No. I won't play a game that don't allow me to play. What is the point?
But i won't play a FFA pvp game in the first place, so i suppose my opinion is moot.
No surprise that you wouldn't.
You could still play but you would in in prison. Not just a cell but a larger area to wander. I should have gone in further in stating there would be a time limit to how long you could be imprisoned and you have to be defeated. Its more of a if you come into a town and start killing people there could be consequences.
That does not sound fun.
It does not matter about the time limit. Even if it is 5 min, i can always find another game that won't give me 5 min of non-fun time.
Kind of the point of it though. Its an anti grief tool in a game where you could be killed. You would only be subject if you were killing someone for no reason in their area.
The best anti-grief tool is consensual pvp. It works so well for so long. There is no need to invent something for a non-existing problem.
In a sandbox game where players police themselves could you accept the risk of imprisonment for breaking laws by stealing, killing or harming another player inside their territory if defeated?
An MMO I played a while back called Dransik had that. IIRC, I had to smash boulders and hand in the stones to try to shorten my sentence. Part of the time was also spent avoiding other criminals that wanted to kill me for my stones.
That sounds like a good system if properly done. It stops the repeated ganking, if you're caught once you're out of the main world for a while and can't grief anymore, but doesn't stop people from logging in and playing their character.
The key part of that is the "if you're caught" part. Dransik's approach wasn't to stop PKing or punish PKing, but to add significant risk to the action when done in the more populated areas. This is very different from the ideas you will usually see pitched around here, as the ideas presented here are often to punish players for playing the game as it is intended which is, simply put, a pretty stupid way to go about doing things.
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
If I am free to kill any player I want, then you are free to defend yourself. If I like to role play as a psychopath then why would i be punished for it. You can play as a policeman but not get rewarded for it just like I don't get punished for killing, is that fair?
If you want to simulate reality with imprisonment, then also simulate that life isn't fair and if i kill you and take all your stuff...well that's just the way it goes. These are games that are supposed to build a community and be fun at the same time. There is no need to punish players for things that YOU disagree with. Were all in this (virtual) world together
If I am free to kill any player I want, then you are free to defend yourself. If I like to role play as a psychopath then why would i be punished for it. You can play as a policeman but not get rewarded for it just like I don't get punished for killing, is that fair?
If you want to simulate reality with imprisonment, then also simulate that life isn't fair and if i kill you and take all your stuff...well that's just the way it goes.
That's neat and all, but the best argument against everything you just said rests in your next sentence...
These are games that are supposed to build a community and be fun at the same time.
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
If I am free to kill any player I want, then you are free to defend yourself. If I like to role play as a psychopath then why would i be punished for it. You can play as a policeman but not get rewarded for it just like I don't get punished for killing, is that fair?
If you want to simulate reality with imprisonment, then also simulate that life isn't fair and if i kill you and take all your stuff...well that's just the way it goes.
That's neat and all, but the best argument against everything you just said rests in your next sentence...
These are games that are supposed to build a community and be fun at the same time.
Well yes, that becomes the question. How do we make the game fun when pvp involves a winner and a loser? Or is it all in the players mentality? i dont know. pvp doesnt have to be the focus for your gameplay, but the fact that you agreed to risk yourself and go collect ore in a dangerous game world where anyone can kill you, isnt that your fault? Just like you prepared yourself to collect ore by bringing a pickaxe, prepare yourself to kill players too. The risk becomes fun, suddenly mining ore makes your heart beat faster because you never know who you're going to come across. It becomes a race, the longer you stay in the cave collecting ore, the more chances you have of an encounter with another player.
Some people think that's fun, some people don't...good thing there are plenty of games for all of us to be happy in.
If I am free to kill any player I want, then you are free to defend yourself. If I like to role play as a psychopath then why would i be punished for it. You can play as a policeman but not get rewarded for it just like I don't get punished for killing, is that fair?
If you want to simulate reality with imprisonment, then also simulate that life isn't fair and if i kill you and take all your stuff...well that's just the way it goes. These are games that are supposed to build a community and be fun at the same time. There is no need to punish players for things that YOU disagree with. Were all in this (virtual) world together
However, the other players can then exercise their prerogative as customers and be free to go play a different game. Suddenly, you are not "in this (virtual) world together". Ultimately, these discusions boil down to the question: "Who do you want to play this game and what are you willing to put into the game to attract that person?". If you are not willing to satisfy a group of players, then those players will not play your game. The problem tends to be that devs too often want everyone to play their game and try to trick certain groups of players into playing even if the game does not really fit that playstyle.
Player prison is a half-measure. It does not really satisfy the non-PvP players who do not want to be part of non-consensual PvP and it does not satisfy the FFA PvPers who do not want restrictions on their 'freedom'. It seems to mainly appeal to an in-between group who like the roleplay nature of this feature.
Every one of these threads about OW/FFA PvP comes down to adding features to make the OW PvP palatable to people who do not like it. All of those systems, whether it's a karma system, player jails or "going red" are for people who like OW PvP.
The only rule set that will make it palatable is something that gives the players a choice about whether or not they engage in PvP in the first place. It doesn't matter what happens afterwards. It's the PvP itself that's the issue, not the results.
The people who post that developers have to make games for the people they want to play their games are right. There is no one size fits all. Players who don't like OW PvP aren't going to play those games, no matter how many arcane, complicated rule sets the developers add to try and make it palatable. If the developer wants a lot of people playing their game, they are going to have consensual PvP rule sets on at least some of the servers. If the developer isn't interested in a lot of people, then they'll have whatever rule set they want to make. Not every game needs to have a goal of a million players to be successful.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
If I am free to kill any player I want, then you are free to defend yourself. If I like to role play as a psychopath then why would i be punished for it. You can play as a policeman but not get rewarded for it just like I don't get punished for killing, is that fair?
If you want to simulate reality with imprisonment, then also simulate that life isn't fair and if i kill you and take all your stuff...well that's just the way it goes.
That's neat and all, but the best argument against everything you just said rests in your next sentence...
These are games that are supposed to build a community and be fun at the same time.
Well yes, that becomes the question. How do we make the game fun when pvp involves a winner and a loser? Or is it all in the players mentality? i dont know. pvp doesnt have to be the focus for your gameplay, but the fact that you agreed to risk yourself and go collect ore in a dangerous game world where anyone can kill you, isnt that your fault? Just like you prepared yourself to collect ore by bringing a pickaxe, prepare yourself to kill players too. The risk becomes fun, suddenly mining ore makes your heart beat faster because you never know who you're going to come across. It becomes a race, the longer you stay in the cave collecting ore, the more chances you have of an encounter with another player.
Some people think that's fun, some people don't...good thing there are plenty of games for all of us to be happy in.
"How do we make the game fun when pvp involves a winner and a loser?" Are you a millenial?
Win or lose isn't the question, and it's the LOWEST concern regarding FFA PVP, well below:
- fighting on someone else's terms
- fighting when one is not intersted in combat
- having combat disrupt other objectives (before you wax pedantic on that, FFA PVP, by its very nature, is disruptive gameplay)
- losing items/time
- feeling restricted in where one can travel
It has nothing to do with winning or losing, and everything to do with the conditions of the scenario that caused it to happen.
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
Macros exist and are quite good at what they do. It wouldn't really serve as an effective tool as a player would turn on their prison macro while they went out to the movies or did anything else. That macro would wait until they were released from prison and either just log out, or go to a predefined place and then log out. So it isn't as if a player sits through their sentence and feels something from it. Even short full out bans tend to do nothing to stop or curb bad behavior.
I don't see the relevance of macros to any of this? o.O Generally, bans would be for real world time, not in-game time, lol. The world is persistent, after all.
I think not being able to advance your character for days/weeks/months will have an effect on someone... it'll obviously be adjusted enough to discourage mindless murder, which is the whole point.
weeks/months would make the game not work at all so that shouldn't even be bothered with. A person would just cancel the account and either leave the game for good (the most likely option and not what game developers want) or reroll and go back to killing much faster than the punishment.
If it is real time, not game time then the person just logs out and plays an alt account until it is up. People who liked to pk would just run several accounts to swap between the ones that weren't currently in prison. That is what makes real time punishment the most pointless. So that leaves game time and you would just use a macro to serve out the time.
In other words, the system would never prevent anything and would not make for a better game. It is that simple.
In a sandbox game where players police themselves could you accept the risk of imprisonment for breaking laws by stealing, killing or harming another player inside their territory if defeated?
I ask this because I know one of the biggest things about FFA PvP is that even when players band together to stop gankers they just return. Eventually this leads to apathy of stopping the random killer.
With rule of law given to the community the ability to lock up player killers up I think you might have a lot less random killings. This of course does not stop wars and the like but focus on the random killers.
Arch Age has Imprisonment mechanic. And it works apparently quite well.
I am not sure about the exact mechanic, if anyone knows it would be cool to get a description.
But it looks like there is a certain number of time one can go to Prison after which point they are considered "Pirates" and not allowed in some Major Player hubs anymore (NPC cities etc).
Which I think is cool and good.
We should not confuse a Sandbox Fantasy FFA PvP MMO with a Virtual Battleground FFA PVP MMO such as World War 2 Online,. Planetside etc etc.
In the Sandbox one, at least a good one, attacking looting stealing from other players is considered an "evil" act, just because the game doe snot prevent you to do it it does not mean that one should go an a killing spree. It is a choice that the player has the freedom to make, but there are and should be consequences.
On the other hand a game that is designed with constant Warfare, PvP is the core of the game.
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
"How do we make the game fun when pvp involves a winner and a loser?" Are you a millenial?
Win or lose isn't the question, and it's the LOWEST concern regarding FFA PVP, well below:
- fighting on someone else's terms
- fighting when one is not intersted in combat
- having combat disrupt other objectives (before you wax pedantic on that, FFA PVP, by its very nature, is disruptive gameplay)
- losing items/time
- feeling restricted in where one can travel
It has nothing to do with winning or losing, and everything to do with the conditions of the scenario that caused it to happen.
Actually, to be more precise, PvP is the most disruptive activity possible in a MMORPG. Uncontrolled PvP takes over the whole game, and the game is no longer a MMORPG, but a MMOPVP game. And all the games and servers with uncontrolled FFA PvP slowly killed themself, because the environment is very newbie unfriendly, and leaving people very rarely got replaced by new blood.
Everyone who has played DAoC knows the story of the Mordred server... which had a very short influx of population and then nothing more, and quickly died to become a desert. Why? Because rolling a new character on that server was simply not possible for anyone remotely sane now that the first players were way ahead and maxed out. Level 50 characters camped the unique newbie starter areas of each faction 24/7.
For a MMORPG to remain a MMORPG and not become a MMOPVP, while including FFA PvP, such PvP must be controlled and limited. Otherwise, the game is no longer a MMORPG, but some gank fest.
WoW PvP servers never slowly killed themselves...in fact PvP evolved in to one of the Core elements of the game due to popularity.
It is not the possibility to PvP that kills games, it is PvP in combination to other mechanics, such as Loss of gear, XP etc etc. in combination to how other mechanics such as crafting/gathering are implemented.
If it is all balanced in a proper way, then PvP adds Fun value to the experience, it doe snot remove value in to an MMORPG.
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
I'm sorry I just find the whole idea of "punish a player for doing something he/she finds fun" retarded. If you don't want players doing something, simply don't allow it.
You should never, ever waste the players' time or have the need to punish them for playing your game. What is the point? What is the point in punishing a player and then making the punishment "fun"? Please explain to me how that makes sense.
The concept is a nest of trouble. What could possibly be the up-side, and how is it worth it?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
"How do we make the game fun when pvp involves a winner and a loser?" Are you a millenial?
Win or lose isn't the question, and it's the LOWEST concern regarding FFA PVP, well below:
- fighting on someone else's terms
- fighting when one is not intersted in combat
- having combat disrupt other objectives (before you wax pedantic on that, FFA PVP, by its very nature, is disruptive gameplay)
- losing items/time
- feeling restricted in where one can travel
It has nothing to do with winning or losing, and everything to do with the conditions of the scenario that caused it to happen.
Actually, to be more precise, PvP is the most disruptive activity possible in a MMORPG. Uncontrolled PvP takes over the whole game, and the game is no longer a MMORPG, but a MMOPVP game. And all the games and servers with uncontrolled FFA PvP slowly killed themself, because the environment is very newbie unfriendly, and leaving people very rarely got replaced by new blood.
Everyone who has played DAoC knows the story of the Mordred server... which had a very short influx of population and then nothing more, and quickly died to become a desert. Why? Because rolling a new character on that server was simply not possible for anyone remotely sane now that the first players were way ahead and maxed out. Level 50 characters camped the unique newbie starter areas of each faction 24/7.
For a MMORPG to remain a MMORPG and not become a MMOPVP, while including FFA PvP, such PvP must be controlled and limited. Otherwise, the game is no longer a MMORPG, but some gank fest.
WoW PvP servers never slowly killed themselves...in fact PvP evolved in to one of the Core elements of the game due to popularity.
WoW doesn't have FFA PvP. Your own faction can't attack you.
It is not the possibility to PvP that kills games, it is PvP in combination to other mechanics, such as Loss of gear, XP etc etc. in combination to how other mechanics such as crafting/gathering are implemented.
There was no loss of gear in DAoC, and you couldn't lose a level either. Yet Mordred pathetically failed. That was because new players were mercilessly ganked before they even left the first newbie village, and this by high level players of their own faction. That can't happen in WoW.
If it is all balanced in a proper way, then PvP adds Fun value to the experience, it doe snot remove value in to an MMORPG.
Balanced means exactly what we are discussing here. Limitations to ensure that PvP doesn't take over the whole game. WoW has not only PvE servers, but also safety for newbies until level 20+ and safety in all capital cities so you can shop or bank without being ganked by a bored max level of the opposite faction. The faction separation also meant that characters mostly leveled in different areas, unlike FFA PvP games when anyone can kill you. And it's even softer now in WoW since you can transfer to PvP servers, so you can just level to max in total safety and then move to a PvP server. Not to mention that if you want, you can level 100% through dungeons without ever leaving the safety of a city, or you can even level 100% from doing Battlegrounds against similar level characters without ever risking open world ganking by bored max level people.
Comparing PvP servers of WoW to a total FFA PvP server like Mordred is comparing apples and oranges.
Good Points. WoW did not have FFA in that sense. But on any contested Territory you could get ganked and you did by Higher levels of the opposite Faction.
The point was that even under this circumstance, the servers went on thriving.
As for the other points, I actually Agree with you and yes that is what I mean by balanced myself.
A game such as Darkfall would not go far. On the other hand Ultima Online did go far and it is still going even with FFA PvP and Full Loss, because it is balanced.
The towns are not FFA PvP, and while Guild vs Guild PvP is permitted in Towns, you cannot go to War with other guilds unless both agree to it. So GvG is consensual.
Then, players can own their own houses, but most importantly own vendors. This made it so that even if you happen to lose a PvP fight, for any reason (got ambushed not prepared, ganked etc etc), you could quickly re-equip and be back, and you did not have to grind-harvest for hours just to be able to re-equip either.
Now about DAoC... in my opinion it may have not worked, simply because a Level Progression system is counter-intuitive in combination to FFA-PvP
In other words, making a Game with Character level progression where the level differential affects the outcome of PvP and then putting in FFA PvP...is not balanced. UO worked because it was skills and the Skill of a Newbie Character was not all that much off the Skill of a Skilled up Character.
While in a Level based game, 5 levels difference is already much, and the lower character has less health, less damage mitigation less Damage, while the higher level character has all these on the plus side. Beyond that it is simply impossible by design.
Still, I think that FFA PvP is a good element overall, if the rest of the game is also made for it. problem is that it has been thrown time and again in to games that were not made for it....I believe DAoC in your example is such a case. The game was never designed for FFA PvP.(it was a great RvR PvP game)..but offered it on a server due to player demands.
We saw the same in Age of Conan.... Vanguard ... etc etc.... the Mistake is not the Feature/Element itself, the mistake is to have it in a game that was not designed for it.
I see the imprisonment mechanic, as a means to balance FFA PvP, and as such I think it is good.
Cheers!
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
Originally posted by Quirhid I'm sorry I just find the whole idea of "punish a player for doing something he/she finds fun" retarded. If you don't want players doing something, simply don't allow it.You should never, ever waste the players' time or have the need to punish them for playing your game. What is the point? What is the point in punishing a player and then making the punishment "fun"? Please explain to me how that makes sense.The concept is a nest of trouble. What could possibly be the up-side, and how is it worth it?
What a novel way to look at the issue. Make sure players can do what they want to do. Huh.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I'm sorry I just find the whole idea of "punish a player for doing something he/she finds fun" retarded. If you don't want players doing something, simply don't allow it.
You should never, ever waste the players' time or have the need to punish them for playing your game. What is the point? What is the point in punishing a player and then making the punishment "fun"? Please explain to me how that makes sense.
The concept is a nest of trouble. What could possibly be the up-side, and how is it worth it?
Is it ok for Players to waste other player's time? is it ok for some players to make the game not fun to some other players?
It is not about preventing players to have fun, it is about mitigating abusing behaviors which result in some players not having fun, there is an acceptable limit.
If you want to play "evil" (psycho whatever)...you have the right to do so. But not at the expense of the greater good.
In real Life, we have places we keep dangerous Psychopaths. In real life we have Prisons for Evil people comitting Evil deeds to others, to innocents, to weaker people.
So it is about balancing, and mitigation. You are free to Role Play Evil, but it must be a decision you make fully knowing that there will be some consequence. Imprisonment is a deterent to going wild, it is also a reminder of your decision.
Repeated offenders lose access to parts of the game facilities (access to majors towns etc etc), but they fully know that they chose that path.
The game itself has to maintain an equal stance towards all players, it cannot side with either side "playing Good" or "Playing bad", and as such it has to put some balancing mechanics in it.
So there is much upside to the overall experience and enjoyment of the game for all.
Unless you really are taking pleasure seeing the game bleed players untill you decide there is no one left yourself and move on too.
I do not enjoy seeing games die.
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
If I am free to kill any player I want, then you are free to defend yourself. If I like to role play as a psychopath then why would i be punished for it. You can play as a policeman but not get rewarded for it just like I don't get punished for killing, is that fair?
If you want to simulate reality with imprisonment, then also simulate that life isn't fair and if i kill you and take all your stuff...well that's just the way it goes. These are games that are supposed to build a community and be fun at the same time. There is no need to punish players for things that YOU disagree with. Were all in this (virtual) world together
I'm only speaking from experience. Players cannot and will not police each other through force. It never works on a large scale. You will have a bunch of killers terrorizing a small group of ordinary players. Unlike UO days players will not put up the resistance because they have other options to play other games and killing the killers does not deter their return. Killing has be controlled for the average player to want to play long term.
There are three things that can control player behavior, consequences, accountability and game play barriers. Most MMOs only have barriers. My ideas on FFA PvP is not many barriers but consequences and accountability.
I would want players to have their own towns to be safe but I don't want any place 100% safe. Imprisonment is not something that's there to keep players from playing how the game is designed because random killing is unwanted variable. But the option is possible if you wanted you could kill and escape. I would want players who have banded together to have a viable option to deter killers. Again being killed in most cases is not enough to prevent or deter random killers from my experience.
I'm sorry I just find the whole idea of "punish a player for doing something he/she finds fun" retarded. If you don't want players doing something, simply don't allow it.
You should never, ever waste the players' time or have the need to punish them for playing your game. What is the point? What is the point in punishing a player and then making the punishment "fun"? Please explain to me how that makes sense.
The concept is a nest of trouble. What could possibly be the up-side, and how is it worth it?
Is it ok for Players to waste other player's time? is it ok for some players to make the game not fun to some other players?
It is not about preventing players to have fun, it is about mitigating abusing behaviors which result in some players not having fun, there is an acceptable limit.
If you want to play "evil" (psycho whatever)...you have the right to do so. But not at the expense of the greater good.
In real Life, we have places we keep dangerous Psychopaths. In real life we have Prisons for Evil people comitting Evil deeds to others, to innocents, to weaker people.
Stop there. You're not reading what Quirhid is saying. If you don't want that behavior in your game, don't allow it. Trying to create gameplay punishments is a complete waste of everyone's time, both players and devs. It is as simple as that.
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'm sorry I just find the whole idea of "punish a player for doing something he/she finds fun" retarded. If you don't want players doing something, simply don't allow it.
You should never, ever waste the players' time or have the need to punish them for playing your game. What is the point? What is the point in punishing a player and then making the punishment "fun"? Please explain to me how that makes sense.
The concept is a nest of trouble. What could possibly be the up-side, and how is it worth it?
Is it ok for Players to waste other player's time? is it ok for some players to make the game not fun to some other players?
It is not about preventing players to have fun, it is about mitigating abusing behaviors which result in some players not having fun, there is an acceptable limit.
If you want to play "evil" (psycho whatever)...you have the right to do so. But not at the expense of the greater good.
In real Life, we have places we keep dangerous Psychopaths. In real life we have Prisons for Evil people comitting Evil deeds to others, to innocents, to weaker people.
Stop there. You're not reading what Quirhid is saying. If you don't want that behavior in your game, don't allow it. Trying to create gameplay punishments is a complete waste of everyone's time, both players and devs. It is as simple as that.
That's your opinion. If you are trying to let players self police then game play barriers are not the option.
The scenario that most players go through is that you have killers. Those who can defend themselves may kill the killer(s) after he or they killed multiple people. The killers are back in 5 minutes killing again and eventually people stop caring about mounting an effort to defeat the killers because there is nothing that punishes or deters the killers who often have crap on even if you could loot them. They lose time due to death and time to trying to mount an effort to stop players that are back in minutes.
With the option to imprison them. If you defeat them you get them off the street essentially for while and they're not right back in 5 minutes. They could kill people and leave never being captured. But that's the point it gives players the choice of being a killer and gives a solution to the problem that works.
I said it before, I say it again. Imprisonment shouldn't be done by players but only by NPC-guards in the guarded areas, if at all.
EvE Online shows that self-policing without imprisonment does work perfectly fine, in addition to NPC-guards that instantly kill you, if you commit crime in guarded areas.
Loosing your equipment (cheap crap usually doesn't cut it), getting a criminal flag (one that doesn't wear out in a few hours!) and having to travel longer distances (you can't respawn in hostile territory!) does balance the tides perfectly fine. And having a criminal flag excludes you from entering any of the guarded areas, so you can't access the trading hubs. Combine this with single-character accounts and voil
I'm sorry I just find the whole idea of "punish a player for doing something he/she finds fun" retarded. If you don't want players doing something, simply don't allow it.
You should never, ever waste the players' time or have the need to punish them for playing your game. What is the point? What is the point in punishing a player and then making the punishment "fun"? Please explain to me how that makes sense.
The concept is a nest of trouble. What could possibly be the up-side, and how is it worth it?
Is it ok for Players to waste other player's time? is it ok for some players to make the game not fun to some other players?
It is not about preventing players to have fun, it is about mitigating abusing behaviors which result in some players not having fun, there is an acceptable limit.
If you want to play "evil" (psycho whatever)...you have the right to do so. But not at the expense of the greater good.
In real Life, we have places we keep dangerous Psychopaths. In real life we have Prisons for Evil people comitting Evil deeds to others, to innocents, to weaker people.
Stop there. You're not reading what Quirhid is saying. If you don't want that behavior in your game, don't allow it. Trying to create gameplay punishments is a complete waste of everyone's time, both players and devs. It is as simple as that.
That's your opinion. If you are trying to let players self police then game play barriers are not the option.
The scenario that most players go through is that you have killers. Those who can defend themselves may kill the killer(s) after he or they killed multiple people. The killers are back in 5 minutes killing again and eventually people stop caring about mounting an effort to defeat the killers because there is nothing that punishes or deters the killers who often have crap on even if you could loot them. They lose time due to death and time to trying to mount an effort to stop players that are back in minutes.
With the option to imprison them. If you defeat them you get them off the street essentially for while and they're not right back in 5 minutes. They could kill people and leave never being captured. But that's the point it gives players the choice of being a killer and gives a solution to the problem that works.
Find me a single dev that will agree with you on that and I'll concede it's possible. Until then, if you don't want the players to do something, don't let them do it in the first place, especially if it's something they find fun. Creating an in-game punishment for playing the game as intended is absurd. If jail is intended as part of the PK gameplay (ex: Dransik, Wizardry Online) that's a completely different scenario than trying to use jail to punish players for doing what you let them do.
This applies to any aspect of gameplay. If your players are perching and you don't want them to, remove the perches(AC - Othoi Nest). If they're hiding under the bridge so the dragon can't reach them and you don't want them to do that, seal that area off (EQ - Vox/Warder). If your players are breeding massive self-multiplying slime armies and holding your cities ransom, fix the slimes (UO - Chrae of Atlantic).
What you don't do is create something that is really fun to do and then punish players for doing it too much.
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
What we're saying is that we believe that it's bad design to put a tree in the garden than then forbid players from eating the fruit. But to be fair, it is the oldest world-building mistake in the book.
I'm sorry I just find the whole idea of "punish a player for doing something he/she finds fun" retarded. If you don't want players doing something, simply don't allow it.
You should never, ever waste the players' time or have the need to punish them for playing your game. What is the point? What is the point in punishing a player and then making the punishment "fun"? Please explain to me how that makes sense.
The concept is a nest of trouble. What could possibly be the up-side, and how is it worth it?
Is it ok for Players to waste other player's time? is it ok for some players to make the game not fun to some other players?
It is not about preventing players to have fun, it is about mitigating abusing behaviors which result in some players not having fun, there is an acceptable limit.
If you want to play "evil" (psycho whatever)...you have the right to do so. But not at the expense of the greater good.
In real Life, we have places we keep dangerous Psychopaths. In real life we have Prisons for Evil people comitting Evil deeds to others, to innocents, to weaker people.
Stop there. You're not reading what Quirhid is saying. If you don't want that behavior in your game, don't allow it. Trying to create gameplay punishments is a complete waste of everyone's time, both players and devs. It is as simple as that.
That's your opinion. If you are trying to let players self police then game play barriers are not the option.
The scenario that most players go through is that you have killers. Those who can defend themselves may kill the killer(s) after he or they killed multiple people. The killers are back in 5 minutes killing again and eventually people stop caring about mounting an effort to defeat the killers because there is nothing that punishes or deters the killers who often have crap on even if you could loot them. They lose time due to death and time to trying to mount an effort to stop players that are back in minutes.
With the option to imprison them. If you defeat them you get them off the street essentially for while and they're not right back in 5 minutes. They could kill people and leave never being captured. But that's the point it gives players the choice of being a killer and gives a solution to the problem that works.
Find me a single dev that will agree with you on that and I'll concede it's possible. Until then, if you don't want the players to do something, don't let them do it in the first place, especially if it's something they find fun. Creating an in-game punishment for playing the game as intended is absurd. If jail is intended as part of the PK gameplay (ex: Dransik, Wizardry Online) that's a completely different scenario than trying to use jail to punish players for doing what you let them do.
This applies to any aspect of gameplay. If your players are perching and you don't want them to, remove the perches(AC - Othoi Nest). If they're hiding under the bridge so the dragon can't reach them and you don't want them to do that, seal that area off (EQ - Vox/Warder). If your players are breeding massive self-multiplying slime armies and holding your cities ransom, fix the slimes (UO - Chrae of Atlantic).
What you don't do is create something that is really fun to do and then punish players for doing it too much.
Here, I find you the Devs of ArchAge...the system has been running since Launch in Korea and it works very well.
And what Vermillon is saying is actually the core concept of it. While you are in Court/Jail etc, you are not out there randomly killing people, but you are playing and having some adventure nevertheless.
If you are a repeated offender, you become Pirate (Red), and lose access to major Cities, and are of course recognizable by other players, and hunted whenever possible, or feared...just like UO Dread Lord Days.
there is responsibility and accountability, and there is choice. If you become Pirate it is because you really chose to be one, and you accept to live with the consequences that this choice intails.
To me it sounds very well thought out, more importantly it works, even more importantly it has been received as Fun.
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
I'm sorry I just find the whole idea of "punish a player for doing something he/she finds fun" retarded. If you don't want players doing something, simply don't allow it.
You should never, ever waste the players' time or have the need to punish them for playing your game. What is the point? What is the point in punishing a player and then making the punishment "fun"? Please explain to me how that makes sense.
The concept is a nest of trouble. What could possibly be the up-side, and how is it worth it?
Is it ok for Players to waste other player's time? is it ok for some players to make the game not fun to some other players?
It is not about preventing players to have fun, it is about mitigating abusing behaviors which result in some players not having fun, there is an acceptable limit.
If you want to play "evil" (psycho whatever)...you have the right to do so. But not at the expense of the greater good.
In real Life, we have places we keep dangerous Psychopaths. In real life we have Prisons for Evil people comitting Evil deeds to others, to innocents, to weaker people.
Stop there. You're not reading what Quirhid is saying. If you don't want that behavior in your game, don't allow it. Trying to create gameplay punishments is a complete waste of everyone's time, both players and devs. It is as simple as that.
That's your opinion. If you are trying to let players self police then game play barriers are not the option.
The scenario that most players go through is that you have killers. Those who can defend themselves may kill the killer(s) after he or they killed multiple people. The killers are back in 5 minutes killing again and eventually people stop caring about mounting an effort to defeat the killers because there is nothing that punishes or deters the killers who often have crap on even if you could loot them. They lose time due to death and time to trying to mount an effort to stop players that are back in minutes.
With the option to imprison them. If you defeat them you get them off the street essentially for while and they're not right back in 5 minutes. They could kill people and leave never being captured. But that's the point it gives players the choice of being a killer and gives a solution to the problem that works.
Find me a single dev that will agree with you on that and I'll concede it's possible. Until then, if you don't want the players to do something, don't let them do it in the first place, especially if it's something they find fun. Creating an in-game punishment for playing the game as intended is absurd. If jail is intended as part of the PK gameplay (ex: Dransik, Wizardry Online) that's a completely different scenario than trying to use jail to punish players for doing what you let them do.
This applies to any aspect of gameplay. If your players are perching and you don't want them to, remove the perches(AC - Othoi Nest). If they're hiding under the bridge so the dragon can't reach them and you don't want them to do that, seal that area off (EQ - Vox/Warder). If your players are breeding massive self-multiplying slime armies and holding your cities ransom, fix the slimes (UO - Chrae of Atlantic).
What you don't do is create something that is really fun to do and then punish players for doing it too much.
Prison would be part of gameplay. Honestly until developers show more I could care less what they agree with. Without extreme spenders we wouldn't even have many mmorpgs due to design decisions.
I do want random killings. I wouldn't want the game dominated by random killings though. If you thought an item was worth killing someone and you think you can escape guards and others players then go for it broad daylight in the middle of town square. But if you're defeated you go to prison. Nobody forces you to kill someone.
Comments
The best anti-grief tool is consensual pvp. It works so well for so long. There is no need to invent something for a non-existing problem.
The key part of that is the "if you're caught" part. Dransik's approach wasn't to stop PKing or punish PKing, but to add significant risk to the action when done in the more populated areas. This is very different from the ideas you will usually see pitched around here, as the ideas presented here are often to punish players for playing the game as it is intended which is, simply put, a pretty stupid way to go about doing things.
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
If I am free to kill any player I want, then you are free to defend yourself. If I like to role play as a psychopath then why would i be punished for it. You can play as a policeman but not get rewarded for it just like I don't get punished for killing, is that fair?
If you want to simulate reality with imprisonment, then also simulate that life isn't fair and if i kill you and take all your stuff...well that's just the way it goes. These are games that are supposed to build a community and be fun at the same time. There is no need to punish players for things that YOU disagree with. Were all in this (virtual) world together
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
Well yes, that becomes the question. How do we make the game fun when pvp involves a winner and a loser? Or is it all in the players mentality? i dont know. pvp doesnt have to be the focus for your gameplay, but the fact that you agreed to risk yourself and go collect ore in a dangerous game world where anyone can kill you, isnt that your fault? Just like you prepared yourself to collect ore by bringing a pickaxe, prepare yourself to kill players too. The risk becomes fun, suddenly mining ore makes your heart beat faster because you never know who you're going to come across. It becomes a race, the longer you stay in the cave collecting ore, the more chances you have of an encounter with another player.
Some people think that's fun, some people don't...good thing there are plenty of games for all of us to be happy in.
However, the other players can then exercise their prerogative as customers and be free to go play a different game. Suddenly, you are not "in this (virtual) world together". Ultimately, these discusions boil down to the question: "Who do you want to play this game and what are you willing to put into the game to attract that person?". If you are not willing to satisfy a group of players, then those players will not play your game. The problem tends to be that devs too often want everyone to play their game and try to trick certain groups of players into playing even if the game does not really fit that playstyle.
Player prison is a half-measure. It does not really satisfy the non-PvP players who do not want to be part of non-consensual PvP and it does not satisfy the FFA PvPers who do not want restrictions on their 'freedom'. It seems to mainly appeal to an in-between group who like the roleplay nature of this feature.
Every one of these threads about OW/FFA PvP comes down to adding features to make the OW PvP palatable to people who do not like it. All of those systems, whether it's a karma system, player jails or "going red" are for people who like OW PvP.
The only rule set that will make it palatable is something that gives the players a choice about whether or not they engage in PvP in the first place. It doesn't matter what happens afterwards. It's the PvP itself that's the issue, not the results.
The people who post that developers have to make games for the people they want to play their games are right. There is no one size fits all. Players who don't like OW PvP aren't going to play those games, no matter how many arcane, complicated rule sets the developers add to try and make it palatable. If the developer wants a lot of people playing their game, they are going to have consensual PvP rule sets on at least some of the servers. If the developer isn't interested in a lot of people, then they'll have whatever rule set they want to make. Not every game needs to have a goal of a million players to be successful.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
"How do we make the game fun when pvp involves a winner and a loser?" Are you a millenial?
Win or lose isn't the question, and it's the LOWEST concern regarding FFA PVP, well below:
It has nothing to do with winning or losing, and everything to do with the conditions of the scenario that caused it to happen.
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 wish there were prisons in non-FFA PvP games.
Be a jerk in chat? Prison
Kill steal - prison
ninja loot - prison
Talk about the good old days before WoW ruined everything? - Prison (solitary confinement)
weeks/months would make the game not work at all so that shouldn't even be bothered with. A person would just cancel the account and either leave the game for good (the most likely option and not what game developers want) or reroll and go back to killing much faster than the punishment.
If it is real time, not game time then the person just logs out and plays an alt account until it is up. People who liked to pk would just run several accounts to swap between the ones that weren't currently in prison. That is what makes real time punishment the most pointless. So that leaves game time and you would just use a macro to serve out the time.
In other words, the system would never prevent anything and would not make for a better game. It is that simple.
Arch Age has Imprisonment mechanic. And it works apparently quite well.
I am not sure about the exact mechanic, if anyone knows it would be cool to get a description.
But it looks like there is a certain number of time one can go to Prison after which point they are considered "Pirates" and not allowed in some Major Player hubs anymore (NPC cities etc).
Which I think is cool and good.
We should not confuse a Sandbox Fantasy FFA PvP MMO with a Virtual Battleground FFA PVP MMO such as World War 2 Online,. Planetside etc etc.
In the Sandbox one, at least a good one, attacking looting stealing from other players is considered an "evil" act, just because the game doe snot prevent you to do it it does not mean that one should go an a killing spree. It is a choice that the player has the freedom to make, but there are and should be consequences.
On the other hand a game that is designed with constant Warfare, PvP is the core of the game.
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
WoW PvP servers never slowly killed themselves...in fact PvP evolved in to one of the Core elements of the game due to popularity.
It is not the possibility to PvP that kills games, it is PvP in combination to other mechanics, such as Loss of gear, XP etc etc. in combination to how other mechanics such as crafting/gathering are implemented.
If it is all balanced in a proper way, then PvP adds Fun value to the experience, it doe snot remove value in to an MMORPG.
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
There are already better fix than prison.
Be a jerk in chat? Ignored
Kill steal - not possible in an instance
ninja loot - not possible in roll your own loot system like wow LFR and D3.
I'm sorry I just find the whole idea of "punish a player for doing something he/she finds fun" retarded. If you don't want players doing something, simply don't allow it.
You should never, ever waste the players' time or have the need to punish them for playing your game. What is the point? What is the point in punishing a player and then making the punishment "fun"? Please explain to me how that makes sense.
The concept is a nest of trouble. What could possibly be the up-side, and how is it worth it?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Good Points. WoW did not have FFA in that sense. But on any contested Territory you could get ganked and you did by Higher levels of the opposite Faction.
The point was that even under this circumstance, the servers went on thriving.
As for the other points, I actually Agree with you and yes that is what I mean by balanced myself.
A game such as Darkfall would not go far. On the other hand Ultima Online did go far and it is still going even with FFA PvP and Full Loss, because it is balanced.
The towns are not FFA PvP, and while Guild vs Guild PvP is permitted in Towns, you cannot go to War with other guilds unless both agree to it. So GvG is consensual.
Then, players can own their own houses, but most importantly own vendors. This made it so that even if you happen to lose a PvP fight, for any reason (got ambushed not prepared, ganked etc etc), you could quickly re-equip and be back, and you did not have to grind-harvest for hours just to be able to re-equip either.
Now about DAoC... in my opinion it may have not worked, simply because a Level Progression system is counter-intuitive in combination to FFA-PvP
In other words, making a Game with Character level progression where the level differential affects the outcome of PvP and then putting in FFA PvP...is not balanced. UO worked because it was skills and the Skill of a Newbie Character was not all that much off the Skill of a Skilled up Character.
While in a Level based game, 5 levels difference is already much, and the lower character has less health, less damage mitigation less Damage, while the higher level character has all these on the plus side. Beyond that it is simply impossible by design.
Still, I think that FFA PvP is a good element overall, if the rest of the game is also made for it. problem is that it has been thrown time and again in to games that were not made for it....I believe DAoC in your example is such a case. The game was never designed for FFA PvP.(it was a great RvR PvP game)..but offered it on a server due to player demands.
We saw the same in Age of Conan.... Vanguard ... etc etc.... the Mistake is not the Feature/Element itself, the mistake is to have it in a game that was not designed for it.
I see the imprisonment mechanic, as a means to balance FFA PvP, and as such I think it is good.
Cheers!
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
What a novel way to look at the issue. Make sure players can do what they want to do. Huh.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Is it ok for Players to waste other player's time? is it ok for some players to make the game not fun to some other players?
It is not about preventing players to have fun, it is about mitigating abusing behaviors which result in some players not having fun, there is an acceptable limit.
If you want to play "evil" (psycho whatever)...you have the right to do so. But not at the expense of the greater good.
In real Life, we have places we keep dangerous Psychopaths. In real life we have Prisons for Evil people comitting Evil deeds to others, to innocents, to weaker people.
So it is about balancing, and mitigation. You are free to Role Play Evil, but it must be a decision you make fully knowing that there will be some consequence. Imprisonment is a deterent to going wild, it is also a reminder of your decision.
Repeated offenders lose access to parts of the game facilities (access to majors towns etc etc), but they fully know that they chose that path.
The game itself has to maintain an equal stance towards all players, it cannot side with either side "playing Good" or "Playing bad", and as such it has to put some balancing mechanics in it.
So there is much upside to the overall experience and enjoyment of the game for all.
Unless you really are taking pleasure seeing the game bleed players untill you decide there is no one left yourself and move on too.
I do not enjoy seeing games die.
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
I'm only speaking from experience. Players cannot and will not police each other through force. It never works on a large scale. You will have a bunch of killers terrorizing a small group of ordinary players. Unlike UO days players will not put up the resistance because they have other options to play other games and killing the killers does not deter their return. Killing has be controlled for the average player to want to play long term.
There are three things that can control player behavior, consequences, accountability and game play barriers. Most MMOs only have barriers. My ideas on FFA PvP is not many barriers but consequences and accountability.
I would want players to have their own towns to be safe but I don't want any place 100% safe. Imprisonment is not something that's there to keep players from playing how the game is designed because random killing is unwanted variable. But the option is possible if you wanted you could kill and escape. I would want players who have banded together to have a viable option to deter killers. Again being killed in most cases is not enough to prevent or deter random killers from my experience.
Stop there. You're not reading what Quirhid is saying. If you don't want that behavior in your game, don't allow it. Trying to create gameplay punishments is a complete waste of everyone's time, both players and devs. It is as simple as that.
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
That's your opinion. If you are trying to let players self police then game play barriers are not the option.
The scenario that most players go through is that you have killers. Those who can defend themselves may kill the killer(s) after he or they killed multiple people. The killers are back in 5 minutes killing again and eventually people stop caring about mounting an effort to defeat the killers because there is nothing that punishes or deters the killers who often have crap on even if you could loot them. They lose time due to death and time to trying to mount an effort to stop players that are back in minutes.
With the option to imprison them. If you defeat them you get them off the street essentially for while and they're not right back in 5 minutes. They could kill people and leave never being captured. But that's the point it gives players the choice of being a killer and gives a solution to the problem that works.
I said it before, I say it again. Imprisonment shouldn't be done by players but only by NPC-guards in the guarded areas, if at all.
EvE Online shows that self-policing without imprisonment does work perfectly fine, in addition to NPC-guards that instantly kill you, if you commit crime in guarded areas.
Loosing your equipment (cheap crap usually doesn't cut it), getting a criminal flag (one that doesn't wear out in a few hours!) and having to travel longer distances (you can't respawn in hostile territory!) does balance the tides perfectly fine. And having a criminal flag excludes you from entering any of the guarded areas, so you can't access the trading hubs.
Combine this with single-character accounts and voil
Find me a single dev that will agree with you on that and I'll concede it's possible. Until then, if you don't want the players to do something, don't let them do it in the first place, especially if it's something they find fun. Creating an in-game punishment for playing the game as intended is absurd. If jail is intended as part of the PK gameplay (ex: Dransik, Wizardry Online) that's a completely different scenario than trying to use jail to punish players for doing what you let them do.
This applies to any aspect of gameplay. If your players are perching and you don't want them to, remove the perches(AC - Othoi Nest). If they're hiding under the bridge so the dragon can't reach them and you don't want them to do that, seal that area off (EQ - Vox/Warder). If your players are breeding massive self-multiplying slime armies and holding your cities ransom, fix the slimes (UO - Chrae of Atlantic).
What you don't do is create something that is really fun to do and then punish players for doing it too much.
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
Here, I find you the Devs of ArchAge...the system has been running since Launch in Korea and it works very well.
http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/11/25/archeage-criminal-system-features-jail-time-player-juries-and/
EDIT:
Another link with more details/videos
http://archeagesource.com/topic/1123-archeage-the-criminal-system-crime-court-prison-pirate-cbt5/
And what Vermillon is saying is actually the core concept of it. While you are in Court/Jail etc, you are not out there randomly killing people, but you are playing and having some adventure nevertheless.
If you are a repeated offender, you become Pirate (Red), and lose access to major Cities, and are of course recognizable by other players, and hunted whenever possible, or feared...just like UO Dread Lord Days.
there is responsibility and accountability, and there is choice. If you become Pirate it is because you really chose to be one, and you accept to live with the consequences that this choice intails.
To me it sounds very well thought out, more importantly it works, even more importantly it has been received as Fun.
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
Prison would be part of gameplay. Honestly until developers show more I could care less what they agree with. Without extreme spenders we wouldn't even have many mmorpgs due to design decisions.
I do want random killings. I wouldn't want the game dominated by random killings though. If you thought an item was worth killing someone and you think you can escape guards and others players then go for it broad daylight in the middle of town square. But if you're defeated you go to prison. Nobody forces you to kill someone.