Landmark: Impacting Others' Gameplay (Question Inside)

Negative interactions is such a dry term

My definition of a negative interaction is anything another player or the game itself does that steals real-life time from me.

Trick me into a situation where I become PVP-flagged and kill me, you have stolen time from me. Tear down my house and steal all the resources that went into building it, and you have stolen time from me.

If I join PVP and someone else kills me, we both played the game together and hopefully had fun. If a Player tears down my house and the resources come back to me while he/she gets an amount equal to some percentage, then I have helped provide content, and we both hopefully had fun

Time is the only meaningful currency that exists in an MMO. Don't create systems that allow players to steal time from each other and you will avoid almost all of the negative interactions short of Customer Service Issues.

I am against griefing of any kind in Everquest, it's a group/social game, and I think it should stay that way, unnecessary drama in Landmark will take away from the community spirit of the game that I love.

I wouldn't mind friends or others who I add to a list being able to make changes (similar to the housing system in EQ2)


Maybe later, a section of the world could be devoted to plays who want to cause 'death and destruction'.

I wouldn't mind people having a little fun as long as it's not something permanent or extreme.

Good example:
Give me some water balloons and let me throw them at their house!

Bad example:
Give me some grenades and let me blow up their house!

Griefing, no. But... A bit of 'fun'! As above, water bombs, or paint bombs that fade after (x) amount of time!

But with those initial options, there's a good case to be made for server/flag to enable any of those. Let people who want to just build and be left alone set their flag to 'no-fun', and a pvp-flag for those who want full on chaos. Or guess a dial on how much chaos they want to be allowed (and benefits from going full pvp for longer than (x) amount of time, ie, you've got the dial to max pvp for > 1 week, you get a.. flag/unique stone for placement/statue. Or even that in itself is some optional part of progression (as it's not a bad thing to put people through a limited amount of pain to let them know how annoying it can be if they do it to others).

This is a fairly broad question, so I'm not entirely sure how to answer it. I believe the baseline game should protect against griefing/harassing. Just because the game is an mmo doesn't mean we need to promote player interaction at the cost of fun. Obviously I believe there should be flags and permissions if people want to declare war on one another, but I don't really see this being fun without an entire system of penalties, checks and balances being built around it. So what, someone walks up to my claim while I'm gone and destroys hours of work—now what, I go and do the same to them, and we never get anything done?

The only interesting way I could see this playing out would be to make combat between players indirect. What do I mean? Well, the world is going to be dangerous right, with monsters and things wandering around? And we can assume that these monsters might have a negative impact on your claim (possibly opting into this). We also know that eventually npc's are going to be put into the game, presumably with the same rigorous AI as in EQN. So I think it would be interesting if you could hire guards/weapons/npcs of all types to populate your claim—each of these resources should come with upkeep costs just like your claims do. Not only does this help with monsters et cetera, but it provides an interesting avenue for pvp. Now the game doesn't become people just smashing each other's houses in, but competing to hire/train/equip and pay for a retinue of guards/walls/cannons/et cetera.

Imagine how epic guild combat could be with this system? You have multiple guilds vying for control of a continent's resources in order to maintain the army protecting their cities/land/citizens, and each guild is pillaging/raiding into the other's territories to steal resources from them and boost their own armies—how amazing would that be? It has the potential to be an entire game within itself, like a fully action, fully AI RTS game—each npc type would have different strengths: lancers, archers, knights, healers, wizards, etc—and you could train them up with special skills/buffs auras. Maybe longstanding units gain veteran status for surviving. The way you arrange your forces and how you've built them could entirely determine your success or defeat in combat.

God I want to play that game. Please do this? Please?

P.S. there should be limits/costs on all npcs, not just combat types—although possibly farmers/miners could contribute to the society, supporting your merchants and whatnot and offsetting some of the player's costs.

I'd rather have the MMO game to just hangout and relax. Collect and build things with a small group like Starbound is my ideal MMO environment.

A lot of MMOs are just filled with tasks that keep people too preoccupied. Either they are questing or preparing for the next raid. Griefing would just make it even worse.

Now, if we're talking about designating a PVP zone where we build huge castles and have cannon props and such, that could be cool.

I like the idea of water balloons or paint bombs. It's minor damage and it's can be fun.
The game can do minor damage too, like plant growing inside the claim and need to weed them or leave them more "ancient" buildings.

I guess I don't really understand the question, specifically as to what would be categorized as negative.

Are we talking...
-PvP resulting in character death? Then yes if it's on PvP continents.
-PvP resulting in destruction of property? Then yes if you build on PvP continents.
-PvP without death or destruction? Sure, if the characters engage in a consensual duel.
-spawning a bunch of rats and luring them over to your neighbor's house? Then yes, if the claim owner flags their property to allow wandering NPC's to enter.
-building a wall around some important content feature? No.
-character effects like turning people into horny toads? Yes.
-creating area effects within your claim that can debuff the combat effectiveness of other characters? Yes.
-banning certain characters from our claims? Yes, on PvE continents.
-spawning NPCs on our claims that will attack players? Yes.

For the love of fun, do not open up the possibility for arsehats in a game with no pay option.

There were very few griefers in EQ. There are way to many arsehats in World of Tanks. Imagine this scenario;
A newly spawned character wanders up to your pride and joy creation and starts creating holes in the ground and in your building. When you tell him to stop you will enjoy a tirade about you mother and what noob you are.

If there is a PvP option make it so that you have to progress quite a bit before you PvP. To me it seems that the free play attracts the bottom feeders and then you will have to spend a lot of time banning accounts that will be instantly recreated and bad behaviour continues.

I want a big player base in EQLM and EQN because I want this game to succeed and I want the magic back. The problam is that with a big player base you will have a higher number of arsehats. Sony needs to have a very effective way to deal with them. The player base in WoT have totally ruined a possibilty of fun for me. I am sick and tired of random arsehats.

I suggest multiple server types. One could be for people who want their own slice of the world to build in with each other. Call it Utopia. Code the options to allow players to risk some drama with an option that either allows friends to destroy/grief .. or not.

The second server should be like the first but with options like buying into a "PvP style claim area" with the purchase of defensive measures through materials gathered, which depending on your resources give you a set amount of time being invulnerable to attack. After the "hiring of defensive measures passes, continual resources must be supplied to keep the keep standing. Claims are lost due to lack of tesources, etc etc etc.. Rawr.

There needs to be two separate aspects to the game.

Social/Gather mode & Build mode

In the S/G mode you run around, gather minerals, fight others, do quests for prop-recipes (and all other interactions), and while doing that, if you come across a landscape you like you can "flag it" (with a limited amount of flags).

In Build mode the game becomes a solo area (unless you invite others to help build), you can pull up landscapes that you "flagged" to build on using the minerals that you gathered, and save structures to be posted and viewed by others.

Back to S/G mode; if you want to you can turn on a filter that lets you see other people's planted flags. If you click on it you enter the area (like an instance) and can see what they have done with the area. This should even be encouraged in the form of quests and you should be able to write a reviews or even rate what you see (maybe even "pin a note" on certain aspects of their work saying stuff like "I like this wall design" or "less archways here, it's too open" or whatever).

An incentive to level and play the game
**The higher your "level" or "achievement points" are, the more flags you can earn to post markers in the world for others to view your creations. I also think that the higher your level is the more surface area your flagged "instances" can have (I would imagine limiting the building area in the beginning, so others don't have to spend a long time loading the entire world when entering people's flagged creations)

-----
As for the "destruction" of other people's work. Without cool abilities and only a pickax, it seems rather that you should leave destruction for EQnext, not Landmark.
-----

Just to get this idea out there. I think there should be mini-game-instances through out the world (solo or grouped).
Games such as:

1. A 3D version of Lemmings! Build paths and destroy obstacles, to ensure the Lemmings reach their goal safely.
2. Tower Defense. Everybody knows that one (but multiple versions can be made)
3. Labyrinth. Race and fight others in a maze to win resources
4. ... Just google "online games" and you can pretty much incorporate anything you find somehow with Landmark's graphics

-----
Lastly, besides just having lifeless props to add into my creations, I want to be able to place NPCs into it. Set walking paths for them. Hostile/Friendly. Say something when you click on them. Or maybe even program a simple "gather/kill/find" quest onto them. I think this would really make looking at other people's work fun; since the environment you build can be set up to be dynamic and more lively.

If we're talking about "gameplay" as in my ability to move / build / gather then no, opt-in would be great or none at all. If by "gameplay" this includes seeing others plots, having to find another mob to get skins or others being able to mine next to you then that's "minor" IMO and expected in MMOs.

Never/Not at all!

I voted for that, though I'm not sure votes make much difference.

I think players should be given the freedom to do anything in an MMO, literally anything ... but with that choice comes responsibility so players should be made accountable for their actions.

So for example ...

If i attack / steal from another player without just cause i gain a reputation hit for being that type of player.
NPC's may come and trash my house or steal from me, or gang up on me.

If I help NPC's in order to prevent griefing from another player by way of a quest to go steal or trash under orders then I should have a reputation gain for being a good player.

Build this sort of thing in to the whole concept of the game make players choose a faction / allegence then push players to compete ... it's part of the MMO experience is it not?

The other way this is managed other than using PVE / PVP servers is to have designated "safer regions" where such actions are impossible or NPC support will prevent griefing.

EVE does this very I think, if I attack another player whilst in protected space the "police" will show up and put an end to my harassment very quickly.

Though in other games which have had bounty systems , the hardcore pvp community seem to use these bounties as a way of internally ranking up a high score. It has had the effect of increasing greafing activates instead of making the game a better area for everyone to play in.

The best way is to keep it consensual, by making or allowing a player to make the choice that they wish to be engaged in such activates , by making a pvp server. By rolling a character on such a server , or by existing there you have consented to such activates as you find them fun. By existing on a PVE or RP server you have stated you do not wish such activates to happen to you.

Instant karma. I really like that idea.That will not only kill the fun for griefers but it will not cost Sony any wages or pissed of victims. Loging tickets and such is a slippery slope downhill.

If this game ends up being open PVP open destroy everything on every server, my husband and I won't be playing. We've seen what that does to the community, and it definitely definitely attracts people who LOVE to do nothing more than grief, corpse camp and harass others. Seen it time and time again. If they want PVP servers, fine with me, but I hope they realize the core base of EQ fans are typically more roleplay and PVE focused as a whole.

Yeah because wrecking some ones game play or someone wrecking yours is just so much fun.

That poll is just ridiculous. I can't believe you seriously asked that question after telling us this is a social game.

It';s called Everquest Next, NOT World of Warcraft.

i'm in the same boat. this is a very very broad and vague question. negatively impacting others gameplay? is that PvP? is that standing around naked and dancing in their face? is that trolling in map chat? is that resource/kill stealing? is this playing an evil character and working counter to other players efforts in rally events? is this not being in character on an RP server? slapping around a loud mouth in a tavern? something this vague makes it impossible to give any form of useful answer. everything can negatively impact other players' gameplay. each separate question has its own separate answer.

PvP? flags to toggle it on and off. both for individual players and for plots of land. have a message pop up on the screen saying "you have entered a PvP zone" for the plots of land.
dancing naked in public? have the NPCs fine them for public indecency
trolling map chat? treat it the same as trolling on the forums. monitor, warn, ban. end of story
resource/kill stealing? individualized resource nodes. kill sharing.
playing an evil character and working counter to other players' efforts in rally events? go for it. that's a lot better than guaranteed easy-mode charity events
not being IC on an RP server? they'd have to enforce RP in the first place to even begin approaching this one
slapping around a loud mouth in a tavern? some people can't treat others with respect until they're bleeding. lessons in humility aren't a bad thing.

not all negative actions have negative impacts on the experience. in fact, most even enrich the experience. if there are no villains, there's no need for there to be heros. then we're all playing hello kitty island adventure, where we can all sit around in a drum circle and tell everyone how much we love them. if there are no trolls or griefers, awesome. those are just immature annoyances who should be removed from existence entirely. if people aren't roleplaying on a roleplaying server, then there's no need for them to be on an RP server. they can do the same activities on a general PvE or PvP server, and not have any negative impact whatsoever. the "level 1 badass syndrome" is something that needs to be squashed out entirely. being low level and weak isn't a bad thing, it means you have a lot of room for growth and development. don't talk the talk if you can't walk the walk.

so does "negatively impacting others' gameplay" mean one of the questions or any of the other countless possibilities that fall under this giant umbrella statement?