Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Risk vs Reward and PvP Consequences (in 2 Parts)
Grym
Member UncommonPosts: 301
Risk vs Reward seems to continue to be a challenge for MMO developers. How many times have you slain a furry critter in a forest and the thing drops something that just doesn't make sense? (a set of brass greaves for instance). How many times have you slain a boss and find the loot less than average? These types of things are caused by random loot generation and it is my opinion that this mechanic needs to go the way of the do-do bird. Devs need to start scripting code or loot tables that make sense. It is a simple matter of attention to detail really.
Many PvP folks on this forum like to state that FFA PvP is the only way to establish "realistic" risk vs reward and should be the wave of the future. I am not a huge PvP fan, however, there is a way I would be willing to participate in a FFA PvP MMO. If you PK without provocation, your victim should be able to place a bounty on your head in a city market. Those who wish to take the bounty should be able to hunt you down, kill you without penalty, take your ill gotten gains, and drag you back to town where you will be incarcerated for say, 24 real hours, before you are allowed to log that toon back in to play. As your murder count rises, add time to the incarceration. Kill 30 people over time, get caught, you can't play that toon for a month. Additionally, once you have committed your heinous crime, merchants in respectable cities and towns should increase the cost of their wares and services to you. Each time you kill someone, this effect stacks until the merchants simply close shop when you approach.
You want "realistic" gameplay where you can attack anyone you please? Then expect realistic consequences. In the real world, murderers are locked up, deprived of freedom, bear the criminal stigma, and in some cases executed (perma death for hardened criminals).
How bout them apples? Discuss.
(My son speaking to his Japanese Grandmother) " Sorry Obaba, I don't speak Japanese, I only speak human."
Comments
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
The only fail in the OP post is he wanting disproportional punishments to player kill (e.g: you can have 24 hours of suspension because a harm that barely take some minutes from the victim). Discounting that, the OP is correct and the upcoming mmos with good ow pvp system will have a good risk VS reward system to balance the things.
Consequence is a game of don't do stuff. It's the polar opposite of die, die, do it again.
In MMO worlds, meta gaming and throw away alts pretty much eliminate any time sink factor it might provide a developer.
90% of high sec kills in EVE are T1 frigates and noob ships.
However, the hapless "victim" of the crime considers his time wasted when he steps out to gather materials, farm, or quest only to have a PKer take his loot. Should there not be some recourse for the victim? If the player is low level, he just has to suck it up and accept his crap is gone. With a bounty, others of appropriate or higher level can execute justice on the victim's behalf.
What about the penalty of losing your loot/gear to a PK'er when you don't have to play a PvP game? This was proposed in response to a recent post about "compromise" between PvE and PvP. In many PvE players minds, forced, open world PvP is already penalizing them and, as you stated, opt to go play elsewhere. Resulting in low population servers or overbalanced servers when all the PvPer's gang up on the winning side.
You see, if the non-pvp fan is going to join in on a open world PvP game to be preyed upon by those who love PvP, there must be some balance (i.e. consequence to the offender). If I felt I had somewhere to turn when I got mugged, I might be enticed to play such a game. Also, woe to the hapless would be bandit that attacks that miner that looks like a lowbie but is actually quite advanced.
Also, the PvE elements of the game, to include trade skills, would have to be excellent to keep the non-pvp player interested.
(My son speaking to his Japanese Grandmother) " Sorry Obaba, I don't speak Japanese, I only speak human."
I don't see it as a "fail". The time increment for such a penalty can be altered. One hour perhaps. Also, I never stated "suspension". What I said was the PK'er would not have access to that particular avatar for the incarcerated period. During that period, the PvP player could play an alt. I used extreme examples to make a point.
I keep reading about PvP players not wanting PvE servers and PvP servers but wanting everyone to be on one server, open world PvP. To entice non-PvPer's to play a game like that, you have to establish balance. You want to PvP and ruin someone's day, fine. But expect severe consequences for your choices and actions. In my opinion, something like what I have proposed is a fair "compromise."
(My son speaking to his Japanese Grandmother) " Sorry Obaba, I don't speak Japanese, I only speak human."
You want Age of Wushu's system. Well, you right it's a damn good start. They made the first civil FFA PvP world I've seen.
5 hours is the max penalty for a bounty, it works, almost too well. You don't need to go overboard and make it 24 hours in jail. in Wushu if you kill too many, and gain too much infamy (different from a bounty) you will be beheaded the following day at noon, and receive a 24 hour 30% attack debuff.
Also merely standing buy some npc's when you have high infamy they will lose affinity for you. NPC's affinities trigger whats called random encounters, but yeah you described Wushu. It aint perfect, but it's the best FFA system I've seen.
OP did you know you described Wushu's system?
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Nope, never played Wushu. Not a huge fan of the Eastern style MMOs. Also, haven't been impressed with what I've seen of the graphics. I realize some may actually like the graphics, they just aren't what I like (also hated WoW's graphics). Sounds like the dev's are trying to balance PvP issues though.
(My son speaking to his Japanese Grandmother) " Sorry Obaba, I don't speak Japanese, I only speak human."
You're right. And this contributes to non-PvP players NOT playing PvP games. Which leaves empty servers with no "victims" for the PvP crowd to prey upon. Your comment encourages the status quo.
(My son speaking to his Japanese Grandmother) " Sorry Obaba, I don't speak Japanese, I only speak human."
Age of Wushu does a lot of the things you talk about here such as having in game prisons for getting caught killing, and even executing hardened criminals which causes them to delevel. They also have bounty hunting and kidnapping. Very interesting game. Wish I had more time to play it.
SWG of course had the best bounty system.
You're not the first person who dislikes PVP to post a ridiculously draconian and horribly shortsighted 'solution' and you won't be the last. I put solution in quotes there, because you really aren't trying to offer one, rather posting how you would gain vengeance against another group of players because you want to punish them for playing differently than you. This was a rant and nothing more. Worse, it was a rant that you felt was more important than everyone else's posts on the topic, which is why you created this thread in addition to your other post stating the same exact thing.
You confuse 'realistic' with 'meaningful'. Many PVP folks want meaningful open world PVP. Very few want realistic open world PVP. You then suggest a one month ban for people who engage in legal gameplay. It makes far more sense for a developer to just leave out open world PVP... which is basically what you want.
Instead of looking for ways to ruin gameplay that others enjoy in a game they might enjoy, why not go play something you like and leave the other kids alone?
How bout them apples? Discuss.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I do like the punishment system from Wushu.. and i personally think a public execution is a good way to offer the victims some sort of revenge and additional punishment for the pk.. also the jail time in Arche Age is not the worst system.
And if all those punishment systems is connected with a good bounty hunter system it will add another gameplay mechanic.. and bounty hunting will not that easy abused, maybe add a bounty hunter licence and some way to display/check the reputation for the bounty hunter. (no pk will like it to get punished.. so they will most like not like to get the money on their head)
Ok.. maybe 30 days of punishment is somewhat over the top, but that can be adjusted accordingly. After all, we don't take here about PvP like in War (Guild War, Faction War, whatever), and the PK(criminal) have to be caught first. Throw in thieving, robbing (body loot) with different ways of punishment and it could be really funny. I am all for it.
People on both sides of this debate seem to miss the fact that non-PvP players in general prefer that the PvPers were not allowed to attack them in the first place. They are primarily after a deterrant and not just a punishment. You can't have a compromise because the two groups have diametircly opposing goals and they have other options beside compromising. The non-PvPers will simply go to a game that supports their playstyle because the PvP games are not offering them the incentive to accept the presence of PKers.
It's similar to what happened to me recently in a car dealership. I went in to see if a special promotion they were offering would enable me to upgrade to a new car AND lower my monthly payment. It quickly became apparent that they wanted me to actually pay more than I am currently paying. Since I did not have a pressing need or desire for a new car, I did not take them up on the offer and they did not want my business badly enough to lower the price. I ended up walking away because neither of us had an incentive to compromise.
At this point I am willing to play a PvP game with large "safe" zones where killing another player gets you a warning and three warnings get your character erased. That's as "low" as I am willing to go if the game is good. If the PvPers don't like that idea then I guess we should just walk away and not play the same game
dafuq? why would anyone kill noob ships in highsec? XD The only kills that happen there would be fw related, duels (consensual) and suicide ganks against valuable targets (i.e haulers). I have no idea what you're trying to prove with that, but it's complete nonsense.
And this thread looks like nothing but a rant. And comes from the same group of people that don't want a game, won't play a game and still think they should have a saying in it.
I suppose the various other 60+ page threads haven't expressed everything about this topic.
In-game consequences simply do not work. The offender can simply switch to another character and continue. The offender can log into another account and continue with another set of characters. At the absolute best, the player simply switches to another game after depositing another 'tirade' post on the forums.
Ultimately, introduction of any non-consensual PvP into any game transforms that game into a FPS / Action style game (at least, to some degree). The MMORPG phenomenon was a logical extension of the heritage single player RP games -- people wanted to share their game with others. They have had the ability to do that for 15 years, now a minority wants to disrupt that particular play style with wide-scale introduction of human opponents where they aren't wanted. And companies are going to make games that they feel are going to make money for them.
My suggestion is if you want a human opponent, give an FPS game a chance. There's quite a number of those available, in most all genres. If you like, you can even lobby to have crafting or RPing elements included into the various FPS games if you really feel the need to try to change an entire genre.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
My suggestion is if you dont want a human opponent ,then dont play mmo´s.
If you dont understand that PvP comes in many forms in MMORPG´s.
To put it simply which one you choose?
i steal 1000 gold from you in game,lets imagine that in this game its so much money that its 1 week grind.
or someone kills you and you spawn 10 seconds later,like nothing happened.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014.
**On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
Risk vs. reward is the wrong relationship.
The correct relationship is challenge vs. reward.
Players generally aren't eager to suffer loss and punishment in games (risk.) That's not the fundamental driving force (at least not for the overwhelming majority.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Yeah I don't really see to much or the risk side every happenning in OW FFA PvP.
My observations show that generally speaking people will grind up their skills to gain an advantage, go in groups to gain an advantage and attack solo, distracted, lower level, under equipped players to gain an advantage....basically OW FFA PvP is NOTHING to do with Riks/challenge vs reward and more to do with the desire to feel powerful and superior without actually participating in the activity they claim to love.
PvP in an MMO is just a poor cousin of PvP in any FPS game or LOL type game. PvP in an MMO replaces individual or team skill with artificial training wheels like superiority in levels, gear, numbers etc...
If people that played MMO's were doing it for roleplay reasons that at least that would be something but instead you get the type of PvP'er that roll a Holy and good Paladin and then goes round killing low level characters 'because they can'.
The problem with PvP in MMO's to me isn't related to any mechanic. The problem is the people that seem to gravitate to it because they can claim to be a great PvP'er when in reality they are not. PvP'ers in MMO's seem to be like that kid you knew at school that always boasted about how great they are but everyone knew they were sad, lonely and full of shit.
If I want ruthless PvP I play PvP games where, if I win I KNOW that I deserve it.
Challenge and risk are 2 different things but they are interlinked. There is no point in having a challenge if you can endlessly fail with no setbacks until you get it right. achieves something. Added risk gives another layer of depht into the game making the player take decisions that won't exist if there's no meaningful consequences for doing anything wrong. If risk and consequences are a bad thing then why do characters have a finite health pool, or mana, or suffer drawbacks from death? Clearly dying isn't fun.
Risk and reward is what adds the thril into a game: compare playing poker with plastic chips and playing poker with real money.
If there is no risk then there is no incentive to suceed. And far less satisfaction when one suceeds.
I'm not saying games need to be masochistic but there needs to be a level of consequences for doing wrong decisions. And this level of risk and consequence is usually pretty watered down lately.
So you are obviously not interested in a pvp game with risk vs. reward and some consequences, and most probably never played one.. so why do you partake on the discussion? And as much as i can tell.. you have never played a match LoL either.
So.. why we deserve to get you humble opinion about that topic?
And another one completely talking about a different topic.
Just a little as is example of a mechanic in a pvp game with risk vs. reward, and which this discussion is about.
Example: Players/Clan do own a player city, and it is a territory conquest game. For different reasons, especially to avoid night raids to your city, raids are often limited by time, set up from the owning clan.
Because it is a pvp game, and because city raiding is actually wanted, you have to have mechanismn, incentive that any clan opens their city as long as possible(as long as players are online capable defending it). So usually as longer you open up your city you will get higher rewarded.. like some bonus or anything else.
Do you see the picture now? There is the risk of losing your city, or that you city gets attacked, against the reward you get for opening your city for a longer time. Risk vs. Reward. Not Challenge.. challenge is a completely different topic.
And in games like we talk here, this is a usual mechanic for different approaches to pvp and especially when profit is involved. Because in such pvp games it is more or less about dominance, and not just dominance in men power(size of army), or skill of player(how good your members actually are), or progression value (how highlevel your membes are).. it also is important to be financial successful, to have good logistics, to have good tactics, to have good stategic, to have good diplomats and a lot more. In this kind of game pvp is not just about fighting, a whole lot more is involved.
The principle comes a lot more from strategy games, be it rund based or RTS, where you fight about property, where it you fight about resources, where actually different kind of risk and reward is involved.
With other words.. we don't talk about WoW pvp.. because yes there is no risk and no reward and no consequence in that kind of pvp.
no matter what system devs implement, there won't ever be such as thing as compromise between pvp and pve. it is like trying to mix oil and water. even games with decent mechanics in theory like Eve online, become niche games. the only way a company can attract the most type of players in a single MMO, is when they provide servers with different rulesets.
noone likes to be the underdog. noone likes to get their time disrupted by a random person, noone likes to be forced into something they don't want to do. noone wants to be punished for a game mechanic that is allowed. noone likes getting constant class nerfs caused by other's playing style.
in pve centric MMO , pvp more often than not, felt like an afterthought, and viceversa. this is the reason i would rather play shooters for pvp.
in one of the many threads about pvp, someone used as a example, how it was no different getting killed by some dragon or another player. there is a difference, getting killed by mobs can be avoidable, getting killed by players is not.
when you choose to enter that big black dragon lair, you do so willingly, you are fully aware of the risks that implies. when you get killed by a player who is 30 levels higher than you, or by a player that awaits hiding untill you are busy engaging a bear with 20 HP left to attack you, or when you get ganked by a group of players who swarm you, shase you down, and then corpse camp you for 2 hours untill you get tired and log off. you can see there is a big difference between the 2.
Of course there is. The point is to learn to get it right. It works for action games, puzzle games, RPGs, and there is no reason this cannot work for MMOs.
In fact, it works for MMOs. All the raiding & dungeon bosses is based on this model.
Really don't understand all the fuss about PvE vs FFA PvP of late on these forums.
How about those players who want to play MMORPGs that offer PvE with consensual PvP, play games that offer PvE with consensual PvP. And those players who want to play MMORPGs that offer FFA PvP, play MMORPGs that offer FFA PvP.
FFA PvP proponents have everything to lose by not compromising. Proponents of PvE with consensual PvP are the majority and they have NPCs to fulfill all of their content needs in an MMORPG. They don't need the FFA PvP crowd. The FFA PvP crowd, on the other hand, absolutely need the PvE crowd as it is real players who provide the content in their game world. Fed up with this my way or the high way chest thumping from the vocal minority in the FFA PvP crowd. Go play by yourselves in your FFA PvP game and leave the PvE with consensual PvP crowd to play amongst themselves.Thats about as clear cut a solution as they come. No compromise is necessay.
Simple solution.
/Done.
I also don't understand why more people can't apply this logic.