You don't need to punish the player. If he wants to log off and onto an alt let him. You are in a virtual world. Punish the virtual character not the actual player.
Now that is just silly.
A virtual character has no mind, and would not respond to punishment. It is the player, who is controlling the toon's behavior who needs to be punished.
If you imprison my toon for a year, i will just play my alt for a year. Don't tell me the toon is feeling boredom in prison.
No but that toon, his gear, his rep, his skills are out for the time. If you put a year into your toon well that time you spent on him is out of commission for a while.
I don't think prison needs to be in the terms of years. That would be stupid. It's a game
Hours are really enough. Giving a player game play session free from the killer is enough to make a difference in the PK's just return so lets ignore them never ending problem .
Yeh lots of games do it, I've had people kidnap me before in Dayz and it's just a laugh. Now though everyone shoots on sight and there isn't really any of that going on and the game has become boring but back in the day I had a great laugh.
Same with games the GTA:SA multiplayer mods, you have modes where you can be put in prison. I played a server on ARMA 3 and I just ran around causing trouble and a cop put me in prison lol.
It's fun.
People have just become way too attached to the idea that their stuff is theirs forever. I wish that would go because it makes a game very static.
Very good point. No matter what kind of mechanics a dev wants to create, if the players aren't playing in a way that supports it, they end up unused or misused. The msot amazing "citizen's arrest" system or "player police force" system would be pointless if your players all shoot first and ask questions later.
The Pk gameplay should be how long can you last from the non pk's. Not the pvp rules for the game. It has already proven itself in popularity. Regardless of the death penalty, the immersion based gameplay hooks people in. This is only for the PK part of the game so please don't apply it to everything else in order to negate it.
You'd need to explain what you're talking about because that genuinely made no sense at all.
Ok.
I shouldn't be able to get a real world fix from bullying someone in real life by means of a video game. Nor should the rest of the player base be punished, or even be allowed to police that behavior. The game isn't a vehicle for that. Society shunned that behavior, games shouldn't be the remaining outlet for d-bags. But im playing a role!!!
Go ahead and see if people role playing a police man has any affect on that.
Immersion based gameplay doesn't have these problems. And those that do use them for that usually end up loving the game instead because they became content themselves. A far more enjoyable reward, that helps the game.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
depends on how is done the prisoner gameplay,for example in Skyrim, when you got imprisoned in Markarth, you could pay your debt playing as a miner, also there was this mission arc where you organized an escape along with other important figures from the city. it even related some dungeon crawling (you have to cross inside dwemer ruins plagued with spiders and dwemer robots)
wakfu is the first mmo example i have to prison gameplay, never played apart of the basic parts but looks like you can do something similar. this same mechanics apply in Archeage, players can pay their condemn working in prison or they can make the great scape.
personally i would like content like that added, along with a bounty system, i mean, something like the police system used in GTA, every infraction you do, you get a criminal tag, each increase in criminal level spawns harder police, up to the point you get arrested. or if you manage to get the "wanted" lvl players would be able to kill you and get a reward.
EVE has an example of how can be done correctly, but i think it needs more polishing.
In my experience a lot of the non-pvp crowd don't have a side of the story. The vast majority of the mmo market today came about AFTER the watering down of the genre with games like WoW and haven't given any game with ow pvp a proper chance.
What is a "proper" chance? I played UO beta a while and hated PK .. so i quit. Is that a "proper" or an "improper" chance?And it is moot anyway. If the audience decide not to give it a chance, proper or not, fair or not, no sane devs is going to try to go against the demand.Personally i have tried enough, and like it or not, ow ffa pvp (in a pve game, i do play PS2 from time to time) has no chance from me. I doubt you will miss me anyway.
I don't know if you gave it a fair shot or not, to be honest. It doesn't really matter. OO PvP advocates have tried both types of games, while most of the non-pvp players haven't.
Also, I'm not saying that EVERYBODY who gives classical music will like it, but the vast majority of the people who claim they don't like it, really haven't tried it.
So you've interviewed a representative sample of all the people who aren't into OW PvP and have determined this? Or did you just make an assumption?
Most gamers have tried many types of games, usually starting with single player games. Even my wife, who isn't a gamer has played several different types of games, including games with PvP. She doesn't like PvP in general, and she knows this because she tried it. My wife's friend has tried games with and without PvP and she likes PvP. She's horrible at it, but she likes it. She's not a gamer either.
My point is that your wrong about the whole "people who don't like OW PvP haven't tried it", implying that they don't know what they are talking about when they say they don't like it.
"Much of the questioning seems to be coming from a place of lack of understanding of FFA PvP games. I'm coming from the view of a person who was a random killer and now interested in a more balanced world building experience." -Verm
It seems the conversation has devolved to several people taking similar stances, which pretty much ends the conversation. Was fun while it lasted.
Feel free to take your leave if you must...but..
I think finally it is actually going somewhere. I have to agree with many here that non Balanced FFA is not a way to go anymore. The landscape has changed and the people too.
Someone said earlier that people came to WOW because of the way it was. Actually I do not intirely agree. WoW had a following of Teenagers who were playing WC series, and shortly before WoW were playng WC3, at the same time the Internet was very accessible to them, and these were really the first batch of players of WoW...WoW thus intriduced many Gamers to MMO's...I think there are more people today who started MMO's with WoW than there were MMO players.
I gave WoW a its first Try a year after it released almost, I was in SWG, and swtched to WoW because of the NGE. If NGE did not exist I would have never played WoW.
But it also goes to show why, non balanced OW FFA PvP cannot work, in WoW people PvP for fun, there is no concept or Notion of Good vs Evil... players have been accustomed to the idea that both Horde and Alliance are Good guys, and they are....the real Evil is represented by NPC's...and any PvP between Horde and Alliance, is skirmishes, brawling etc...
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
I think its a great idea. Plus a fine or something. It could be done. I also believe that players should have to patrol area's to keep the bad players out Right outside a town or something. People built cities and towns . Should have some sort of player protection.. Plus they would get paid for doing a good job!
You don't need to punish the player. If he wants to log off and onto an alt let him. You are in a virtual world. Punish the virtual character not the actual player.
Now that is just silly.
A virtual character has no mind, and would not respond to punishment. It is the player, who is controlling the toon's behavior who needs to be punished.
If you imprison my toon for a year, i will just play my alt for a year. Don't tell me the toon is feeling boredom in prison.
No but that toon, his gear, his rep, his skills are out for the time. If you put a year into your toon well that time you spent on him is out of commission for a while.
Edit: You are not trying to 100% deter PK, just make it a little more risky. If you and your guild are playing an awesome raid, but your an ass on a homicidal spree then your character can not help out on the raid. You will have to use potentially a lesser alt.
I don't think prison needs to be in the terms of years. That would be stupid. It's a game
So you are punishing the players, not the toon.
Now the question is .. is imprisoning a toon best way to punish a player. Is there some other way? Like locked his account instead of just one toon.
You don't need to punish the player. If he wants to log off and onto an alt let him. You are in a virtual world. Punish the virtual character not the actual player.
Now that is just silly.
A virtual character has no mind, and would not respond to punishment. It is the player, who is controlling the toon's behavior who needs to be punished.
If you imprison my toon for a year, i will just play my alt for a year. Don't tell me the toon is feeling boredom in prison.
No but that toon, his gear, his rep, his skills are out for the time. If you put a year into your toon well that time you spent on him is out of commission for a while.
Edit: You are not trying to 100% deter PK, just make it a little more risky. If you and your guild are playing an awesome raid, but your an ass on a homicidal spree then your character can not help out on the raid. You will have to use potentially a lesser alt.
I don't think prison needs to be in the terms of years. That would be stupid. It's a game
So you are punishing the players, not the toon.
Now the question is .. is imprisoning a toon best way to punish a player. Is there some other way? Like locked his account instead of just one toon.
It does not have to be punishment. or like Wushu (from what I understand it is just imprisoned), it can be integrated to Gameplay. Have the PK have fun with something else for a while to answer for their crime...
Arguments against such an integrated mechanic, based on "it is not fun" are Moot....
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
It does not have to be punishment. or like Wushu (from what I understand it is just imprisoned), it can be integrated to Gameplay. Have the PK have fun with something else for a while to answer for their crime...
Arguments against such an integrated mechanic, based on "it is not fun" are Moot....
If it is not a punishment, and people actively seek out for it, then you have more griefing, not less.
And since the existence of games is about fun, it is not moot. If it indeed is not fun (for most of the market), it would get weeded out.
It does not have to be punishment. or like Wushu (from what I understand it is just imprisoned), it can be integrated to Gameplay. Have the PK have fun with something else for a while to answer for their crime...
Arguments against such an integrated mechanic, based on "it is not fun" are Moot....
If it is not a punishment, and people actively seek out for it, then you have more griefing, not less.
And since the existence of games is about fun, it is not moot. If it indeed is not fun (for most of the market), it would get weeded out.
Games are supposed to be fun for all. A game designed for OW FFA PvP does not need to Punish the Act of PvPing, that would be Ludicrous.
In practical terms, it does not need to punish the guy who attacks you and kills you once in the wilderness...it just needs to make sure that this guy will not kill you randomly 10 times in a row and prevent you from having fun or playing the game.
But at the same time, it cannot punish them directly, they are a player too here to have fun. But can redirect their behavior towards a Game mechanic part of gameplay so that they are removed from the spot where they were killing you. Thus you can continue playing and have fun, and in the mean time they are having fun ploting their escape in an adventure of their own.
Forget the notion of "punishment"...
in an OW FFA PvP game, properly made and balanced, it should be fine to choose to be evil and be agressive towards other players as part of your role in the world.... but it should not be fine abusing the realities of the game under that premise as justification.
So the mechanism aims to eliminate abuse of the reality that goes beyond the scope of the game itself.
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
An example of how it worked in UO to accomplish the same goal.
First, players knew in advance that Towns were safe and protected against criminals or life threatening attacks. Players knew that outside of the town it was an OW FFA PvP world, you went out of the town at your own risk.
Second, we all learned by trial and error through our adventures. The first time I adventured out of town I got attacked and killed, and looted. I knew there was a possibility of this happening. Having learned from the experience, I went back to town re-equiped just enough with something I was willing to lose should this happen again and went out on a journey of adventure again.
Guess what, I was not killed the second time, because my killer was nowhere to be found, he was not camping the same spot. Why?
Because there was a Criminal system in place. And there was other players who enforced it. When you attack someone you became attackable by anyone for a brief period of time, and if you were killed while being flagged Criminal, your killer was considered as having rendered Justice not a crime. So if you initiate aggression (outside of a GvG declared War that is), it was considered a crime against an innocent.
If you did kill a certain number of "innocents", then you were permanently declared Murderer, the name of your character became "Red", you were now an outcast of the society. Hunted by other players but also feared by other players. And you lost access to Towns of Lawfull players, and only had a couple of towns where you could go as a murderer, and hang out with other murderers.
So the game was balanced in that sense, because it had tools in place that players can use to self police themselves. And being "Evil" while a choice, had consequences, which the player knew about before choosing to go down that path.
And in the process, no one got slapped in the hand, no one got "punished" everyone both Good and Evil, had fun in different ways. It was trully a different experience playing a Lawful role or an Unlawful role. And it worked, and was balanced.
Eventually as my character grew, I also became an enforcer of Justice, I was an Anti-PK, I helped other players by hunting Murderers in the world. I had chosen to follow the Virtuous path. But i could have gone the other way too.
the beauty of it all is hat as a player I had that choice, I could really choose the Light side or the Dark side..not just for laughs and giggles...in an artificially constructed simulated kind of Darkness *coughs SWTOR, coughs...*
It was versus real players, not programmed NPC's...and even amongst sworn enemies there was at one point a certain Code of Honor too, based on pvP skill not Ethics really still was wonderful feeling...the world was truly ALIVE..
You simply cannot recreate that in a "make belief" NPC world, not matter how Good and emergent your AI is...
- 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 Holophonist Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by HolophonistOriginally posted by nariusseldonOriginally posted by HolophonistIn my experience a lot of the non-pvp crowd don't have a side of the story. The vast majority of the mmo market today came about AFTER the watering down of the genre with games like WoW and haven't given any game with ow pvp a proper chance. What is a "proper" chance? I played UO beta a while and hated PK .. so i quit. Is that a "proper" or an "improper" chance?And it is moot anyway. If the audience decide not to give it a chance, proper or not, fair or not, no sane devs is going to try to go against the demand.Personally i have tried enough, and like it or not, ow ffa pvp (in a pve game, i do play PS2 from time to time) has no chance from me. I doubt you will miss me anyway.
I don't know if you gave it a fair shot or not, to be honest. It doesn't really matter. OO PvP advocates have tried both types of games, while most of the non-pvp players haven't.Also, I'm not saying that EVERYBODY who gives classical music will like it, but the vast majority of the people who claim they don't like it, really haven't tried it. So you've interviewed a representative sample of all the people who aren't into OW PvP and have determined this? Or did you just make an assumption?
The vast majority of MMO's are non-ow pvp games. Not to mention the huge influx of players came about specifically because of games like WoW which are essentially non-ow pvp. The huge emphasis on instancing and the fact that dying has little or no consequences means the ow pvp in WoW is completely insignificant. So it's hardly an assumption, even if I didn't interview a large sample of the population. Implying that it's either one or the other is just a shitty way of arguing. It's called deductive reasoning.
Most gamers have tried many types of games, usually starting with single player games. Even my wife, who isn't a gamer has played several different types of games, including games with PvP. She doesn't like PvP in general, and she knows this because she tried it. My wife's friend has tried games with and without PvP and she likes PvP. She's horrible at it, but she likes it. She's not a gamer either.
I'm not talking about games with "pvp." I'm talking about games with meaningful, ow-pvp with consequences for death, etc. The type of game that has more barriers to entry than a typical carebear themepark, but is ultimately more rewarding. Like I've pointed out, this is true for almost everything in life. The more barriers to entry to a given area of interest, the more rewarding it is.
My point is that your wrong about the whole "people who don't like OW PvP haven't tried it", implying that they don't know what they are talking about when they say they don't like it.
So how do you know I'm wrong? Did YOU interview a representative sample of the MMO community and determine me to be wrong? I'm using reasoning to come to my conclusion. How are you coming to yours?
Here's a simple question: In the discussions on these forums over this topic in its many forms, do you think the ow pvp crowd has more experience in non-ow pvp games than the non-ow pvp crowd has in ow pvp games?
Your stance seems to be that the people who don't like OW PvP just don't know what they are talking about. If someone doesn't like it, they don't like it. Their opinion can't be wrong, because it's their opinion.
Starting with PvP in general. If a gamer tried games with PvP, and they didn't like PvP, then they are probably going to say they don't like games with OW PvP. It doesn't matter that they haven't tried the specific games you're talking about, because they know they don't like PvP in general, so OW PvP in particular is not going to appeal to them.
That's one aspect of these conversations that do not make sense to me. It doesn't matter how meaningful the world building, it doesn't matter how many restrictions are put on the OW PvP to limit griefing, it doesn't matter how many jail systems, karma systems or "going red" systems are put in place, the people who do not like OW PvP will still not like it after all the rules are in place. OW PvP is not some universally good thing that's just misunderstood. It's understood just fine. There are just a lot of people who do not like it.
Even among the people who like PvP, there are far fewer people who are into OW PvP versus match based PvP. There are more concurrent players in LoL than there are total subscribers in most MMORPGs in the world. OW PvP is the least popular option for gamers in general, as well as people who like PvP. The idea that adding some sort of additional rule set will make it palatable to people who don't like it is folly.
Far better to focus on ideas for the the OW PvP proponents themselves, which I think is what the OP is doing. Especially since a couple people have said they like the imprisonment system, and they are, as far as I can tell, proponents of OW PvP.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
In my experience a lot of the non-pvp crowd don't have a side of the story. The vast majority of the mmo market today came about AFTER the watering down of the genre with games like WoW and haven't given any game with ow pvp a proper chance. What is a "proper" chance? I played UO beta a while and hated PK .. so i quit. Is that a "proper" or an "improper" chance?And it is moot anyway. If the audience decide not to give it a chance, proper or not, fair or not, no sane devs is going to try to go against the demand.Personally i have tried enough, and like it or not, ow ffa pvp (in a pve game, i do play PS2 from time to time) has no chance from me. I doubt you will miss me anyway.
I don't know if you gave it a fair shot or not, to be honest. It doesn't really matter. OO PvP advocates have tried both types of games, while most of the non-pvp players haven't.Also, I'm not saying that EVERYBODY who gives classical music will like it, but the vast majority of the people who claim they don't like it, really haven't tried it.
So you've interviewed a representative sample of all the people who aren't into OW PvP and have determined this? Or did you just make an assumption?
The vast majority of MMO's are non-ow pvp games. Not to mention the huge influx of players came about specifically because of games like WoW which are essentially non-ow pvp. The huge emphasis on instancing and the fact that dying has little or no consequences means the ow pvp in WoW is completely insignificant. So it's hardly an assumption, even if I didn't interview a large sample of the population. Implying that it's either one or the other is just a shitty way of arguing. It's called deductive reasoning.
Most gamers have tried many types of games, usually starting with single player games. Even my wife, who isn't a gamer has played several different types of games, including games with PvP. She doesn't like PvP in general, and she knows this because she tried it. My wife's friend has tried games with and without PvP and she likes PvP. She's horrible at it, but she likes it. She's not a gamer either.
I'm not talking about games with "pvp." I'm talking about games with meaningful, ow-pvp with consequences for death, etc. The type of game that has more barriers to entry than a typical carebear themepark, but is ultimately more rewarding. Like I've pointed out, this is true for almost everything in life. The more barriers to entry to a given area of interest, the more rewarding it is.
My point is that your wrong about the whole "people who don't like OW PvP haven't tried it", implying that they don't know what they are talking about when they say they don't like it.
So how do you know I'm wrong? Did YOU interview a representative sample of the MMO community and determine me to be wrong? I'm using reasoning to come to my conclusion. How are you coming to yours?
Here's a simple question: In the discussions on these forums over this topic in its many forms, do you think the ow pvp crowd has more experience in non-ow pvp games than the non-ow pvp crowd has in ow pvp games?
Your stance seems to be that the people who don't like OW PvP just don't know what they are talking about. If someone doesn't like it, they don't like it. Their opinion can't be wrong, because it's their opinion.
Starting with PvP in general. If a gamer tried games with PvP, and they didn't like PvP, then they are probably going to say they don't like games with OW PvP. It doesn't matter that they haven't tried the specific games you're talking about, because they know they don't like PvP in general, so OW PvP in particular is not going to appeal to them.
That's one aspect of these conversations that do not make sense to me. It doesn't matter how meaningful the world building, it doesn't matter how many restrictions are put on the OW PvP to limit griefing, it doesn't matter how many jail systems, karma systems or "going red" systems are put in place, the people who do not like OW PvP will still not like it after all the rules are in place. OW PvP is not some universally good thing that's just misunderstood. It's understood just fine. There are just a lot of people who do not like it.
Even among the people who like PvP, there are far fewer people who are into OW PvP versus match based PvP. There are more concurrent players in LoL than there are total subscribers in most MMORPGs in the world. OW PvP is the least popular option for gamers in general, as well as people who like PvP. The idea that adding some sort of additional rule set will make it palatable to people who don't like it is folly.
Far better to focus on ideas for the the OW PvP proponents themselves, which I think is what the OP is doing. Especially since a couple people have said they like the imprisonment system, and they are, as far as I can tell, proponents of OW PvP.
You may have the opinion that you do not like Sushi, maybe because of the idea of Raw Fish. But if you never ate Sushi, you do not really know if you like it or not....no matter your opinion about it..it is false.
I think that is from where he is coming from.
i do agree that we should focus on ideas about OW FFA PvP however and not get in to sidetrack discussions.
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
In my experience a lot of the non-pvp crowd don't have a side of the story. The vast majority of the mmo market today came about AFTER the watering down of the genre with games like WoW and haven't given any game with ow pvp a proper chance. What is a "proper" chance? I played UO beta a while and hated PK .. so i quit. Is that a "proper" or an "improper" chance?And it is moot anyway. If the audience decide not to give it a chance, proper or not, fair or not, no sane devs is going to try to go against the demand.Personally i have tried enough, and like it or not, ow ffa pvp (in a pve game, i do play PS2 from time to time) has no chance from me. I doubt you will miss me anyway.
I don't know if you gave it a fair shot or not, to be honest. It doesn't really matter. OO PvP advocates have tried both types of games, while most of the non-pvp players haven't.Also, I'm not saying that EVERYBODY who gives classical music will like it, but the vast majority of the people who claim they don't like it, really haven't tried it.
So you've interviewed a representative sample of all the people who aren't into OW PvP and have determined this? Or did you just make an assumption?
The vast majority of MMO's are non-ow pvp games. Not to mention the huge influx of players came about specifically because of games like WoW which are essentially non-ow pvp. The huge emphasis on instancing and the fact that dying has little or no consequences means the ow pvp in WoW is completely insignificant. So it's hardly an assumption, even if I didn't interview a large sample of the population. Implying that it's either one or the other is just a shitty way of arguing. It's called deductive reasoning.
Most gamers have tried many types of games, usually starting with single player games. Even my wife, who isn't a gamer has played several different types of games, including games with PvP. She doesn't like PvP in general, and she knows this because she tried it. My wife's friend has tried games with and without PvP and she likes PvP. She's horrible at it, but she likes it. She's not a gamer either.
I'm not talking about games with "pvp." I'm talking about games with meaningful, ow-pvp with consequences for death, etc. The type of game that has more barriers to entry than a typical carebear themepark, but is ultimately more rewarding. Like I've pointed out, this is true for almost everything in life. The more barriers to entry to a given area of interest, the more rewarding it is.
My point is that your wrong about the whole "people who don't like OW PvP haven't tried it", implying that they don't know what they are talking about when they say they don't like it.
So how do you know I'm wrong? Did YOU interview a representative sample of the MMO community and determine me to be wrong? I'm using reasoning to come to my conclusion. How are you coming to yours?
Here's a simple question: In the discussions on these forums over this topic in its many forms, do you think the ow pvp crowd has more experience in non-ow pvp games than the non-ow pvp crowd has in ow pvp games?
Your stance seems to be that the people who don't like OW PvP just don't know what they are talking about. If someone doesn't like it, they don't like it. Their opinion can't be wrong, because it's their opinion.
Starting with PvP in general. If a gamer tried games with PvP, and they didn't like PvP, then they are probably going to say they don't like games with OW PvP. It doesn't matter that they haven't tried the specific games you're talking about, because they know they don't like PvP in general, so OW PvP in particular is not going to appeal to them.
That's one aspect of these conversations that do not make sense to me. It doesn't matter how meaningful the world building, it doesn't matter how many restrictions are put on the OW PvP to limit griefing, it doesn't matter how many jail systems, karma systems or "going red" systems are put in place, the people who do not like OW PvP will still not like it after all the rules are in place. OW PvP is not some universally good thing that's just misunderstood. It's understood just fine. There are just a lot of people who do not like it.
Even among the people who like PvP, there are far fewer people who are into OW PvP versus match based PvP. There are more concurrent players in LoL than there are total subscribers in most MMORPGs in the world. OW PvP is the least popular option for gamers in general, as well as people who like PvP. The idea that adding some sort of additional rule set will make it palatable to people who don't like it is folly.
Far better to focus on ideas for the the OW PvP proponents themselves, which I think is what the OP is doing. Especially since a couple people have said they like the imprisonment system, and they are, as far as I can tell, proponents of OW PvP.
Progression based games are attracting people who use progression as a means of power over others rather than playing the game for what it is. That's why they rush to endgame and use all sorts of generic mmo speak. they're not playing the game because the lore will offer new gameplay experiences. they play role playing games and make fun of role playing.
People aren't stupid anymore. Progression games are made to feed the horde. Pvp or pve, just offer power through progression and its the same ending. You want to cater to these players, then you can play with them. No one else wants to anymore. Let alone pay to be in their company or their content.
Give it up already.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
I think the imprisonment is a really good idea, and I've wondered why it hasnt been put in games in a long time. It's a hard thing to implement, but when done right, I think it could be a blast.
Most people in this thread see the imprisonment as a punishment, but I think it'd really add to being a bandit. You know, add a little excitement and risk (and fun). Bandits should have it hard, that's what makes it so much more fun. Usually the action of killing someone is almost always in your favour anyway (element of suprise, outnumbering the one being ganked, them already being occupied by mobs or gathering etc).
You could even have a hideout area, in which you could only access the questchain if you are a bandit. It would include quests around PKing and prison.
Good players should be able to not get caught, but it should limit on where they can go. I know you can workaround this with an alt, but it's a game, and you shouldn't limit the player, you should limit the character.
Suggestions for rules:
-When you kill a player, you gain infamy as a bandit/murderer. This should have some kind of scaling, so killing on player once doesnt cut you off totally. If you go on a rampage, you have to live the bandit life, and stay in certain areas.
-Early game areas/towns are protected, 100%. Think of this place as a tutorial level.
-Faction citys have guards. They kill any infamy players/the offender, on sight.
-Neutral citys have guards. They only kill the offender/players with high infamy though.
-Out in the wilderness/open areas it's FFAPVP, 100%.
-Players can place bounties on any player. Bandits might even get automatic bounties to encourage bounty hunters.
-If a guard or a bountyhunter (maybe an additional profession) kills an infamy player, he gets sent to "prison".
-Only the offender/his party can pickup loot from a killed player. This prevents suicide PKing like what we see in EvE.
Prison:
-Don't make prison boring, and dont make people AFK.
-AFKing doesnt tick down your sentence.
-There could be some minigame like tasks (which are always "different", so they cant be macroed). Puzzles, labourwork, you name it.
-You could train your skills here, but it should be less effective then doing it outside.
-You should be able to avoid PVP here, while doing tasks, but certain areas here should be FFA too. If you are dead, your sentence doesnt tick down.
-You are stripped from all your gear, and you only wear somekinda jumpsuit-like clothes.
-You could even get an infamy quest from some bandit npc, in which you'd have to get to prison island and talk to someone/deliver a message or smuggle something.
-You could attempt an prisonbreak with your guildmates. (This should be hard)
-You could ask your guildmates to bribe the guards to let you go. (This should be really expensive)
-When you get out, you could enter neutral citys, but you'd still be out of faction citys. To get rid of your infamy you'd have to kill other bandits/buy letters of pardon or something.
I'd love to see something along these lines in a new MMO.
I think the imprisonment is a really good idea, and I've wondered why it hasnt been put in games in a long time. It's a hard thing to implement, but when done right, I think it could be a blast.
Most people in this thread see the imprisonment as a punishment, but I think it'd really add to being a bandit. You know, add a little excitement and risk (and fun). Bandits should have it hard, that's what makes it so much more fun. Usually the action of killing someone is almost always in your favour anyway (element of suprise, outnumbering the one being ganked, them already being occupied by mobs or gathering etc).
You could even have a hideout area, in which you could only access the questchain if you are a bandit. It would include quests around PKing and prison.
Good players should be able to not get caught, but it should limit on where they can go. I know you can workaround this with an alt, but it's a game, and you shouldn't limit the player, you should limit the character.
Suggestions for rules:
-When you kill a player, you gain infamy as a bandit/murderer. This should have some kind of scaling, so killing on player once doesnt cut you off totally. If you go on a rampage, you have to live the bandit life, and stay in certain areas.
-Early game areas/towns are protected, 100%. Think of this place as a tutorial level.
-Faction citys have guards. They kill any infamy players/the offender, on sight.
-Neutral citys have guards. They only kill the offender/players with high infamy though.
-Out in the wilderness/open areas it's FFAPVP, 100%.
-Players can place bounties on any player. Bandits might even get automatic bounties to encourage bounty hunters.
-If a guard or a bountyhunter (maybe an additional profession) kills an infamy player, he gets sent to "prison".
-Only the offender/his party can pickup loot from a killed player. This prevents suicide PKing like what we see in EvE.
Prison:
-Don't make prison boring, and dont make people AFK.
-AFKing doesnt tick down your sentence.
-There could be some minigame like tasks (which are always "different", so they cant be macroed). Puzzles, labourwork, you name it.
-You could train your skills here, but it should be less effective then doing it outside.
-You should be able to avoid PVP here, while doing tasks, but certain areas here should be FFA too. If you are dead, your sentence doesnt tick down.
-You are stripped from all your gear, and you only wear somekinda jumpsuit-like clothes.
-You could even get an infamy quest from some bandit npc, in which you'd have to get to prison island and talk to someone/deliver a message or smuggle something.
-You could attempt an prisonbreak with your guildmates. (This should be hard)
-You could ask your guildmates to bribe the guards to let you go. (This should be really expensive)
-When you get out, you could enter neutral citys, but you'd still be out of faction citys. To get rid of your infamy you'd have to kill other bandits/buy letters of pardon or something.
I'd love to see something along these lines in a new MMO.
That reads a lot like the best parts of the Wizardry Online and Dransik prison mechanics mashed together. I like the idea, but that's because it seems like it adds to gameplay. While probably a good system for a game, it is the opposite of the OP's interests, which is something to curb open world PVP.
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
One idea (can't remember if I read it or can up with the idea myself though so I will take credit just in case) that I likes was the idea that getting caught puts you in jail and you cannot reduce your sentence other then killing another prisoner. Basically turn the whole prison into a FFA PvP deathmatch and when you enter you are given the name of another random prisoner who you must kill. Do it and you get released once your basic sentence time is complete. Until you kill them you are locked up or time is served. And of course while in the prison you have no weapons apart from a basic shiv type weapon so everyone is on the same footing as the shiv just gives you a few basic attacks.
That might keep the really crappy opportunistic griefers locked up for a long time and let anyone that is actually good at PvP back into the world. I just love the idea of putting all the apples into the barrel and the rotten ones stay there
You don't need to punish the player. If he wants to log off and onto an alt let him. You are in a virtual world. Punish the virtual character not the actual player.
Now that is just silly.
A virtual character has no mind, and would not respond to punishment. It is the player, who is controlling the toon's behavior who needs to be punished.
If you imprison my toon for a year, i will just play my alt for a year. Don't tell me the toon is feeling boredom in prison.
No but that toon, his gear, his rep, his skills are out for the time. If you put a year into your toon well that time you spent on him is out of commission for a while.
Edit: You are not trying to 100% deter PK, just make it a little more risky. If you and your guild are playing an awesome raid, but your an ass on a homicidal spree then your character can not help out on the raid. You will have to use potentially a lesser alt.
I don't think prison needs to be in the terms of years. That would be stupid. It's a game
So you are punishing the players, not the toon.
Now the question is .. is imprisoning a toon best way to punish a player. Is there some other way? Like locked his account instead of just one toon.
It's not about punishing the player it's about adding risk to the action of being a ganker.
The objective is not to 100% deter people from ganking. It's to have the Risk for them to be pulled outta the action from some time. Which will make ganking more fun because of more risk, but can inturn cause ganking to lessen. If the same guy can't be hanging out in the same mine ganking the same people for 6 straight hours. If it is a FFA PVP game your a little fullish to think that PVP needs be punished.
The objective is not to 100% deter people from ganking. It's to have the Risk for them to be pulled outta the action from some time. Which will make ganking more fun because of more risk, but can inturn cause ganking to lessen. If the same guy can't be hanging out in the same mine ganking the same people for 6 straight hours. If it is a FFA PVP game your a little fullish to think that PVP needs be punished.
In that case, you will lose all the anti-ganking players.
Ganking is never fun on the receiving end for not all, but a lot of players. Otherwise, why do you think ffa pvp game is so unpopular?
I think the imprisonment is a really good idea, and I've wondered why it hasnt been put in games in a long time. It's a hard thing to implement, but when done right, I think it could be a blast.
Most people in this thread see the imprisonment as a punishment, but I think it'd really add to being a bandit. You know, add a little excitement and risk (and fun). Bandits should have it hard, that's what makes it so much more fun. Usually the action of killing someone is almost always in your favour anyway (element of suprise, outnumbering the one being ganked, them already being occupied by mobs or gathering etc).
You could even have a hideout area, in which you could only access the questchain if you are a bandit. It would include quests around PKing and prison.
Good players should be able to not get caught, but it should limit on where they can go. I know you can workaround this with an alt, but it's a game, and you shouldn't limit the player, you should limit the character.
Suggestions for rules:
-When you kill a player, you gain infamy as a bandit/murderer. This should have some kind of scaling, so killing on player once doesnt cut you off totally. If you go on a rampage, you have to live the bandit life, and stay in certain areas.
-Early game areas/towns are protected, 100%. Think of this place as a tutorial level.
-Faction citys have guards. They kill any infamy players/the offender, on sight.
-Neutral citys have guards. They only kill the offender/players with high infamy though.
-Out in the wilderness/open areas it's FFAPVP, 100%.
-Players can place bounties on any player. Bandits might even get automatic bounties to encourage bounty hunters.
-If a guard or a bountyhunter (maybe an additional profession) kills an infamy player, he gets sent to "prison".
-Only the offender/his party can pickup loot from a killed player. This prevents suicide PKing like what we see in EvE.
Prison:
-Don't make prison boring, and dont make people AFK.
-AFKing doesnt tick down your sentence.
-There could be some minigame like tasks (which are always "different", so they cant be macroed). Puzzles, labourwork, you name it.
-You could train your skills here, but it should be less effective then doing it outside.
-You should be able to avoid PVP here, while doing tasks, but certain areas here should be FFA too. If you are dead, your sentence doesnt tick down.
-You are stripped from all your gear, and you only wear somekinda jumpsuit-like clothes.
-You could even get an infamy quest from some bandit npc, in which you'd have to get to prison island and talk to someone/deliver a message or smuggle something.
-You could attempt an prisonbreak with your guildmates. (This should be hard)
-You could ask your guildmates to bribe the guards to let you go. (This should be really expensive)
-When you get out, you could enter neutral citys, but you'd still be out of faction citys. To get rid of your infamy you'd have to kill other bandits/buy letters of pardon or something.
I'd love to see something along these lines in a new MMO.
I think prisoning would work if it was implemented correctly. In starter cities, NPCs are police. Outside that, it should be policed by players. No penalties for PKing in OPEN WORLD AREAs. Infamy system is good. Someone said that they don't like imprisonment because they "want to play the game". So do the people you grief in FFA PVP.
I think the imprisonment is a really good idea, and I've wondered why it hasnt been put in games in a long time. It's a hard thing to implement, but when done right, I think it could be a blast.
Most people in this thread see the imprisonment as a punishment, but I think it'd really add to being a bandit. You know, add a little excitement and risk (and fun). Bandits should have it hard, that's what makes it so much more fun. Usually the action of killing someone is almost always in your favour anyway (element of suprise, outnumbering the one being ganked, them already being occupied by mobs or gathering etc).
You could even have a hideout area, in which you could only access the questchain if you are a bandit. It would include quests around PKing and prison.
Good players should be able to not get caught, but it should limit on where they can go. I know you can workaround this with an alt, but it's a game, and you shouldn't limit the player, you should limit the character.
Suggestions for rules:
-When you kill a player, you gain infamy as a bandit/murderer. This should have some kind of scaling, so killing on player once doesnt cut you off totally. If you go on a rampage, you have to live the bandit life, and stay in certain areas.
-Early game areas/towns are protected, 100%. Think of this place as a tutorial level.
-Faction citys have guards. They kill any infamy players/the offender, on sight.
-Neutral citys have guards. They only kill the offender/players with high infamy though.
-Out in the wilderness/open areas it's FFAPVP, 100%.
-Players can place bounties on any player. Bandits might even get automatic bounties to encourage bounty hunters.
-If a guard or a bountyhunter (maybe an additional profession) kills an infamy player, he gets sent to "prison".
-Only the offender/his party can pickup loot from a killed player. This prevents suicide PKing like what we see in EvE.
Prison:
-Don't make prison boring, and dont make people AFK.
-AFKing doesnt tick down your sentence.
-There could be some minigame like tasks (which are always "different", so they cant be macroed). Puzzles, labourwork, you name it.
-You could train your skills here, but it should be less effective then doing it outside.
-You should be able to avoid PVP here, while doing tasks, but certain areas here should be FFA too. If you are dead, your sentence doesnt tick down.
-You are stripped from all your gear, and you only wear somekinda jumpsuit-like clothes.
-You could even get an infamy quest from some bandit npc, in which you'd have to get to prison island and talk to someone/deliver a message or smuggle something.
-You could attempt an prisonbreak with your guildmates. (This should be hard)
-You could ask your guildmates to bribe the guards to let you go. (This should be really expensive)
-When you get out, you could enter neutral citys, but you'd still be out of faction citys. To get rid of your infamy you'd have to kill other bandits/buy letters of pardon or something.
I'd love to see something along these lines in a new MMO.
That reads a lot like the best parts of the Wizardry Online and Dransik prison mechanics mashed together. I like the idea, but that's because it seems like it adds to gameplay. While probably a good system for a game, it is the opposite of the OP's interests, which is something to curb open world PVP.
1. The OP is not about my idea but about the idea of prisons in FFA PvP MMORPG.
2. Don't speak for me. What I'm saying is not what your explaining. I've stated otherwise multiple times already.
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.
I'd be open to the idea depending on how it is translated in game.
I think it be neat to see a Gladiator like prison, where you have to fight your way out and rewards you for the time in there to make it fun for those PVPers...like depending on your crime you must do PVP or even PVE challenges to win your freedom. It would also be fitting to the crime, so those ganking PVPers would get to do some Arena style PVP against other actual PVPers as punishment or they will enjoy it just because PVP..
Oh this gladiator prison arena should also have a voluntary option to jump in aside from being forced via punishment because the system should be built as something PVPers would actually want to do and not see it as true punishment, but rather a time based penalty box to give the ganked area some respite from a rampant ganker while he is in the "Pit".
It would be even more interesting that the victim can go into the Gladiator Instance or a Champion on behalf of the victim to fight the criminal and increase their sentence or give them instant freedom depending on the result.
That ^ would have to fit into the lore and feel of the world of course.
Comments
Hours are really enough. Giving a player game play session free from the killer is enough to make a difference in the PK's just return so lets ignore them never ending problem .
Ok.
I shouldn't be able to get a real world fix from bullying someone in real life by means of a video game. Nor should the rest of the player base be punished, or even be allowed to police that behavior. The game isn't a vehicle for that. Society shunned that behavior, games shouldn't be the remaining outlet for d-bags. But im playing a role!!!
Go ahead and see if people role playing a police man has any affect on that.
Immersion based gameplay doesn't have these problems. And those that do use them for that usually end up loving the game instead because they became content themselves. A far more enjoyable reward, that helps the game.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
In jail right now as I type. About 3 hours left of a 5 hour term.
Hey it's a beautiful day, and now I have some time to work on my new video. Can't render and stuff though because I have to stay logged in.
depends on how is done the prisoner gameplay,for example in Skyrim, when you got imprisoned in Markarth, you could pay your debt playing as a miner, also there was this mission arc where you organized an escape along with other important figures from the city. it even related some dungeon crawling (you have to cross inside dwemer ruins plagued with spiders and dwemer robots)
wakfu is the first mmo example i have to prison gameplay, never played apart of the basic parts but looks like you can do something similar. this same mechanics apply in Archeage, players can pay their condemn working in prison or they can make the great scape.
personally i would like content like that added, along with a bounty system, i mean, something like the police system used in GTA, every infraction you do, you get a criminal tag, each increase in criminal level spawns harder police, up to the point you get arrested. or if you manage to get the "wanted" lvl players would be able to kill you and get a reward.
EVE has an example of how can be done correctly, but i think it needs more polishing.
Feel free to take your leave if you must...but..
I think finally it is actually going somewhere. I have to agree with many here that non Balanced FFA is not a way to go anymore. The landscape has changed and the people too.
Someone said earlier that people came to WOW because of the way it was. Actually I do not intirely agree. WoW had a following of Teenagers who were playing WC series, and shortly before WoW were playng WC3, at the same time the Internet was very accessible to them, and these were really the first batch of players of WoW...WoW thus intriduced many Gamers to MMO's...I think there are more people today who started MMO's with WoW than there were MMO players.
I gave WoW a its first Try a year after it released almost, I was in SWG, and swtched to WoW because of the NGE. If NGE did not exist I would have never played WoW.
But it also goes to show why, non balanced OW FFA PvP cannot work, in WoW people PvP for fun, there is no concept or Notion of Good vs Evil... players have been accustomed to the idea that both Horde and Alliance are Good guys, and they are....the real Evil is represented by NPC's...and any PvP between Horde and Alliance, is skirmishes, brawling etc...
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
Exactly why i don't play that game.
So you are punishing the players, not the toon.
Now the question is .. is imprisoning a toon best way to punish a player. Is there some other way? Like locked his account instead of just one toon.
It does not have to be punishment. or like Wushu (from what I understand it is just imprisoned), it can be integrated to Gameplay. Have the PK have fun with something else for a while to answer for their crime...
Arguments against such an integrated mechanic, based on "it is not fun" are Moot....
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
If it is not a punishment, and people actively seek out for it, then you have more griefing, not less.
And since the existence of games is about fun, it is not moot. If it indeed is not fun (for most of the market), it would get weeded out.
Games are supposed to be fun for all. A game designed for OW FFA PvP does not need to Punish the Act of PvPing, that would be Ludicrous.
In practical terms, it does not need to punish the guy who attacks you and kills you once in the wilderness...it just needs to make sure that this guy will not kill you randomly 10 times in a row and prevent you from having fun or playing the game.
But at the same time, it cannot punish them directly, they are a player too here to have fun. But can redirect their behavior towards a Game mechanic part of gameplay so that they are removed from the spot where they were killing you. Thus you can continue playing and have fun, and in the mean time they are having fun ploting their escape in an adventure of their own.
Forget the notion of "punishment"...
in an OW FFA PvP game, properly made and balanced, it should be fine to choose to be evil and be agressive towards other players as part of your role in the world.... but it should not be fine abusing the realities of the game under that premise as justification.
So the mechanism aims to eliminate abuse of the reality that goes beyond the scope of the game itself.
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
An example of how it worked in UO to accomplish the same goal.
First, players knew in advance that Towns were safe and protected against criminals or life threatening attacks. Players knew that outside of the town it was an OW FFA PvP world, you went out of the town at your own risk.
Second, we all learned by trial and error through our adventures. The first time I adventured out of town I got attacked and killed, and looted. I knew there was a possibility of this happening. Having learned from the experience, I went back to town re-equiped just enough with something I was willing to lose should this happen again and went out on a journey of adventure again.
Guess what, I was not killed the second time, because my killer was nowhere to be found, he was not camping the same spot. Why?
Because there was a Criminal system in place. And there was other players who enforced it. When you attack someone you became attackable by anyone for a brief period of time, and if you were killed while being flagged Criminal, your killer was considered as having rendered Justice not a crime. So if you initiate aggression (outside of a GvG declared War that is), it was considered a crime against an innocent.
If you did kill a certain number of "innocents", then you were permanently declared Murderer, the name of your character became "Red", you were now an outcast of the society. Hunted by other players but also feared by other players. And you lost access to Towns of Lawfull players, and only had a couple of towns where you could go as a murderer, and hang out with other murderers.
So the game was balanced in that sense, because it had tools in place that players can use to self police themselves. And being "Evil" while a choice, had consequences, which the player knew about before choosing to go down that path.
And in the process, no one got slapped in the hand, no one got "punished" everyone both Good and Evil, had fun in different ways. It was trully a different experience playing a Lawful role or an Unlawful role. And it worked, and was balanced.
Eventually as my character grew, I also became an enforcer of Justice, I was an Anti-PK, I helped other players by hunting Murderers in the world. I had chosen to follow the Virtuous path. But i could have gone the other way too.
the beauty of it all is hat as a player I had that choice, I could really choose the Light side or the Dark side..not just for laughs and giggles...in an artificially constructed simulated kind of Darkness *coughs SWTOR, coughs...*
It was versus real players, not programmed NPC's...and even amongst sworn enemies there was at one point a certain Code of Honor too, based on pvP skill not Ethics really still was wonderful feeling...the world was truly ALIVE..
You simply cannot recreate that in a "make belief" NPC world, not matter how Good and emergent your AI is...
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
So you've interviewed a representative sample of all the people who aren't into OW PvP and have determined this? Or did you just make an assumption?
The vast majority of MMO's are non-ow pvp games. Not to mention the huge influx of players came about specifically because of games like WoW which are essentially non-ow pvp. The huge emphasis on instancing and the fact that dying has little or no consequences means the ow pvp in WoW is completely insignificant. So it's hardly an assumption, even if I didn't interview a large sample of the population. Implying that it's either one or the other is just a shitty way of arguing. It's called deductive reasoning.
Most gamers have tried many types of games, usually starting with single player games. Even my wife, who isn't a gamer has played several different types of games, including games with PvP. She doesn't like PvP in general, and she knows this because she tried it. My wife's friend has tried games with and without PvP and she likes PvP. She's horrible at it, but she likes it. She's not a gamer either.
I'm not talking about games with "pvp." I'm talking about games with meaningful, ow-pvp with consequences for death, etc. The type of game that has more barriers to entry than a typical carebear themepark, but is ultimately more rewarding. Like I've pointed out, this is true for almost everything in life. The more barriers to entry to a given area of interest, the more rewarding it is.
My point is that your wrong about the whole "people who don't like OW PvP haven't tried it", implying that they don't know what they are talking about when they say they don't like it.
So how do you know I'm wrong? Did YOU interview a representative sample of the MMO community and determine me to be wrong? I'm using reasoning to come to my conclusion. How are you coming to yours?
Here's a simple question: In the discussions on these forums over this topic in its many forms, do you think the ow pvp crowd has more experience in non-ow pvp games than the non-ow pvp crowd has in ow pvp games?
Your stance seems to be that the people who don't like OW PvP just don't know what they are talking about. If someone doesn't like it, they don't like it. Their opinion can't be wrong, because it's their opinion.
Starting with PvP in general. If a gamer tried games with PvP, and they didn't like PvP, then they are probably going to say they don't like games with OW PvP. It doesn't matter that they haven't tried the specific games you're talking about, because they know they don't like PvP in general, so OW PvP in particular is not going to appeal to them.
That's one aspect of these conversations that do not make sense to me. It doesn't matter how meaningful the world building, it doesn't matter how many restrictions are put on the OW PvP to limit griefing, it doesn't matter how many jail systems, karma systems or "going red" systems are put in place, the people who do not like OW PvP will still not like it after all the rules are in place. OW PvP is not some universally good thing that's just misunderstood. It's understood just fine. There are just a lot of people who do not like it.
Even among the people who like PvP, there are far fewer people who are into OW PvP versus match based PvP. There are more concurrent players in LoL than there are total subscribers in most MMORPGs in the world. OW PvP is the least popular option for gamers in general, as well as people who like PvP. The idea that adding some sort of additional rule set will make it palatable to people who don't like it is folly.
Far better to focus on ideas for the the OW PvP proponents themselves, which I think is what the OP is doing. Especially since a couple people have said they like the imprisonment system, and they are, as far as I can tell, proponents of OW PvP.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You may have the opinion that you do not like Sushi, maybe because of the idea of Raw Fish. But if you never ate Sushi, you do not really know if you like it or not....no matter your opinion about it..it is false.
I think that is from where he is coming from.
i do agree that we should focus on ideas about OW FFA PvP however and not get in to sidetrack discussions.
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
Progression based games are attracting people who use progression as a means of power over others rather than playing the game for what it is. That's why they rush to endgame and use all sorts of generic mmo speak. they're not playing the game because the lore will offer new gameplay experiences. they play role playing games and make fun of role playing.
People aren't stupid anymore. Progression games are made to feed the horde. Pvp or pve, just offer power through progression and its the same ending. You want to cater to these players, then you can play with them. No one else wants to anymore. Let alone pay to be in their company or their content.
Give it up already.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Hey, long time lurker, first post.
I think the imprisonment is a really good idea, and I've wondered why it hasnt been put in games in a long time. It's a hard thing to implement, but when done right, I think it could be a blast.
Most people in this thread see the imprisonment as a punishment, but I think it'd really add to being a bandit. You know, add a little excitement and risk (and fun). Bandits should have it hard, that's what makes it so much more fun. Usually the action of killing someone is almost always in your favour anyway (element of suprise, outnumbering the one being ganked, them already being occupied by mobs or gathering etc).
You could even have a hideout area, in which you could only access the questchain if you are a bandit. It would include quests around PKing and prison.
Good players should be able to not get caught, but it should limit on where they can go. I know you can workaround this with an alt, but it's a game, and you shouldn't limit the player, you should limit the character.
Suggestions for rules:
-When you kill a player, you gain infamy as a bandit/murderer. This should have some kind of scaling, so killing on player once doesnt cut you off totally. If you go on a rampage, you have to live the bandit life, and stay in certain areas.
-Early game areas/towns are protected, 100%. Think of this place as a tutorial level.
-Faction citys have guards. They kill any infamy players/the offender, on sight.
-Neutral citys have guards. They only kill the offender/players with high infamy though.
-Out in the wilderness/open areas it's FFAPVP, 100%.
-Players can place bounties on any player. Bandits might even get automatic bounties to encourage bounty hunters.
-If a guard or a bountyhunter (maybe an additional profession) kills an infamy player, he gets sent to "prison".
-Only the offender/his party can pickup loot from a killed player. This prevents suicide PKing like what we see in EvE.
Prison:
-Don't make prison boring, and dont make people AFK.
-AFKing doesnt tick down your sentence.
-There could be some minigame like tasks (which are always "different", so they cant be macroed). Puzzles, labourwork, you name it.
-You could train your skills here, but it should be less effective then doing it outside.
-You should be able to avoid PVP here, while doing tasks, but certain areas here should be FFA too. If you are dead, your sentence doesnt tick down.
-You are stripped from all your gear, and you only wear somekinda jumpsuit-like clothes.
-You could even get an infamy quest from some bandit npc, in which you'd have to get to prison island and talk to someone/deliver a message or smuggle something.
-You could attempt an prisonbreak with your guildmates. (This should be hard)
-You could ask your guildmates to bribe the guards to let you go. (This should be really expensive)
-When you get out, you could enter neutral citys, but you'd still be out of faction citys. To get rid of your infamy you'd have to kill other bandits/buy letters of pardon or something.
I'd love to see something along these lines in a new MMO.
That reads a lot like the best parts of the Wizardry Online and Dransik prison mechanics mashed together. I like the idea, but that's because it seems like it adds to gameplay. While probably a good system for a game, it is the opposite of the OP's interests, which is something to curb open world PVP.
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
One idea (can't remember if I read it or can up with the idea myself though so I will take credit just in case) that I likes was the idea that getting caught puts you in jail and you cannot reduce your sentence other then killing another prisoner. Basically turn the whole prison into a FFA PvP deathmatch and when you enter you are given the name of another random prisoner who you must kill. Do it and you get released once your basic sentence time is complete. Until you kill them you are locked up or time is served. And of course while in the prison you have no weapons apart from a basic shiv type weapon so everyone is on the same footing as the shiv just gives you a few basic attacks.
That might keep the really crappy opportunistic griefers locked up for a long time and let anyone that is actually good at PvP back into the world. I just love the idea of putting all the apples into the barrel and the rotten ones stay there
It's not about punishing the player it's about adding risk to the action of being a ganker.
The objective is not to 100% deter people from ganking. It's to have the Risk for them to be pulled outta the action from some time. Which will make ganking more fun because of more risk, but can inturn cause ganking to lessen. If the same guy can't be hanging out in the same mine ganking the same people for 6 straight hours. If it is a FFA PVP game your a little fullish to think that PVP needs be punished.
Ea is like a poo fingered midas ~ShakyMo
In that case, you will lose all the anti-ganking players.
Ganking is never fun on the receiving end for not all, but a lot of players. Otherwise, why do you think ffa pvp game is so unpopular?
I think prisoning would work if it was implemented correctly. In starter cities, NPCs are police. Outside that, it should be policed by players. No penalties for PKing in OPEN WORLD AREAs. Infamy system is good. Someone said that they don't like imprisonment because they "want to play the game". So do the people you grief in FFA PVP.
I am trying out Wushu, it is a bit confusing at the begining, might be the translation.
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
1. The OP is not about my idea but about the idea of prisons in FFA PvP MMORPG.
2. Don't speak for me. What I'm saying is not what your explaining. I've stated otherwise multiple times already.
I'd be open to the idea depending on how it is translated in game.
I think it be neat to see a Gladiator like prison, where you have to fight your way out and rewards you for the time in there to make it fun for those PVPers...like depending on your crime you must do PVP or even PVE challenges to win your freedom. It would also be fitting to the crime, so those ganking PVPers would get to do some Arena style PVP against other actual PVPers as punishment or they will enjoy it just because PVP..
Oh this gladiator prison arena should also have a voluntary option to jump in aside from being forced via punishment because the system should be built as something PVPers would actually want to do and not see it as true punishment, but rather a time based penalty box to give the ganked area some respite from a rampant ganker while he is in the "Pit".
It would be even more interesting that the victim can go into the Gladiator Instance or a Champion on behalf of the victim to fight the criminal and increase their sentence or give them instant freedom depending on the result.
That ^ would have to fit into the lore and feel of the world of course.