I think every MMO has a certain subset of players that get their kicks from playing parts of the game their way, and I'm pretty sure no amount of added-in fun mini-games or events that the rest of us might enjoy will distract them from what they are doing
Players that organize themselves to maximize content control over other players are doing that because that's exactly where they find their enjoyment in the game... its not an intended function of the game, but its possible to do if you try hard enough and they like it so they do
Other players make a game with in a game of controlling player markets, buying out items and fixing prices... Sometimes this can get as complicated as high level crafters forming a cartel that shuts out lower level crafters just trying to play the game and make a buck or two
These types of playstyles generally result in a lot of wealth accumulation, and that generally leads to economic issues for the rest of the game
No matter how fun events or other alternate sources of competition might be, if they don't offer the ability to be controlled for large profits by organized groups, those guys will just keep on having their fun their way
I'm not sure there is an effective way to combat these kinds of behavior or if there is any motivation to do so, at least for the folks that enjoy controlling content, as they are pretty open about their love for that kind of anti-others gameplay and VR is building the game around it in some sense
While there is some cross over between those guys and the market manipulators, I would say the latter is much more dangerous to a game and harder to control
Interesting you say that as I have always been a major market player. I spend a lot of time learning the economy and will go out of my way to corner as many markets as possible for maximum wealth accumulation. At the end of the day, I don't consider "controlling content" (markets in this case) a thrilling experience. I do it because I have never found a more efficient way to accumulate wealth in an MMO. I am the kind of player that will keep my guild bank stocked with all of the worthwhile consumables and enough funds to permanently cover the repair costs of everybody else in guild. Whether it's important spells or gear or crafting supplies or something else I usually try to help my friends out as much as possible. This has only ever been possible due to how I play the economy game. It's kind of a bittersweet reality ... I'm ruthless when it comes to market manipulation but extremely generous when it comes to helping my friends.
This extends to content denial. I have done my fair share of it but at the end of the day I attribute a lot of that due to the "competitive nature" of the guilds I was leading and what that environment ultimately looks like. When you play in a competitive raiding guild players will utilize every resource possible when it comes to gaining an advantage over those they are competing with. If you do not do this, then the other competitive guilds will do it to you. It basically becomes a choice of kill or be killed. If one guild can stall out the progress of another guild from getting their epic weapons, you can then also stall their progress of beating certain content that is designed around having them. The more content you can deny, the bigger the gap in power, and the easier it becomes to funnel even more loot to your members. This is a playstyle that I have plenty of experience with and I'm not exactly proud of it. I have shared several ideas on the forum that can alleviate the painpoints of content denial and market manipulation. One of the phrases I have used a lot is that I want to see an MMO where hardcore players can be viewed as the hero rather than the villain.
Again, I don't think the ideas I have shared in this thread are going to completely eradicate this ruthless form of competition for resources. I do believe, however, that some of them could at least alleviate the issue. Competitive players usually end up in the same guild and that's why I think it's important to offer content that is specifically designed to capture their attention. If "vertical progression" is truly considered the end-all-be-all for the game then you will absolutely see players going out of their way to come up with ideas on how to get an edge. The more meaningful horizontal progression you add to the game, the more incentive players will have to go out and enjoy other aspects of the world. The main reason I want to see a Coliseum, (Or a Gauntlet of Diffusion zone as proposed in the "Ideas" thread) especially in an open world game, is to give competitive players something they can compete for, or spend a lot of their time progressing toward, that is purposely designed to minimize disruption to others.
If you gate all of the shiniest loot in the game behind contested content then you're bound to see packs of players with a savage hyena like mentality. You'll also see packs of lions. Lions generally kill their prey as a resource for food ... but if they see a young hyena, they will kill them as a means to an end with no intention of eating them. They know that young hyena will grow up one day and pose a threat to their food supply. The idea behind adding these other forms of competition is basically to give the lions a stimulus package of food. If they aren't forced to constantly wage war with the hyenas, they might stop killing their young. I understand the mindset that these stimulus packages aren't the exact same thing as giving lions (carnivores) meat (vertical progression) -- but I think the angle I'm going for is to offer them another food supply (other forms of competition as outlined in this thread) in the hope that they will evolve into omnivores. It isn't going to work on every lion out there but if you manage to get a few to adapt I think the community as a whole will benefit.
oneADseven said:If you gate all of the shiniest loot in the game behind vertical progression then you're bound to see packs of players with a savage hyena like mentality. You'll also see packs of lions. Lions generally kill their prey as a resource for food ... but if they see a young hyena, they will kill them as a means to an end. They know that young hyena will grow up one day and pose a threat to their food supply. The idea behind adding these other forms of competition is basically to give the lions a stimulus package of food. If they aren't forced to constantly wage war with the hyenas, they might stop killing their young. I understand the mindset that these stimulus packages aren't the exact same thing as giving lions (carnivores) meat (vertical progression) -- but I think the angle I'm going for is to offer them another food supply (other forms of competition as outlined in this thread) in the hope that they will evolve into omnivores. It isn't going to work on every lion out there but if you manage to get a few to adapt I think the community as a whole will benefit.
Kaen said:The more of these types of things there are, the more people will be lured away from highly contested content. Not saying it's an iron-clad solution, but it should help. Also, I imagine VR is planning to implement other mechanisms that limit the ability of people/guilds to lock down content without completely removing the concept of player/guild competition.
I think these kinds of things tend to attract a different audience entirely and lure very few away from highly contested/desired content. In fact this kind of stuff tends to be more to placate those who don't have the time, energy, or don't want to put up the effort toward more difficult (by challenge or scarcity) content.
Iksar said:I think these kinds of things tend to attract a different audience entirely and lure very few away from highly contested/desired content. In fact this kind of stuff tends to be more to placate those who don't have the time, energy, or don't want to put up the effort toward more difficult (by challenge or scarcity) content.
There is no reason a Coliseum couldn't be designed to be extremely challenging. While I definitely see merit in your suggestion, I don't completely agree with it. First off, it seems that you are implying that this type of content wouldn't also be highly desired, or scarce. Let's assume that there is a viking tribe that has faction merchants that sell desirable gear, and then also assume that this same viking tribe hosts a monthly fishing tournament and that the top 10 finishers qualify for significant faction gain. The important thing to balance into the equation is risk vs reward -- there isn't a lot of inherent danger involved with fishing (though there could be exceptions to this) but I like to think that there is still some degree of risk.
If you participate in the tournament, you are spending time (a very precious resource) in order to participate and have a chance to win. You could go the tried and true route of farming NPC's for faction the old-fashioned way (or do something else entirely), or you can risk your time (and possibly an entry fee) to potentially walk away with nothing but the fish you caught if you don't place high enough in the tournament. It's impossible to speculate too deeply here without knowing exactly what the rewards are that the faction merchants offer, but I do think it's possible to implement this sort of content in a way that makes it desirable, scarce, and rewarding. The challenge is balancing the risk vs reward but I don't think of that as an impossible obstacle.
It's possible that I misunderstood your intention because you were obviously quoting Kaen and he was talking about collectible cards. When he said "the more of these types of things" I thought he meant his suggestion, in addition to the other related suggestions that have been offered. Either way, I could still think of a few angles on his idea where I feel this response would apply. I remember the Dark Moon Faire in WoW and I remember there being some really nice rewards gated behind collecting the cards that he describes. These ideas are not designed to placate people who don't have time or energy to commit to other kinds of content. The goal is to reinforce the idea that "Content is King." The more meaningful choices people have, the more likely they are to diverge rather than forcibly compete over something specific. If none of these choices are truly meaningful, then you are 100% correct in saying that players would naturally gravitate towards "more desirable" content.
I think all the ideas we good. I would try to participate in as many as I could but you know, need to get in some adventuring time too. Prizes should be appropiate. I shouldn't get a epic weapon for decorating my house, but maybe some rare or one of a kind decoration that at most might give a limit time buff.
oneADseven said:I think having a coliseum would be really cool. You have to pay an entry fee of some sort in order to participate, and upon entering, you are locked inside of an arena. Players would be able to spectate from outside of it. It would be a battle of endurance ... every time you kill a mob, you get a small break to prepare for the next fight. The goal would be to see how many mobs you can kill before ultimately meeting your demise. Another idea would be to spawn waves on a timer ... no scheduled breaks. Mobs continue to spawn regardless of whether or not you completed the prior wave.
This would be great. I'm no longer a fan of WoW, but there were a couple of arena fights vs NPCs that was brilliantly done. You did these particular ones as a group though and even on a pvp server people were working together to defeat the NPC combatant's/monsters in the original open world arenas.
I think having a pvp area like this would be great too. Maybe a guild vs guild pvp match to determine who gets first rights to the next world spawn, or where people could go to settle disputes in a pvp battle. Or perhaps have a "walk of shame" where a character that wants to atone for something they did against the game community has to walk naked from one point to another... or if a guild wants to have a hazing/initiation type of ceremony... *shrug*
Sure, I'll call them Lions if it helps
These Lions are after rare and highly desirable loot, so unless these side competitions are offering stuff on that level as prizes, Lions will ignore them for the most part
You said it yourself, @oneADseven , you guys didn't play that way because you were having fun but because you felt you had to... keep in mind, however, that the process of content denial was started by those that do that stuff for fun, usually... They get their kicks by standing in the way of others, and its even sweeter when they can get others to do it too
In other places people might call that trolling or griefing, but Lions is fine too
So far, it sounds like the VR answer is to have enough similar gear dropping in other places that people looking for a certain type of drop could just go somewhere else to get it, which is fine because it allows "everybody" a chance at getting the reward they are willing (and hopefully able) to work for while making it harder for other players to stop them for whatever reason
This is kinda where there is a line between the type of emergent gameplay that is still playing the game (kiting, ping-ponging, etc...) and playing some other game within a game that actually has a negative effect (content control/market manipulation)
Basically, we are talking about good exploits vs bad exploits, and there will always be players that feel justified that their exploit is fine
All a game maker can do is try to mitigate the damage... as I said, VR intends to try to make it harder for players to control availability of rare drops by making them drop in more places, and they are eschewing a world-wide market system in hopes of making it at least a bit more labor intensive and a little less global economy damaging for players to spend their in game time playing the Futures Market instead of playing Pantheon
Most players log in to play the game, killing the monsters and progressing onward as the devs intended, not willing to go to the effort (or risk of ruining the game) to take shortcuts or utilize exploits, and most players don't log in to troll or grief others, but those that do won't stop it because there is also a fun card game they could be playing or an event they could attend instead
I've never seen a Lion playing cards
I understand the desire to motivate people away from pure racing for the end game loot, but when you introduce any PVP activity such as arenas, the players who dominate will mostly be the ones who have top tier endgame loot. The attempt to distract or provide additional outlets ends up reinforcing the very behaviour that you were trying to displace based on the OP.
I don't think we'll ever get away from heavy endgame competition (nor should we), but at least with Pantheon it looks like there will be fewer opportunities for a single small group of players to completely lock down specific content, due to more diversity in equipment options or more distributed drop options.
@Celandor -- You make a great point. I wasn't really thinking of that. I think the concern could be offset by introducing a set of generic gear that all players must use while inside the arena. You could also implement a couple sets of higher quality arena-only-gear that can only be obtained by gaining faction with the Coliseum. As long as there are a variety of ways to gain faction with the Coliseum then players still have a choice on how they advance and any time spent doing it would detract from competition for resources in the outside world. (This assumes that faction gain can be achieved by participating in Coliseum-specific activities, including the arena, PVE gauntlets, and any other kind of activity that coud be implemented.)
@Preechr -- The analogy wasn't meant to be literal. I would ask if you are familiar with "Dogs Playing Cards" but I don't want that to be taken literally either. I guess a part of my point is that players can be a product of their environment. The more saturated that environment is, the more likely you are to affect environment-induced change into the players who spend time in it. I think the environmental landscape could be changed in ways to produce more dogs (omnivores) and less lions and hyenas (carnivores) -- with this example, please consider the idea that carnivores will focus on consuming only vertical progression whereas omnivores have a taste for both horizontal and vertical progression.
I feel that I have spent the majority of my time in MMO's as an environment-induced carnivore. I have memories of being an omnivore and distinctly remember how refreshing it was to have a more diverse palette of food to choose from. That isn't to say that I don't appreciate the thrill of heavy endgame competition, or that I want it to go away at all. I just think the stars should be realigned ever so slightly and that if more and more players get on board with being an omnivore, dog eat dog behavior (or lions and hyenas killing each others cubs) would feel less instinctive. I would love to play a meaningful card game in Terminus ... the idea of wagering cards between players or participating in tournaments is highly attractive to me.
It's hard for me to completely buy into the idea that restricting our own behaviors will help creature a better culture. I definitely understand the logic behind it and feel that it can absolutely work for certain things, but not so much with others. For example ... let's say I decide to not become a market player in Pantheon. I don't think this is going to inspire others to follow suit. If the community suddenly pulls together and says "Nobody corner any of the markets!" what ends up happening is that a few people will completely ignore that because the markets are now even more ripe with opportunity. (As you said, something like this is very difficult to control.)
Rather than spreading the wealth around a bunch of market players it becomes extremely congested amongst the few. It would just give them more resources to expand their grip on the economy. These market players are going to exist, one way or another. Some of them will probably sell their gold for real cash on illegal 3'rd party sites. Some, like me, will use the funds acquired to actually help other players. I'm sure some people think that taking advantage of opportunities in the market place (in this specific way) is evil. I like to think of it more like a Robin Hood experience. I think it's really important to consider user-intent and all available alternatives. I'd like to hear what kind of alternatives you have in mind.
Hehe...I am not for the whole spread your wealth type of person, unless among people I know, but let it be a free market in the end. If people buyout something and jack the prices up..then you have a few options. Either people will buy it or get it themselves. Either way a person controlling the market is only as strong as the people who are dumb and buy overpriced stuff. If no one buys it..then the dude who tried to dictate an item on the market loses out in the end anyways.
@Preechr -- You should be careful tossing arounds words like "exploit" / "cheaters" / "scammed" / "behave badly" -- It's important to understand how a player-driven economy works, which is also "the intent." Pantheon is not a game that is solely designed to encourage players to "kill monsters." As far as the Robin Hood example, again, you are taking things literally when I specifically said "more like" as opposed to evil -- the point I alluded to was that these market players are a by-product of a free economy and that the more "players" who get involved, the less congested any wealth accumulation ultimately becomes. If you don't see the connection in taking from the top and giving back to others, I don't know what to tell you. VR is building a "world" and much like the real world, supply vs demand is going to be a major consideration for all things related to the economy. It sounds like you want to disillusion yourself from that reality by focusing on your ability or preference to "kill monsters and do quests and stuff" which is perfectly fine, but you shouldn't be so judgmental of players who would rather not stand idly by. You are correct in saying that in the end, it's a personal decision that we must all live with. I am quite comfortable with my decision to be an entrepreneurial spirit minded player that not only raises awareness on that which I have learned, but who is also committed to being extremely generous.
You brought up the idea of giving out historical data of sales history but you should realize that this wouldn't really have an impact on reputation as market players tend to conduct their business anonymously on alternate characters. On the other hand, it could be used as a way to educate the public on sales trends and perhaps even inspire other players to join in on the action. I think my intentions should be clear here; any person who participates in these kind of activities for the wrong reasons most certainly wouldn't be having an open dialogue on a public forum that raises awareness on their existence and tendencies. It's far more profitable to remain silent and never encourage other players to make the most of every opportunity that is available in the market place. In any event, I'm going to assume that we have philisophical differences. It's quite clear what kind of undertone you associate with the very basic principle of buying low and selling high but I think you are blowing things out of proportion. It is what it is, I am moving on. Feel free to start another thread about the economy if that's what you want to do.
I'm really not trying to hijack your thread, as I generally like the spirit of your suggestions like these, but in general, it does seem that the idea was to come up with horizontal progression ideas to distract Lions and Traders from their predatory nature, and my feeling there is that you really can't
All we can do is decide not to participate in things that are bad for the game, and an economy controlled by a minority of players is not the same thing as player driven
These two examples are part of a larger sub-set of player behaviors that are common in all MMOs, but that doesn't make them positive
Nearly all games, including this one, try to institute mechanisms and rules to at least minimize the damage of emergent gameplay
Some games go to far and nerf anything the devs didn't think of, and others, like EQ, evaluate whats going on and sometimes come back with "Hey, we didn't think about kiting, but it doesn't seem to be hurting anybody..."
One thing we know is players will always find a way to get what they want, so often all a game maker can do is try their best, and that's what VR seems to be doing by providing alternate sources for rare drops and regionalizing trading houses, but make no mistake they are doing these things to curtail the potential damage these behaviors can cause, so they are destructive no matter how many others are doing it
But, I'll leave any more of that talk out of your thread
I would be more than happy to try and share ideas (I have attempted to do this on other threads) that can alleviate some of the concerns that you speak of, but I would prefer that this thread in specific be focused more about the original topic. All I ask is that you be a little more selective with some of the words you use. It seemed to me like you were painting a picture of good vs evil and I can't help but think of how the economy in the real world works, particularly with supply vs demand. There are plenty of successful entrepreneurs who make a business out of buying low and selling high and while I understand that some people might view this as predatory behavior, others view it as leveraging opportunity. It's natural for people to want to be successful in their endeavors and I have never heard of a game developer calling a market player a cheater, exploiter, or scammer. I will admit that buying low and selling high could, in a literal way, be considered exploiting supply vs demand trends in the market, but this definitely shouldn't be misconstrued with game exploits or cheating/scamming.
You could just as easily make the argument that a crafter who has access to a rare recipe is exploiting the exclusivity of the item that can be crafted from that recipe if they sell it for more than an arbitrary "market value" that another random player decides is fair. The reality is that an item is worth what someone is willing to pay for it and no amount of negative diatribe is going to change that. People who sell items for less than what they are truly worth are exploiting themselves, the same as players who use fire attacks against mobs with low fire resistance are exploiting their weakness. Some people don't care to spend the time that is required to maximize the value of everything they sell. Others do, and you shouldn't fault them for it. Anyway, here is a link for a thread that is specific to the economy if you would care to continue the conversation there: http://pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/1565/pantheon-economy/view/page/3
*Edit -- just to be clear, there are actually quite a few economy related threads on this forum. It might be worth doing a search to find one that discusses some of the specific points you have highlighted here.
Drunken climbing sounds even better! I could see some pretty cool player made dungeons forming around that idea. There better be a decent reward at the end ... sounds dangerous. Maybe there is an atmosphere that requires you to drink a beverage (in order to acclimate) that causes you to be drunk. That would be awesome!
oneADseven said:There is no reason a Coliseum couldn't be designed to be extremely challenging. While I definitely see merit in your suggestion, I don't completely agree with it. First off, it seems that you are implying that this type of content wouldn't also be highly desired, or scarce. Let's assume that there is a viking tribe that has faction merchants that sell desirable gear, and then also assume that this same viking tribe hosts a monthly fishing tournament and that the top 10 finishers qualify for significant faction gain. The important thing to balance into the equation is risk vs reward -- there isn't a lot of inherent danger involved with fishing (though there could be exceptions to this) but I like to think that there is still some degree of risk.
It's possible that I misunderstood your intention because you were obviously quoting Kaen and he was talking about collectible cards. When he said "the more of these types of things" I thought he meant his suggestion, in addition to the other related suggestions that have been offered. Either way, I could still think of a few angles on his idea where I feel this response would apply. I remember the Dark Moon Faire in WoW and I remember there being some really nice rewards gated behind collecting the cards that he describes. These ideas are not designed to placate people who don't have time or energy to commit to other kinds of content. The goal is to reinforce the idea that "Content is King." The more meaningful choices people have, the more likely they are to diverge rather than forcibly compete over something specific. If none of these choices are truly meaningful, then you are 100% correct in saying that players would naturally gravitate towards "more desirable" content.
What I mean by these kinds of things attracting a different audience and/or tending to be more to placate those who don't have the time, energy, etc. is: if the game is at its core primarily about grouping up with others and tackling hard dungeons to gain levels/gear/power for their character(s), then a vast majority of the audience is going to be into the game because they enjoy that. If you have things like card games, beauty pageants, fishing competitions, egg hunts, vanity pet battles, and that kind stuff then it isn't going to be a strong draw toward freeing up any highly contested group killing/mob drop content. The only way (as far as I have seen) to draw those clogging up the lines of character progression, those constantly holding or trying to get into highly desired camps and raids, is to offer them comparable /greater reward or otherwise unique items/spells/skills that will help them towards killing stronger creatures and getting further in dungeon/raid content or maxing their class. I think it is a terrible mistake to offer any such rewards for alternative gameplay like the things mentioned above, it's kind of a bait and switch. Rewards for those activities could be cosmetic only or faster faction gain, maybe temporary long duration buffs or notoriety in a city with a town crier shouting about how great you are etc, but not power gain.
The Darkmoon Faire in WoW was more or less okay (initially) because all the cards came from group content as rare random world drops from mobs or dungeon bosses.
Now things like the Colosseum/Gauntlet could reward some form of power as it falls in line with the core of the game: challenging group content with high risk. The issue is it would have to be either very limited or a very long grind or else decent groups would just churn out those rewards quickly.
I think we're basically on the same page with everything you wrote Iksar. I mentioned how balancing risk vs reward would be a very important consideration when it comes to these optional events, with the primary risk being the time invested relative to your odds of winning something. I think the examples you gave would all be fine but I think it's worth highlighting how faster faction gain could, potentially, lead to power gain. I wouldn't expect to see anything absolutely amazing from the faction merchants (at least not the ones where you could gain faction by participating in the fishing tournament type events) but I think an entry level set of resistance gear might make sense. It really just depends on how difficult it is to acquire comparable items elsewhere in the world. The more I think about it, I think some of these forms of competition could be leveraged as a form of viable "solo-play." That isn't to say that you couldn't also include group competitions, specifically with things like the Coliseum or Gauntlet, but it could be possible for a solo person to temporarily (1-2x per month for each type of competition) acquire faction at an equal or slightly better rate than a good group grinding NPC's if they manage to win one of these competitions.
As far as the Coliseum and Gauntlet go, I would like to see them both be very long grinds. High replay value would be extremely important. If you look at how the Gauntlet is structured it's definitely designed to keep players busy for a long time. I think the same deal would apply to the Coliseum but it really depends on how far the idea would go. If you check out the original Coliseum thread I shared an idea on how you could create difficulty tiers that would probably take quite a bit of time and effort to beat the harder versions. I know some players don't like this sort of tiered difficulty structure, but I think it could make sense in the context of a coliseum where players are willing to handicap themselves for increased risk and sport. I think 6-10 of these encounters would be sufficient and could be combined with other challenges that spawn unlimited waves of adds at set intervals of time. You could also add in environmental effects (think old-age arenas where gladiators have to fight each other in a pit with chained up lions on either side, use this logic but with atmosphere/environment changes) -- in addition to all of that, you could also create challenges designed for 2-3 players, 2 groups, or larger raids. Also, the original Coliseum idea used a ticket system that was similar to how BCNM's worked in FFXI. In a nutshell, it's designed in such a way that prevents players from being able to rapidly churn out the rewards. Here is a link to that thread: https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/5217/coliseum
There are certain aspects of the Coliseum idea that actually encourage people to go out into the game world and group up to tackle dungeons or bosses. I understand how that might seem contradictive with the original intention of this post, but there are few points to consider. First, it wouldn't really make sense to farm the same camp over and over because each and every name would have a chance to drop a ticket. This would incentivize players to spread out as much as possible rather than directly competing for a single highly contested camp. Second, while it's true that in order to acquire the tickets you must be out doing things in the regular world, eventually you will earn those tickets and plan some time around spending them. The time spent in the Coliseum is time away from competing for resources in the world. No matter how you spin it, some people will get frustrated. Here is one of the comments that someone responded with:
"Instead of people going out into the gameworld, finding a group, and tackling content, a percentage of them will instead click "enter" into the next availble coliseum event."
It works both ways. The idea behind the ticket system is to encourage the replay value of all content by ensuring that their rewards could never be truly exhausted due to the chance of acquiring a ticket. It's possible the system could be revised as necessary but I think it could be balanced to accomplish the goal that has been described in the OP. Some people will argue that a coliseum wouldn't be effective with attracting people away from doing other content while others are actually concerned that it would be too effective at doing it. I think it falls somewhere in the middle -- it's attractive enough to want to spend your time there as much as you can, but you could balance the frequency of how often you allow players to do it by adjusting the drop rate of the tickets.
Ive noticed that many MMO's use an us Vs them mentality when it comes to competition in gaming. I feel like there is an extreme lack of vision there. It's all black vs White, and it doesn't really lend itself well to good sportsmanship because it's all about winning. Im not saying we should re-invent the wheel... Just that maybe we could alter it a bit.
Maybe the classic us Vs them could include a work together portion at some point, this would incentivize cooperation and goodwill. Naturally people will start looking at each other as comrades instead of the enemy. Let people occasionally see each other in a new light instead of the tired old rival. It's too easy to paint people as bad guys these days anyway. Give us something new.
I would like to see a dynamic world where player decisions could have a positive impact on others. When someone takes out the goblin king, maybe a certain bridge has it's access opened up. When enough vermin and nasty insects are killed near a farming village, the harvests become more bountiful for a limited time. The farmers could sell higher quality food, perhaps at a discounted rate. When a party manages to conquer the evil wizard, players in the area can attune to a nearby druid ring that they otherwise wouldn't be able to. When X amount of players complete a certain questline in Thronefast, more guards are able to stay at home with their families (which could open up new dialogue/questlines) or perhaps open up shops that would have otherwise been closed.
In these examples, it doesn't matter who did what, it just matters that it was done and everybody in the area can enjoy the benefits. I love the idea of players being able to affect change into the world, especially when the change requires cooperation on a large or massive scale. Make it so players can influence structures being built, passages being opened, quests becoming accessible, services being offered, or fees/taxes being temporarily alleviated or waived. Make it so that when players accomplish something meaningful they have a chance to be viewed as a hero rather than a villain. Instead of one group or guild always taking away from the experience of others, it would be great if they could contribute toward them in a positive way.