people from selling on the AH? No thanks, that is exactly what I hate about games today. Everything is common and easy to get so nobody feels left out. That would be completely counter to EQs loot structure and design. More of a WoW Purple gear type of solution.
In short: This issue COULD happen, but ONLY if we are talking about a
VERY small world and single items being mandatory and definitly BIS for
a majority of people, WITHOUT any alternatives. That sounds like a bad
design in the first place, but something that should be fixed at the
root, not by screwing with invisible code as a bandaid fix.
If it could happen and there is a solution that only bars that specific example from happening? What is the problem? See, I am confused here. You say it never happens, but then are arguing against a solution that would be designed only to combat that thing you claim never happens? It is odd.
How about we try and find some examples that are actually happening, or
can happen. Something that is not as rare or pure fiction so a discussed
"fix" is actually worth the time?
I have seen them, just because you and Dullahan don't remember doesn't mean that it didn't happen. There are many reasons why you may not have experienced it and are just generalizing the issue because your experience with it was limited. I experienced it and had many friends who experienced it as well. My guild wasn't cutting edge, we were behind the content a bit.
We were on test where this wasn't an issue and moved to a production server when the Test wipe happened. Seeing level 60's camping premium spawns solo was quite common, especially when the EC tunnels took off and even more so when the duping bug destroyed the value of currency. Also, key items that were premium for monk twinking (as when Kunark was released, monks could be twinked when before they couldn't) were perma camped for the cash value they could bring in. The hundred fists staff, FBSS, SoFW, Fungi tunic, etc... could bring you in a ridiculous amount of cash and due to the duping bug, and the massive increase in item prices (seriously, it went from a couple hundred plat for an item up into the hundreds of thousands).
Again, we are just talking about normal players and those cases do happen, but aren't the biggest offenders, add in today's gold sellers and it will be a problem.
Besides, you don't see perma camping as an issue in the first place. Kind of hard to find a solution to a problem you think isn't a problem?
He didn't say make all items common Sinist, he said make alternatives. For example, if there was the FBSS camp, plus another haste item with similar haste but maybe more stats, that dropped somewhere else that was equally as difficult, like if the haste belt off swirlspine guardians in Kedge Keep was actually similar in haste to FBSS (or even more because they had a longer spawn time and were MUCH more difficult).
The more options you can give players the better, as long as you don't decrease the difficulty of getting those quality of items.
He didn't say make all items common Sinist, he said make alternatives. For example, if there was the FBSS camp, plus another haste item with similar haste but maybe more stats, that dropped somewhere else that was equally as difficult, like if the haste belt off swirlspine guardians in Kedge Keep was actually similar in haste to FBSS (or even more because they had a longer spawn time and were MUCH more difficult).
The more options you can give players the better, as long as you don't decrease the difficulty of getting those quality of items.
That makes them more common. When you have tons of places similar items drop (ie haste belt here, haste gloves here, haste hat here, haste cloak here) all within the same "range" of content then what you end up with is commonality and the whole issue of "rarity" becomes not rare, but common.
What he was saying is that if an item is rare and sought after, make more places where that type of item drops (ie make them more common in availability, not drop rate). This is a bad approach as it falls right back into the mainstream solutions. The problem is not that people want a rare item, that it will be sought after, and it isn't the problem of people wanting to camp it heavily to obtain it.
The problem is people turning the adventure game (ie the reason the game primarily exists) and then using that as just a vending machine to fuel side game play element (ie player trade). The game does not exist for player trading, player trading is tool, a feature within the game, not the point. This behavior of abuse is an issue due to people treating a side element, a tool, or supplemental feature as the main driver of the game.
If we did not have a player trade system, there would be no incentive to farm items repetitiously because there would be no benefit in selling them for big lotto like winnings on the player trade market.
Making things more common in availability is going down that road to mainstream solutions, making the item less valuable.
I don't want to cheap the feeling of gaining a unique and rare item such as the FBSS was on release. Making similar versions of it throughout the world does that, and so does allowing people to perma farm it so people can just buy it on the AH rather than earning it in play.
Honestly, I hate the whole loot rule crap like BoP, but if I had to choose between the inconvenience of a non-tradeable item that has to be earned in play or that of seeing people buying their progression on the AH, well.. I will take the stupid loot rules. That is me though, and mainly because I experienced many people who cheapened my effort as a monk when Kunark was released by buying all their gear on the AH and it is the nature of those types of people who provide incentive for people to perma camp spawns in order to get rich quick on rare sales on the AH.
What if, after you kill a certain number of a type of mob, they start applying debuffs and dots on you for every kill thereafter that day. The debuffs and dots would last 24 hours, and eventually be lethal. But they would be applicable only in the zone where they were acquired. That would be the game's way of telling you it's time to move on,come back another time and give other folks a chance.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
What if, after you kill a certain number of a type of mob, they start applying debuffs and dots on you for every kill thereafter that day. The debuffs and dots would last 24 hours, and eventually be lethal. But they would be applicable only in the zone where they were acquired. That would be the game's way of telling you it's time to move on,come back another time and give other folks a chance.
Personally, I would rather just not reward a certain behavior (ie you can no longer get this item because it is lore), not punish it. The whole punishment approach can have dire consequences if such a result penalizes a player action that was not foreseen and is not abusive. Besides, is a player who is seeking to farm multiples of the same item a bad person? No... they are just trying to take advantage of the player trade market. That said, this aspiration can have negative effects on game play as people chase the lotto cash in on rare item sales in the AH.
I think it is better to just stop a certain result rather than punish it.
I think the temporary BoP/Lore flag to a certain item looted could work really well. It serves the goal of disallowing pema-camping in those less common situations (ie only those farming multiple of the same item would even see it as a problem) while retaining the ultimate goal of being able to fully trade the item, have multiples, etc... The flag would just disallow a person to trade or have multiples of that given item for a certain time period (to be decided).
The benefit of such a solution is that it is relegated only to the item itself with a simple flagging and timer on the flag. It is a ridiculously easy implementation when you consider it. It solves all the issues and it can be easily modified with the timer to balance its effectiveness. This should make everyone happy other than those who want to farm multiples in long camp settings (which if they are camping rares, could mean days of camping). Once they get the flagged item, it would be pointless to continue camping the item as if it did drop, they couldn't loot it anyway.
He didn't say make all items common Sinist, he said make alternatives. For example, if there was the FBSS camp, plus another haste item with similar haste but maybe more stats, that dropped somewhere else that was equally as difficult, like if the haste belt off swirlspine guardians in Kedge Keep was actually similar in haste to FBSS (or even more because they had a longer spawn time and were MUCH more difficult).
The more options you can give players the better, as long as you don't decrease the difficulty of getting those quality of items.
That makes them more common. When you have tons of places similar items drop (ie haste belt here, haste gloves here, haste hat here, haste cloak here) all within the same "range" of content then what you end up with is commonality and the whole issue of "rarity" becomes not rare, but common.
Ok, so we have a choice of making the camp less contested by having alternatives for the most important items, yet you are against it because it makes that type of item more common. But then you say...
Honestly, I hate the whole loot rule crap like BoP, but if I had to choose between the inconvenience of a non-tradeable item that has to be earned in play or that of seeing people buying their progression on the AH, well.. I will take the stupid loot rules. That is me though, and mainly because I experienced many people who cheapened my effort as a monk when Kunark was released by buying all their gear on the AH and it is the nature of those types of people who provide incentive for people to perma camp spawns in order to get rich quick on rare sales on the AH.
So you'd rather create coded restrictions to make camps less contested by preventing people from farming, instead of simply having alternatives for the most sought after items. You are arguing against yourself, I assume just for the sake of arguing. Both suggestions lead to the same result, less contested items, but yours goes out of the way to slap artificial restrictions on players just because you have a hang up on farming.
Comments
Scared of people camping zones? I thought Pantheon does not plan to be easymode. So how could a player camp a whole zone? Even if maxed out, it was impossible in EQ. Unless you count a few expansions further. But why would a level 70 camp a level 30 zone for money if every trash mob at 70 drops more?
Scared of people camping a spawn without breaks? What good does it bring to force them away with code? They don't log out, they just move to a differend camp. And if their camp was wanted there will be hundreds of others that want that spot.
Also think about the non forum warriors. "We" know this discussion. "We" talk about possibilities. But does "random bob" that play the game know about TLC? No. They visit a zone and get creamed. Coming back 20 levels later to check out what they missed. See no loot and think to themselves "well, what a wasted zone, unfinished, boring, no loot, glad i did not spend my time here".
Whatever was mentioned in this topic would solve something and start a new issue. Most of what i saw here would start problems that i consider way worse then what we get if we simply don't do anything facny to loot and camping. Loot and camping are one hell of a big part of a MMO. Many people just play to camp or just play to loot stuff. Discouraging that is a desaster waiting to happen.
Especially if you put in some INVISIBLE CODE that you have to learn outside the game world to understand what happens.
And no, fun is not subjective. You will have a hard time finding people that don't think blizzard games are fun. Even the ones they don't personally like or play. Very few people would argue about that. Well, obviously the ones that just need to claim that for the sake of argument ;-)
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
It has a shrink click. It's no drop, but it could have been droppable too.
It has a lot of value to higher level players, it has almost no value to lower level and casual players. Shrinking is extremely valuable during raids for tanks, corner tanking, it's not very valuable anywhere else in the game. Not only that, it's targetable which makes it even more valuable.
It was a random drop from an easy zone. But the difference was that it was from an instance. Many higher level players took newbees into the instance, since you needed 3 people to start it iirc.
I helped several newbees play the game again, and not be depressed they couldn't find a group, because I had no problem having 5 player tag along with me in the instance. The newbees were happy they got XP, I was happy I got my ring, and no one was bothered because it was an instance.
I know not everyone is a huge fan of instances, but .. I will always defend their use, sporadic use of instances solved many many problems.
Putting valuable items in those zones, caused higher level players to group with lower level, which is how the lower levels got introduced to guilds and the wider community.
If this item would have been placed in a non-instance zone, in the middle of a newbee zone, it would have caused nothing but camp stealing and issues.
Things aren't the same as they were during EQ. Gold selling was in its infancy back then, today it is a world market with thousands working to produce for them.
While I understand your concern about running into these stupid invisible code walls, only those who are abusive in such will even know they exist if they are designed right and if your point is to argue that those abuses are part of play, well... that makes me highly suspicious because in all of my years, I have never known a single reasonable player to argue that abuse was "part of the game" unless they were a primary abuser.
Again, as I said, a good implementation of this should not be noticed by most of the player base, it should be something that is only noticed by the abusers.
As for your reasoning of a level 70 camping a level 30 item for cash sales on the AH? Seriously? Did you start gaming yesterday?
I do like the idea of mobs having somewhat of a consciousness that affects the likelihood of spawns once a player has acquired a rare drop. The only problem with mobs spawning less (or dropping a rare drop less) is that one player getting an item could have a negative impact on the rest of the group. If the presence of other group members negates that mechanic, then you will have players farming while in a group, though the other group members aren't even nearby or in the zone. You would then have to expand it to factor group members only if they contribute damage to the mob or damage nearby (this is already getting really complicated).
The more I consider these things, the more I feel like this is getting out of hand. EQ didn't need all these gimmicks; it just worked. I'm not convinced anything would need to be changed. As I've said many times, I think the real solution to this (and similar) issues is to focus on 1) creating challenging multiplayer content (interdependence), 2) having content yield progressively better rewards (both item and coin - which encourages players to move on from older content), 3) having an adequate amount of content for all level ranges and 4) having less predictable mob spawn locations and encounters. If your problem cannot be solved by those 4 things, its time to consider opening a new server or having a GM follow up on tips of gold farmers monopolizing content.
Number four is the big one. My solution is not limitations, but increasing the challenge and mystery (predictability) factors. Not every mob can be mobile or spawn completely at random. You will have scenarios where a king spawns on his throne or an alchemist in his lab etc. However, you could have "static" mobs spawn randomly in locations (close enough that it isn't disruptive to other groups or camps) and/or with an entourage. Maybe at times the king spawns nearby and then paths to his throne. This would make everything far less predictable and much harder for a single player to lock down (even at high levels), but manageable by a group.
It also goes back to number 1 - multiplayer content. Sometimes you need other players to pull a mob further from camp while you watch another area. Sometimes you might need to do 2 or 3 things around the same time (like close a door, flip a switch, or dispel a mob while also breaking his channeling). Even a player that is higher level would struggle in those situations, thus preventing him from single-handedly monopolizing that content. Multiplayer is the key here.
With any other mob that isn't bound to a certain location, you could do a karnors skeletal warlord type of deal where he has spawn points all through a dungeon so parties throughout have a chance at him. To me, these are the real solutions, not just limitations on how often mobs spawn or how often they drop rare items.
@Sinist
I get your point, but I think players would circumvent the "timer." Think of Gukbottom - there was plenty to camp in that zone that would have taken the player longer than 7 days to obtain (especially if your luck was awful). Further, whats to stop a person from camping alts or guild members near the spot and log in after the drop occurs. Also, like others have suggested, you could easily use guild groups to circumvent the restriction and rotate players in and out.
@Aradune
I'm not a huge fan of the reducing exp from mobs as I think it would cause more harm to the legitimate players than truly restrict the gameplay you're seeking.
Example: Again, in Gukbottom, I camped the FBSS for months (literally) as I was extremely unlucky - thanks RNG. If your proposed system were in place, I would have been severely penalized for legitimately trying to obtain an item. Further, there were many times that my group wanted to stay in an area to obtain experience, and, any loot that we obtained was just a bonus. So, it would penalize groups that weren't crawling as well (unless the timer was set extremely high, which would defeat the purpose anyhow).
____________________________________________________________________________
And, I was trying to think of solutions that could be used to restrict camping, and I continually found ways to circumvent my ideas. Like, using creative implementation of the "Lore item" tag by making items unidentified (similar to Diablo) and /no drop prior to being identified. And, you could have the identify item be skilled/trade skill/spell based which required components and/or a device in town. That way it would restrict the individual farmer from being able to perma-camp an item, but not a group of and/or guild of. It also wouldn't restrict players from camping alts nearby. Further, it wouldn't prevent the player from coming back either.
So, the more I thought about it, the more I'm in agreement with Dullahan - tackle the problem of why someone is wanting to "Camp" those low level items with progressively better gear matched with appropriate content. Will you still get players farming for their alts in low level dungeons at times? I'm sure and it would be unavoidable to completely remove without a very restrictive loot code. However, if it's more lucrative to "Farm" in the higher level dungeons and buy the alt gear (takes less time) versus farming it than the problem will be decreased at least.
If a player has many alts that can solo the group content or if there is a guild coordinating to farm it... like I said, that is extreme cases and honestly, as I said, at the point you likely have bigger issues with that behavior already.
Anyway, the point was to limit a single person or a small number of people locking it down indefinitely, not try to combat some major nefarious exploiting work around.
I agree that these types of problems won't have a perfect solution and I also agree that putting in the draconian measures is not a good approach either, but also know that in this day and age, turning a blind eye to it won't work either. The community can only do so much, especially if VR isn't going to make accounts publicly visible and if they allow server transfers, name changes, etc... then community policing will be as pointless as it became in EQ when they started allowing that. Add in FTP starter accounts and no buy box in to start subbing and what you have is zero means to deal with the issues outside of game mechanics.
I don't want to see TLC code, I hated it, I would rather deal with the problems without it, but make no mistake, it won't be like it was in the old days, even EQ wasn't EQ once they started allowing certain things and mainstream took interest.
Honestly, I don't know what they can do, but I do think some solutions can be put in to help curb easy abuses. As in my example, it won't stop it from happening, but if you make it where it isn't easy or it requires multiple people to coordinate to any effect, well... it is kind of achieving its purpose.
I really am firmly against arbitrary invisible walls and limitations. They generally do more harm then good.
I am with Dullahan, the issue is we need to look at the root cause, not the symptom. High level players camping low level items was a symptom of a bigger problem. That problem was there wasn't enough ways at the higher levels to adequately make money to buy items you need, or to farm items you needed to sell on the market etc. What we need to have is a reason for higher level players not to go back to low level dungeons outside of maybe a quest item, etc.
Other issues with TLC is that it is a really great way to make a world feel dead. It kinda sorta helps in the short term during the early days of a games release, but when you take a simple example of Kunark vs original old world EQ, TLC would have 100% completely killed the reason for any of those level 60's to go back to any of the old zones. Not only would this have translated into less players running around (just making the world feel less populated), it also means that all those low level players don't get to see the high level player run by with his broadsword of badassery, and think "wow that's cool, I want to get to where that guy is!".
I feel the ultimate solution is a combination of 2 things. 1. As dullahan said, properly incentivize higher level zones so high level players have less of a reason to camp lower level zones. 2. Those "special" items, such as things like fishbone earrings, make them no drop. This means that the high level players will only farm the item insomuch as they can get them for themselves, rather than as a money making item that they can sell, etc.
As far as number 1, i'll leave the details up to the professionals, but one easy thing is to have the "trash loot" from the mobs be worth significantly more than it was in a game like EQ, where it was basically useless.
Some periphery things, when I played EQ, I very rarely thought, "wow there is some high level douchebag taking all the camps". Realistically more often I was relieved because that high level would come buff people, or if your group wiped he might be willing to pull corpses, or help you beat your way back, etc etc etc. It fostered community in a multitude of ways. Also, because of how EQ's stats and skills worked, a level 50 wasn't essentially a god running around in a say level 30 zone. He might be able to take a single camp, but he certainly isn't going to take over the entire zone.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Reading this topic over and over... i am not sure we are all on the same boat as to what goal we try to discuss here.
As for my thinking: I hate invisible code walls. And getting less and less exp does sound like discouraging xp camps. And i pray to the (pantheon) gods, that xp camps will make their return to MMOs.
Bosses spawning less over time sounds like an even worse problem tho: What happens if a group of 6 camps a boss for 6 hours. Will it already start? What if the group is replaced by a new group after 6 hours? Will they suffer the diminishing returns of group 1? What if Group 1 replaces just 3 players after 6 hours?
I can post my take on a possible fix as soon as i understand what goal we really want to achive here. Most likely it will involve more content, bigger dungeons, more variations and less invisible code tho. :-)
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
I think these logs could be practical (ie not interfere with performance) if they are just a simple tagging of basic info on certain events that is stored for later analysis. Also, such a logging system might come in handy when dealing with gold selling and other abuse activities. I can't stress enough how important it is to have a very solid logging system for tracking all sorts of aspects of various systems. If designed well, it could make a lot of later problems much more manageable.
I would like to say that I am against making it so there's no reason for a high level player to want to go to low level areas other than for quest items. This was part of the magic of EQ for me, the fact that if I couldn't find a group or maybe wasn't in the mood to socialize I could go camp something by myself in a relaxed state and still be productive. Sometimes on my druid I would even camp multiple things in multiple places using ports/gate to make it to the location in time for the spawns.
While i agree with the idea,.. what exactly do you consider extreme cases? Some people find their greatest enjoyment in playing the AH (if there is one) or the Commons Tunnel (if there is no AH).
Are these people a "extreme issue" if they farm for their goods? What if they barter for their goods?
Id love to talk about specifics here, since it definitly is a huge part of the game and every rule (or possibly lack thereof) can effectivly make or break the game. Very few things can have as much of an impact as tinkering with loot and experience rules. Should go into detail and specifics here.
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
Yes, those are extreme and that is exactly why I hate player trade markets. Why should a person who only wants to play a certain part of the game be able to have such a large effect on the rest of it?
In other words, that meant you actually had to talk to people, or else wait your turn. If someone has something camp you want, you can talk to them and work something out (perhaps a group), you can barter with them, or you can wait until they leave (or, on PvP servers, fight them). Those are real options, that exist in the real world and those interactions, and unique multiplayer experiences, were part of the reason why EverQuest was so memorable. That thankfulness you had when a higher level allowed you to join them out of the kindness of their heart. That appreciation of finding people to group with in a dangerous place, especially when they were after the same thing as you. Even that frustration or anger when a disreputable player or guild locked down an area for longer than was gracious. Those were real emotions brought on by a game, and the mechanics and circumstances that evoked them have largely gone by the wayside for things like trivial loot code.
This is not to say that Pantheon should be nothing but a series of nearly insurmountable obstacles that only the unemployed should hope to overcome; that would not be fun, and after all, it is still a game. However, they must balance that struggle to advance and the wants of the player with the challenge necessary to preserve the sense of reward.
Sometimes, that should mean dealing with a player that has a camp (or something else) that you want. Forcing that player to leave by placing a level based or item based (nodrop) restriction isn't really a solution, because now you are providing fun for one player at the expense of another.
Again, the only real solution here is to properly balance the amount of content against the number of intended players on a server, to adjust the value of higher level items against the lower, and to incorporate challenging multiplayer combat mechanics to encourage (NOT force) groups of level-appropriate players to engage in particular content. I know that solution isn't as easy as slapping a nodrop tag on an item in a database or a script that prevents a higher level player from looting an item, but it is the way to bring back player interaction, player freedom, and the true sense of reward that existed in EverCrac- err, EverQuest.
And honestly, even that rare exception of a guy who goes at it day in and day out for weeks at a time, what real impact does he have on a server of thousands of people? I'd argue not much.
Time will tell, which is why I suggested that maybe waiting until release to watch the habits of players might be a better approach than implementing solutions that we are not sure is the problem.
I played EQ heavily as well, and I remember the FBSS camp perma camped by Necros to farm for sale in the EC (FBSS was a big money maker). I know this because the necro in my guild did it personally. Between him and two other necros, a single class locked down a camp for months. This behavior was carried on into Kunark with the same behavior applied to the hundred fists staff camp, again with a solo necro camping the spawn indefinitely to sell the item on the AH. Another issue was the Staff of Flowing Water in PoP which was a hot money item. This camp was perma camped by a duo usually to farm the staff indefinitely.
I think it will be a problem, partly because I saw it before, but more so because times have changed concerning this. While you may think the average player won't camp as such, gold sellers will and gold selling today is nothing like it was back then. Like I said though, they can wait and see, I am fine with that. Obviously, my goal is to protect game play and if this isn't an issue, then there is no point in putting in a system. They should however have thought long and hard about the issue before it occurs as if they wait until it becomes a problem, time will be a factor that can cause them to rush a poor implementation.
Maybe when you loot the item, it buffs the item with a "bind on pickup/Lore" buff for a period of time, but will eventually wear off allowing the item to be traded to anyone, have multiples, etc... which would achieve the result of wanting to be able to trade and give items to anyone without all the restrictions we are used to with poor TLC implementations.
So, lets say the item drops Rare A and the player loots it. The item gets flagged with a "Bind on Pickup/Lore" flag with a timer for a period of time VR determines to be appropriate to avoid extreme issues and begins to tick down. The player can not trade it and they can not have more than one until that timer on that gear expires. Once the timer expires, the gear is completely trade able, can be passed to another, mailed if they have it, put on the AH, whatever... You will also be able to have multiples when the timer expires (you just make the flagged item a different item when it is looted to avoid issues with Lore and already having one in the bank or on you that has expired.)
This might be the simplest solution to implement and it is temporary, but achieves the ultimate goal of fully trade able gear, yet a means to implement restrictions for those who would perma-camp a spawn.
Also, you could even work Brads idea of allowing some diminishing returns by making it a lore+3 item for instance which says you can have 3 of those items with a timer before they become "truly lore". I would imagine there are many ways to implement such a temporary tag to an item.
That extremne example sounds like one that never happens. I have yet to see that since i started MMOs in 1998. So i have a hard time debating a "fix" for that since it really sounds like a very rare case., not warranting doing anything that may hurt everyday joe. Not even warranting hurting the extreme version of everyday joe.
A single person locking down a spawn 24/7 to inflate prices on one drop? That could only work if a guild does it. And only if there is no alternatives (small world, few items, few bosses), also the item would have to be VERY saught after to even make it worth it for a whole freaking guild.
Edit: regarding FBSS and Staff examples: It needed a VERY geared Necro that hardly needed the money AND there used to be so many alternatives that it hardly mattered at all. Also i got in into these camps whenever i tried with very few days that had a list that was too long.
Even if we consider this a possibiliy, a fix would simply be to offer more alternatives and don't make a single item that high in demand. If the item is not mandatory for a huge part of the community, then there would be very few people that are willing to pay inflated prices and the issue would not exist. Noone camps an item to inflate it's price if there is no market that is willing to pay.
In short: This issue COULD happen, but ONLY if we are talking about a VERY small world and single items being mandatory and definitly BIS for a majority of people, WITHOUT any alternatives. That sounds like a bad design in the first place, but something that should be fixed at the root, not by screwing with invisible code as a bandaid fix.
How about we try and find some examples that are actually happening, or can happen. Something that is not as rare or pure fiction so a discussed "fix" is actually worth the time?
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
Consider one other thing, if this wasn't a problem, why did Sony start implementing tons of loot control policies? If this wasn't an issue, why would they waste the development time? Not very cost effective to implement solutions to things that don't exist?
No it didn't. It needed a skilled player. Gear in early EQ was not like WoW, gear didn't make or break a class, the players skill did. A group geared necro and a raid geared necro in release EQ were not much different in power. Heck, all we had at release was Naggy/Vox and then PoA a bit later (which only the top guilds were even partly into at that time.)
As I said, our necro in the guild who was only group geared at the time was locking down that camp every moment he was on and if he wasn't another necro was. Now I will concede the difference back then was that in many of the cases, they would add someone to group with them, or if a full group was looking to run it, they would relinquish it. This didn't always happen, there were some that were asses and told people to piss off.
That said, today's players have the manners of a petulant child, I think the latter case is going to be a lot more common and that isn't even getting into the gold sellers (which you seem to keep skipping over).
Point is, your reasoning is loose examples of why someone "would likely not" and while it is a reasonable evaluation, I have already said I have personally seen the other cases.
So make all items generic, common and bland in order to combat desire and keep people from selling on the AH? No thanks, that is exactly what I hate about games today. Everything is common and easy to get so nobody feels left out. That would be completely counter to EQs loot structure and design. More of a WoW Purple gear type of solution.
If it could happen and there is a solution that only bars that specific example from happening? What is the problem? See, I am confused here. You say it never happens, but then are arguing against a solution that would be designed only to combat that thing you claim never happens? It is odd.
I have seen them, just because you and Dullahan don't remember doesn't mean that it didn't happen. There are many reasons why you may not have experienced it and are just generalizing the issue because your experience with it was limited. I experienced it and had many friends who experienced it as well. My guild wasn't cutting edge, we were behind the content a bit.
We were on test where this wasn't an issue and moved to a production server when the Test wipe happened. Seeing level 60's camping premium spawns solo was quite common, especially when the EC tunnels took off and even more so when the duping bug destroyed the value of currency. Also, key items that were premium for monk twinking (as when Kunark was released, monks could be twinked when before they couldn't) were perma camped for the cash value they could bring in. The hundred fists staff, FBSS, SoFW, Fungi tunic, etc... could bring you in a ridiculous amount of cash and due to the duping bug, and the massive increase in item prices (seriously, it went from a couple hundred plat for an item up into the hundreds of thousands).
Again, we are just talking about normal players and those cases do happen, but aren't the biggest offenders, add in today's gold sellers and it will be a problem.
Besides, you don't see perma camping as an issue in the first place. Kind of hard to find a solution to a problem you think isn't a problem?
The more options you can give players the better, as long as you don't decrease the difficulty of getting those quality of items.
That makes them more common. When you have tons of places similar items drop (ie haste belt here, haste gloves here, haste hat here, haste cloak here) all within the same "range" of content then what you end up with is commonality and the whole issue of "rarity" becomes not rare, but common.
What he was saying is that if an item is rare and sought after, make more places where that type of item drops (ie make them more common in availability, not drop rate). This is a bad approach as it falls right back into the mainstream solutions. The problem is not that people want a rare item, that it will be sought after, and it isn't the problem of people wanting to camp it heavily to obtain it.
The problem is people turning the adventure game (ie the reason the game primarily exists) and then using that as just a vending machine to fuel side game play element (ie player trade). The game does not exist for player trading, player trading is tool, a feature within the game, not the point. This behavior of abuse is an issue due to people treating a side element, a tool, or supplemental feature as the main driver of the game.
If we did not have a player trade system, there would be no incentive to farm items repetitiously because there would be no benefit in selling them for big lotto like winnings on the player trade market.
Making things more common in availability is going down that road to mainstream solutions, making the item less valuable.
I don't want to cheap the feeling of gaining a unique and rare item such as the FBSS was on release. Making similar versions of it throughout the world does that, and so does allowing people to perma farm it so people can just buy it on the AH rather than earning it in play.
Honestly, I hate the whole loot rule crap like BoP, but if I had to choose between the inconvenience of a non-tradeable item that has to be earned in play or that of seeing people buying their progression on the AH, well.. I will take the stupid loot rules. That is me though, and mainly because I experienced many people who cheapened my effort as a monk when Kunark was released by buying all their gear on the AH and it is the nature of those types of people who provide incentive for people to perma camp spawns in order to get rich quick on rare sales on the AH.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I think it is better to just stop a certain result rather than punish it.
I think the temporary BoP/Lore flag to a certain item looted could work really well. It serves the goal of disallowing pema-camping in those less common situations (ie only those farming multiple of the same item would even see it as a problem) while retaining the ultimate goal of being able to fully trade the item, have multiples, etc... The flag would just disallow a person to trade or have multiples of that given item for a certain time period (to be decided).
The benefit of such a solution is that it is relegated only to the item itself with a simple flagging and timer on the flag. It is a ridiculously easy implementation when you consider it. It solves all the issues and it can be easily modified with the timer to balance its effectiveness. This should make everyone happy other than those who want to farm multiples in long camp settings (which if they are camping rares, could mean days of camping). Once they get the flagged item, it would be pointless to continue camping the item as if it did drop, they couldn't loot it anyway.
This I cannot abide.