The funny thing is that griefing is probably more of a problem in ow pvp games with no consequences (like wow or tera) BECAUSE there are no consequences to dying. If the game is full loot, that griefer is risking his own equipment just to piss you off.
I agree with you, however the open loot drop is something dangerous for MMO since it scares away many, many players... Which is why I like the criminal loot much more. The player have the choice to be a criminal, however by doing so he's taking increasing risks (weakened, prison, loot drop...) while if he choose to not be a criminal, he can enjoy his game without these kind of risks
The funny thing is that griefing is probably more of a problem in ow pvp games with no consequences (like wow or tera) BECAUSE there are no consequences to dying. If the game is full loot, that griefer is risking his own equipment just to piss you off.
I agree with you, however the open loot drop is something dangerous for MMO since it scares away many, many players... Which is why I like the criminal loot much more. The player have the choice to be a criminal, however by doing so he's taking increasing risks (weakened, prison, loot drop...) while if he choose to not be a criminal, he can enjoy his game without these kind of risks
Except many people (myself included) want ow pvp with full loot precisely because we like the thrill/risk. There will never be a compromise that pleases everybody, unfortunately.
The funny thing is that griefing is probably more of a problem in ow pvp games with no consequences (like wow or tera) BECAUSE there are no consequences to dying. If the game is full loot, that griefer is risking his own equipment just to piss you off.
I agree with you, however the open loot drop is something dangerous for MMO since it scares away many, many players... Which is why I like the criminal loot much more. The player have the choice to be a criminal, however by doing so he's taking increasing risks (weakened, prison, loot drop...) while if he choose to not be a criminal, he can enjoy his game without these kind of risks
Except many people (myself included) want ow pvp with full loot precisely because we like the thrill/risk. There will never be a compromise that pleases everybody, unfortunately.
Doesn't Darkfall, Mortal Online and Runes of Magic already offer open world pvp with full loot ?
Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by Calden Originally posted by Holophonist
The funny thing is that griefing is probably more of a problem in ow pvp games with no consequences (like wow or tera) BECAUSE there are no consequences to dying. If the game is full loot, that griefer is risking his own equipment just to piss you off.
I agree with you, however the open loot drop is something dangerous for MMO since it scares away many, many players... Which is why I like the criminal loot much more. The player have the choice to be a criminal, however by doing so he's taking increasing risks (weakened, prison, loot drop...) while if he choose to not be a criminal, he can enjoy his game without these kind of risks
Except many people (myself included) want ow pvp with full loot precisely because we like the thrill/risk. There will never be a compromise that pleases everybody, unfortunately.
Doesn't Darkfall, Mortal Online and Runes of Magic already offer open world pvp with full loot ?
Yeah and I love dfuw. I don't know if RoM is full loot. I didn't think it was.
So what happens here? PKer knocks you out, you put a bounty on them with your own funds? UO tried that and PKers got a friend to kill them and collect the bounty (supplied by the original victim), the PKer and friend split the bounty. PKer doesn't really suffer any loss for being killed, and gets part of the bounty. Is there any difference in this system? If there's "down time" for the PKer character, can he simply play another character, or macro while sleeping to work off the time?
A would be bounty killer is not informed of the identity of the targeted person until he is successful tracked and found. The mission system also provide better chance for a lower level bounty killer to take down a higher level griefer than normal PvP.
In addition, a bounty killer need pay up a substantial deposit to take a bounty, which is forfeited if he failed to make the killing in time. The mission time is frozen whenever the target when offline.
The PKer killed by a bounty killer is given a significant debuff making him more susceptible to other punishment system if his infamy is high eg caught by other players playing roles of city guards.
"A game is fun if it is learnable but not trivial" -- Togelius & Schmidhuber
So what happens here? PKer knocks you out, you put a bounty on them with your own funds? UO tried that and PKers got a friend to kill them and collect the bounty (supplied by the original victim), the PKer and friend split the bounty. PKer doesn't really suffer any loss for being killed, and gets part of the bounty. Is there any difference in this system? If there's "down time" for the PKer character, can he simply play another character, or macro while sleeping to work off the time?
A would be bounty killer is not informed of the identity of the targeted person until he is successful tracked and found. The mission system also provide better chance for a lower level bounty killer to take down a higher level griefer than normal PvP.
In addition, a bounty killer need pay up a substantial deposit to take a bounty, which is forfeited if he failed to make the killing in time. The mission time is frozen whenever the target when offline.
The PKer killed by a bounty killer is given a significant debuff making him more susceptible to other punishment system if his infamy is high eg caught by other players playing roles of city guards.
That's interesting, but I don't see why the extended system. I mean, it's the same thing as having stat loss for PKers when they are tracked down and punished. Why do you even need to hide their identity if the punishment actually works to detour such PK actions on a wide scale?
And that is what a good game design should be after. A punishment for PKing that causes players to weigh the balances of whether it's worth it or not. And by "worth it" to PK, I'm thinking of a game where there are freeform things going on in the world all the time, and conflicting goals that may require a little muscle from time to time. For example, two different clerics of different deities both after the same artifact for their respective temples, giving them reason to risk some stat loss or making enemies.
I think in such cases, any stat loss should be minor, and let larger stat losses build up for more quantities of PKing. Let players have this option of natural and fluid conflict, let them go to war if it gets into more conflict, but let those who just kill repeatedly for no other reason face the growing "debt to society" of larger and hurtful stat losses.
A would be bounty killer is not informed of the identity of the targeted person until he is successful tracked and found. The mission system also provide better chance for a lower level bounty killer to take down a higher level griefer than normal PvP.
In addition, a bounty killer need pay up a substantial deposit to take a bounty, which is forfeited if he failed to make the killing in time. The mission time is frozen whenever the target when offline.
The PKer killed by a bounty killer is given a significant debuff making him more susceptible to other punishment system if his infamy is high eg caught by other players playing roles of city guards.
That's interesting, but I don't see why the extended system. I mean, it's the same thing as having stat loss for PKers when they are tracked down and punished. Why do you even need to hide their identity if the punishment actually works to detour such PK actions on a wide scale?
And that is what a good game design should be after. A punishment for PKing that causes players to weigh the balances of whether it's worth it or not. And by "worth it" to PK, I'm thinking of a game where there are freeform things going on in the world all the time, and conflicting goals that may require a little muscle from time to time. For example, two different clerics of different deities both after the same artifact for their respective temples, giving them reason to risk some stat loss or making enemies.
I think in such cases, any stat loss should be minor, and let larger stat losses build up for more quantities of PKing. Let players have this option of natural and fluid conflict, let them go to war if it gets into more conflict, but let those who just kill repeatedly for no other reason face the growing "debt to society" of larger and hurtful stat losses.
The triple-blind protocol prevents two parties from working together in collusion to exploit the system.
In most forced PvP game, malicous PKers could run away and avoid battle if they see the odds or location are against them - and then returning to strike hapless victim later after the law enforcers have left.
A contracted bounty killer can choose to cloak and approached the mission target in stealth mode or covertly in the open (e.g. the bounty killer can form a party with the unsuspecting target and choose to attack the target when his HP is low).
In MB, part of the gameplay does involve certain type of players stalking and preying on treasure diggers, robbing their of their artifacts. Such robbers would gain infamy for PKing and can be targeted by bounty killers.
"A game is fun if it is learnable but not trivial" -- Togelius & Schmidhuber
It's not that PvP itself is unpopular. You can see that in how popular FPS style games like the Battlefield series are ( and FPS games tend to do PvP much better in general then MMO's). It's the FFA part. It's the sense of anarchy and distrust and randomness to the violence that is unpopular. The author of the article is exactly right in that the inability to impose some of the societal consequences and constraints for anti-social behavior is where FFA games tend to fall down.
I'm not sure it's really that solvable an issue without some sort of hard-coded (or effectively so) barrier against PvP in certain areas of the game or under certain conditions. For many of the gankers, thier characters are just tools to harm other players (not characters, players) so even very harsh penalties against those PK characters can prove ineffective if the player can simply open another account and create another character at little cost to themselves..... and many Developers are afraid to impose harsh enough penalties in the first place because of the fear that will cost them too much of thier initial player base.... as most of us don't even bother to look at a title that has FFA PvP as a feature anymore after so many failed attempts.
Personaly, I like PvP alot...but not generaly in MMO's. MMO's don't tend to do a very good job of PvP. I play FPS games or turn based strategy games or something like World of Tanks for PvP. In MMO's, I'll consider ones that have faction based PvP.....even open world faction based PvP works ok.....as even though you can get "ganked" in what you otherwise might consider to be a safe area....your pretty sure to see a freindly response to such incidents.
FFA PvP just tends not to work well for me....as it too often just becomes a psychopath/sociopath simulater. Although I do intend to give Pathfinder Online a try when it comes out. It's a very difficult thing for Dev's to put in effective controls to deter too much anti-social behavior in FFA PvP.....far more then what little is gained from having FFA as opposed to faction based in my opinion.
A would be bounty killer is not informed of the identity of the targeted person until he is successful tracked and found. The mission system also provide better chance for a lower level bounty killer to take down a higher level griefer than normal PvP.
In addition, a bounty killer need pay up a substantial deposit to take a bounty, which is forfeited if he failed to make the killing in time. The mission time is frozen whenever the target when offline.
The PKer killed by a bounty killer is given a significant debuff making him more susceptible to other punishment system if his infamy is high eg caught by other players playing roles of city guards.
That's interesting, but I don't see why the extended system. I mean, it's the same thing as having stat loss for PKers when they are tracked down and punished. Why do you even need to hide their identity if the punishment actually works to detour such PK actions on a wide scale?
And that is what a good game design should be after. A punishment for PKing that causes players to weigh the balances of whether it's worth it or not. And by "worth it" to PK, I'm thinking of a game where there are freeform things going on in the world all the time, and conflicting goals that may require a little muscle from time to time. For example, two different clerics of different deities both after the same artifact for their respective temples, giving them reason to risk some stat loss or making enemies.
I think in such cases, any stat loss should be minor, and let larger stat losses build up for more quantities of PKing. Let players have this option of natural and fluid conflict, let them go to war if it gets into more conflict, but let those who just kill repeatedly for no other reason face the growing "debt to society" of larger and hurtful stat losses.
The triple-blind protocol prevents two parties from working together in collusion to exploit the system.
In most forced PvP game, malicous PKers could run away and avoid battle if they see the odds or location are against them - and then returning to strike hapless victim later after the law enforcers have left.
A contracted bounty killer can choose to cloak and approached the mission target in stealth mode or covertly in the open (e.g. the bounty killer can form a party with the unsuspecting target and choose to attack the target when his HP is low).
In MB, part of the gameplay does involve certain type of players stalking and preying on treasure diggers, robbing their of their artifacts. Such robbers would gain infamy for PKing and can be targeted by bounty killers.
So it's a game play system on top of the PvP controls? (That actually sounds like a fun aspect, something I'd like to see MMOs shoot for much more. "Treasure" has been watered down to something more akin to "daily wages" in MMOs these days.)
My point, if you think about it, is aside from your input here. It's that you don't really need that system as it does the same thing as long term "murderer" flags plus stat loss. I'd like to see more to it than just that to give it more depth, and your game information is one way to do that.
At least that's how I see it from the info provided.
So what happens here? PKer knocks you out, you put a bounty on them with your own funds? UO tried that and PKers got a friend to kill them and collect the bounty (supplied by the original victim), the PKer and friend split the bounty. PKer doesn't really suffer any loss for being killed, and gets part of the bounty. Is there any difference in this system? If there's "down time" for the PKer character, can he simply play another character, or macro while sleeping to work off the time?
So make it so the pk'er, if taken out by a person who has accepted the bounty, suffers a large xp/skill penalty.
Essentialy make it so that the more bounties exacted against the pk'er the more the pk'er destroys his character.
Conversely, there could also be a time limit so that after a a certain time this gets reset to some sort of "level 1 bounty" so that it doesn't completely dissuade someone from pk'ing another player.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
It's not that PvP itself is unpopular. You can see that in how popular FPS style games like the Battlefield series are ( and FPS games tend to do PvP much better in general then MMO's). It's the FFA part. It's the sense of anarchy and distrust and randomness to the violence that is unpopular. The author of the article is exactly right in that the inability to impose some of the societal consequences and constraints for anti-social behavior is where FFA games tend to fall down.
I'm not sure it's really that solvable an issue without some sort of hard-coded (or effectively so) barrier against PvP in certain areas of the game or under certain conditions. For many of the gankers, thier characters are just tools to harm other players (not characters, players) so even very harsh penalties against those PK characters can prove ineffective if the player can simply open another account and create another character at little cost to themselves..... and many Developers are afraid to impose harsh enough penalties in the first place because of the fear that will cost them too much of thier initial player base.... as most of us don't even bother to look at a title that has FFA PvP as a feature anymore after so many failed attempts.
Personaly, I like PvP alot...but not generaly in MMO's. MMO's don't tend to do a very good job of PvP. I play FPS games or turn based strategy games or something like World of Tanks for PvP. In MMO's, I'll consider ones that have faction based PvP.....even open world faction based PvP works ok.....as even though you can get "ganked" in what you otherwise might consider to be a safe area....your pretty sure to see a freindly response to such incidents.
FFA PvP just tends not to work well for me....as it too often just becomes a psychopath/sociopath simulater. Although I do intend to give Pathfinder Online a try when it comes out. It's a very difficult thing for Dev's to put in effective controls to deter too much anti-social behavior in FFA PvP.....far more then what little is gained from having FFA as opposed to faction based in my opinion.
If a PK character gets knocked back in development a little each time they have "justice served", and if that PKer has been "rampant", that's not only a deterrent but makes it impossible for that character to continue PKing due to weakness. And PKers can do that with all their characters on an account, and on any number of accounts, they still end up crippled for their efforts.
That's a fact. But for some reason no one wants to accept that. And for the life of me, I can't understand why not.
Personally I love PVP always have and always will. however I stand quite against FFAPVP Full loot without restriction. for worlds to function they need rules and they need consequence. The PP system that FoM had was very good in that matter, Basically if someone killed you and you reported it that person would gain PP points. PP points means that you can be arrested by the player Police force and sent to prison to work off said PP. this worked extremely well until the game descended into a FFA FPS.
If I were to design a system I would add NPC controlled cities that if a person with a bounty on their head entered the NPC guards would aggro them and attack. Cities like these would be designed for the guildless who cant be protected by guild alliances and allies.
That being said I would also allow players to create their own guild cities so those who want to be ganking guilds can have their own city and not be completely SOL because of their play style.
To finish that off I would put in place a bounty system that allows players to collect money from killing gankers so that they don't get off scott free.
Because i can. I'm Hopeful For Every Game, Until the Fan Boys Attack My Games. Then the Knives Come Out. Logic every gamers worst enemy.
Originally posted by obsolete5 l2 pvp was not good. shadowbane was a good pvp game. also the system of forcing Pkers to drop their equipped gear without any other, smarter drop system (like in AC with item value) is not fair and rewards cowardly play. oh, a stronger player is attacking me in the world. better just die , so they will go red, and maybe get ganked by 5 people eventually and they will drop their gear without any way to prevent it. thats lame.
Lol, sorry, but what is lame is killing players with no chance to defend themselves over and over. The cowardly play lies there. Griefers have it way too easy nowadays, killing other players over and over and over with no punishment of any kind.
I never really bothered with being killed by another player... I'd die, then run back. However I do remember these few times where it would simply last for way too long. I remember being ganked by some chinese guild when I was playing WoW, ran to my corpse 1-2 times but they kept killing me... So I logged off and went out with some friends. The next morning, I logged back and they were still there, camping the mountains where I was killed. Different name, same guild.
You want to make a game not fun for other players, fine, but deal with the consequences. That's how it should be addressed.
Also, these kind of games had a criminal system. A player wouldn't turn "red" after killing one player.
The funny thing is that griefing is probably more of a problem in ow pvp games with no consequences (like wow or tera) BECAUSE there are no consequences to dying. If the game is full loot, that griefer is risking his own equipment just to piss you off.
Except that "griefers"....at least the variety I've usualy encountered don't actualy care about thier gear or characters at all....they just care about ruining other players day. They tend to be playing a different sort of game then other players....that game is called "Make the other guy miserable". Gear is not important to them as long as they have capability to kill a newbie/lowbie.....and they can either do that naked or simply have an alt spend a few minutes grinding sufficient cash to get a set of basic gear to do that with.
That's part of the difficulty with FFA PvP.....finding a consequence that the worst element actualy CARES about and can effectively be subjected to without circumventing. If the "greifer" doesn't care about the things a typical player would... thier character, gear, advancement, reputation, etc.... then it becomes very, very difficult to find something that is a meaningfull control for behavior.
So what happens here? PKer knocks you out, you put a bounty on them with your own funds? UO tried that and PKers got a friend to kill them and collect the bounty (supplied by the original victim), the PKer and friend split the bounty. PKer doesn't really suffer any loss for being killed, and gets part of the bounty. Is there any difference in this system? If there's "down time" for the PKer character, can he simply play another character, or macro while sleeping to work off the time?
So make it so the pk'er, if taken out by a person who has accepted the bounty, suffers a large xp/skill penalty.
Essentialy make it so that the more bounties exacted against the pk'er the more the pk'er destroys his character.
Conversely, there could also be a time limit so that after a a certain time this gets reset to some sort of "level 1 bounty" so that it doesn't completely dissuade someone from pk'ing another player.
Exactly! (edit to add: small penalties that can rapidly add up)
This allows for some open world PvP, but most players will consider the effects of their actions even with this. And if the game has things in it that might cause open world conflicts to arise naturally, in a Role Play sense or for important issues, they can do so without some form of artificial restriction.
And yet, rampant PKers become limp and can destroy their own characters for being jerks in the game.
And once gamers and developers accept that this is really the only way to control "crime" in these massively social games, then similar systems can be developed for theft. And "ownership rules" can be established more extensively for both players and guilds/cities/kingdoms.
It's not that PvP itself is unpopular. You can see that in how popular FPS style games like the Battlefield series are ( and FPS games tend to do PvP much better in general then MMO's). It's the FFA part. It's the sense of anarchy and distrust and randomness to the violence that is unpopular. The author of the article is exactly right in that the inability to impose some of the societal consequences and constraints for anti-social behavior is where FFA games tend to fall down.
I'm not sure it's really that solvable an issue without some sort of hard-coded (or effectively so) barrier against PvP in certain areas of the game or under certain conditions. For many of the gankers, thier characters are just tools to harm other players (not characters, players) so even very harsh penalties against those PK characters can prove ineffective if the player can simply open another account and create another character at little cost to themselves..... and many Developers are afraid to impose harsh enough penalties in the first place because of the fear that will cost them too much of thier initial player base.... as most of us don't even bother to look at a title that has FFA PvP as a feature anymore after so many failed attempts.
Personaly, I like PvP alot...but not generaly in MMO's. MMO's don't tend to do a very good job of PvP. I play FPS games or turn based strategy games or something like World of Tanks for PvP. In MMO's, I'll consider ones that have faction based PvP.....even open world faction based PvP works ok.....as even though you can get "ganked" in what you otherwise might consider to be a safe area....your pretty sure to see a freindly response to such incidents.
FFA PvP just tends not to work well for me....as it too often just becomes a psychopath/sociopath simulater. Although I do intend to give Pathfinder Online a try when it comes out. It's a very difficult thing for Dev's to put in effective controls to deter too much anti-social behavior in FFA PvP.....far more then what little is gained from having FFA as opposed to faction based in my opinion.
If a PK character gets knocked back in development a little each time they have "justice served", and if that PKer has been "rampant", that's not only a deterrent but makes it impossible for that character to continue PKing due to weakness. And PKers can do that with all their characters on an account, and on any number of accounts, they still end up crippled for their efforts.
That's a fact. But for some reason no one wants to accept that. And for the life of me, I can't understand why not.
The effectiveness on that depends upon how much investment (cash or time) it takes to get a new character on a new account to the point where he can PvP and has some potential to kill another newbie/lowbie.
If the game is F2P there really is no effective control in keeping a player from making as many new accounts as they want....certainly not any sort of automated control. So the question then becomes, can you impose enough of a time penalty that it's actualy painfull for a player to trash an existing account/character and start over with a new one? That might be possible but it also implies an effect on the new player experience of ALL new players....not just those who are griefers starting new accounts.
I don't blanketly rule out the possability of having a FFA PvP game with effective enough controls that it doesn't become off-puting to others....but it's not something most Developers have been able to pull off so far.
I have, in fact, played a commercial online game that was technicaly FFA PvP and even full loot that was an extremely freindly environment. That was a MUD called Gemstone. However, even though the ruleset technicaly allowed for PvP....it was NOT a PvP game and the game was so heavly policed by GM's that ANY kill by anyone was likely to get the player pulled up directly by the GM's to explain thier action. PvP simply wasn't part of the culture of the game and that was repeatedly enforced by the player community and the GM's. It was possible...and you did have very rare player killings, but almost all of them were with very sound reasoning (and often consentual). However, I don't think that would scale very well to commercial MMO's where the player to GM ratio's were much different.....and especialy ones which expected to have regular PvP just not the "griefing" type.
I'm just not sure what is so importantly gained by the FFA PvP mechanic that really makes it worth doing? Is it the sense of danger and thrill that you could be attacked and killed by anyone, anywhere at any time? Others would consider that having to play with a sense of "paranoia"......and I think you are seeing the limitations of the appeal of that style of gaming....it certainly has some market, but clearly that market is limited.....alot of people simply don't want to play that game as an MMO for any extended time period.
It's not that PvP itself is unpopular. You can see that in how popular FPS style games like the Battlefield series are ( and FPS games tend to do PvP much better in general then MMO's). It's the FFA part. It's the sense of anarchy and distrust and randomness to the violence that is unpopular. The author of the article is exactly right in that the inability to impose some of the societal consequences and constraints for anti-social behavior is where FFA games tend to fall down.
I'm not sure it's really that solvable an issue without some sort of hard-coded (or effectively so) barrier against PvP in certain areas of the game or under certain conditions. For many of the gankers, thier characters are just tools to harm other players (not characters, players) so even very harsh penalties against those PK characters can prove ineffective if the player can simply open another account and create another character at little cost to themselves..... and many Developers are afraid to impose harsh enough penalties in the first place because of the fear that will cost them too much of thier initial player base.... as most of us don't even bother to look at a title that has FFA PvP as a feature anymore after so many failed attempts.
Personaly, I like PvP alot...but not generaly in MMO's. MMO's don't tend to do a very good job of PvP. I play FPS games or turn based strategy games or something like World of Tanks for PvP. In MMO's, I'll consider ones that have faction based PvP.....even open world faction based PvP works ok.....as even though you can get "ganked" in what you otherwise might consider to be a safe area....your pretty sure to see a freindly response to such incidents.
FFA PvP just tends not to work well for me....as it too often just becomes a psychopath/sociopath simulater. Although I do intend to give Pathfinder Online a try when it comes out. It's a very difficult thing for Dev's to put in effective controls to deter too much anti-social behavior in FFA PvP.....far more then what little is gained from having FFA as opposed to faction based in my opinion.
If a PK character gets knocked back in development a little each time they have "justice served", and if that PKer has been "rampant", that's not only a deterrent but makes it impossible for that character to continue PKing due to weakness. And PKers can do that with all their characters on an account, and on any number of accounts, they still end up crippled for their efforts.
That's a fact. But for some reason no one wants to accept that. And for the life of me, I can't understand why not.
The effectiveness on that depends upon how much investment (cash or time) it takes to get a new character on a new account to the point where he can PvP and has some potential to kill another newbie/lowbie.
If the game is F2P there really is no effective control in keeping a player from making as many new accounts as they want....certainly not any sort of automated control. So the question then becomes, can you impose enough of a time penalty that it's actualy painfull for a player to trash an existing account/character and start over with a new one? That might be possible but it also implies an effect on the new player experience of ALL new players....not just those who are griefers starting new accounts.
I don't blanketly rule out the possability of having a FFA PvP game with effective enough controls that it doesn't become off-puting to others....but it's not something most Developers have been able to pull off so far.
I have, in fact, played a commercial online game that was technicaly FFA PvP and even full loot that was an extremely freindly environment. That was a MUD called Gemstone. However, even though the ruleset technicaly allowed for PvP....it was NOT a PvP game and the game was so heavly policed by GM's that ANY kill by anyone was likely to get the player pulled up directly by the GM's to explain thier action. PvP simply wasn't part of the culture of the game and that was repeatedly enforced by the player community and the GM's. It was possible...and you did have very rare player killings, but almost all of them were with very sound reasoning (and often consentual). However, I don't think that would scale very well to commercial MMO's where the player to GM ratio's were much different.....and especialy ones which expected to have regular PvP just not the "griefing" type.
I'm just not sure what is so importantly gained by the FFA PvP mechanic that really makes it worth doing? Is it the sense of danger and thrill that you could be attacked and killed by anyone, anywhere at any time? Others would consider that having to play with a sense of "paranoia"......and I think you are seeing the limitations of the appeal of that style of gaming....it certainly has some market, but clearly that market is limited.....alot of people simply don't want to play that game as an MMO for any extended time period.
I don't see why it would matter as far as the pay type of the game. Because a gimped PK character is incapable of continuing those actions. The key here is that the game doesn't make it easy to recover that extent of loss, as you pointed out.
Your point about the MUD and the easier task of GMs to personally enforce these issues is exactly why it needs to be put to the player base through enabled "justice" systems. The game defines what players can do so as to control what's done, and players can police it themselves under those rules.
The importance of what's gained can be defined in the game description: "Worldly". You gain a world that's open to possibilities and more "realistic" socially. You add massive social aspects, which is something almost entirely missing from MMOs, yet you don't force it on the average player. They don't have to play "social", but they can make use of it in need (and I'd propose that the system in place makes it very easy and non-social in it's practice. Something like going to an AH-Auction House). So the victim goes to the BH-"Bounty House" (just a placer for the name here), places an order based on a flag on the perp, and later gets "mail" when some other player carries out justice. Or, the player wants a more personal investment in the justice system, goes the the "BH", talks to various Bounty Hunters and checks out their history, and makes a contract after talking money. Or the victim's guild might have a special deal with a Bounty Hunter guild known for success. The game's system could be as simple as the Bounty House and an option for choice of an individual or guild that's registered there, and leave all the rest up to the players to choose how they use it.
Players would not have to play with paranoia under this sort of system. Most PKers are not going to go "rampant", and those who do will pay for it and the victims know this. Instead of saying "I quit" they'll be saying "you'll pay for that".
Edit to add: This does leave open the rare situation where a player might just PK another for the hell of it, but isn't a rampant PKer so has little to lose. This offers two things to the plus...
If a player is being a jerk in a social atmosphere (like a player run party) then another player can PK them at little loss to themselves.
Instant "roleplay". Example: You're after an artifact that your city can use to control weather for crops in the area, etc. But some player from another city just got it ahead of you. You can attack him and try to take it. This might start a war. The possibilities are endless if the game is built for all of this. No more designed "win". Heavier personal story that's free flowing.
i decided to look up the article referenced from Massively. A bit too whiny but the author makes some good points but ultimately misses out on one of the major reasons FFA PvP games fail.
As the years go by I have far less time to play video games. I have played most of the FFA PvP MMO's over the years and have enjoyed some of them, particularly EvE. With that said I am always at a loss why people have never expressed the perceived "cost" or "loss" in being ganked in FFA PvP games as a function of time. Time is ultimately our most valuable resource and one that the west possibly over emphasizes since everything in modern society is tied to time. When a player is ganked in a game, their efforts prior to that moment can be seen in terms of wasted or lost time. I realize we are playing games which are popularly viewed as "time wasters" but with that said, most people like to think that the time they spend doing something has meaning. Even if its only tied to the accomplishments and achievements in a pixelated world. But what happens when that meaning is taken away? All that "hard work" and the time it took to accomplish it now gone. You couple that with less time to play and this is a major reason why FFA PvP games without rules don't work over the long term for the majority of the populace. Less time to play with the possibility of it accomplishing nothing isn't an idea that has wide spread appeal. On a side note, look at all the themepark games that award players with tokens that can be used to purchase dungeon, raid or pvp gear. It wasn't always this way. Even themeparks have incorporated the concept of time spent=something useful
Another major problem I have with advocates of FFA PvP that arrogantly proclaim "deal with it or leave" is that too many people take option 2. You would think after all these years I wouldn't still be dumbfounded over the lack foresight of my fellow man but every once in a while I am. Games cost a ton of money to make and quite a bit of money to add content and maintain. With that in mind, why on earth would you openly encourage people to leave? The less people that play, the less content gets produced, the less bugs get fixed, the more likely the game closes. Not rocket science. Like politicians, game developers need to make compromises. You can't please everyone but taking a hard line and sticking with it past the point of reason does not make either a good politician or developer.
Last but not least I need to mention the curious case of EvE. Touted as the most successful western sandbox title to date with subs that increase every year, EvE is the paragon of FFA PvP...or is it? First of all, EvE isn't completely FFA PvP and is definitely not full loot. High security space makes EvE not completely FFA. At the end of the day, high sec is one of the bigger reasons, if not the biggest reason, EvE is commercially successful. It is also commonly lampooned by a very vocal minority of the EvE playerbase and said playerbase wants to either see high sec nerfed into the ground or removed completely. Thankfully CCP isn't suicidal and followed through with their wishes but it is worth noting in this discussion the facet most people (rightfully) consider the primary reason for EvE's working PvP model is one that many players of said game want to see removed. Also, the whole "their subs increase every year" thing is somewhat misleading. EvE is very unique in that at least half the playerbase has at least 2 accounts if not more. I personally had 3 going at one time. Most of the people in my pirate corp had at least that many. EvE's reality is that their population may not necessarily be growing, they are just acquiring more accounts via existing accounts. How long this can last is anyone's guess though some of the new space MMO's coming out could ultimately determine that sooner rather than later. It should come as no surprise that EvE has tried to change their new player experience several times over the years in the hopes of retaining more new players with dubious results. EvE is not for everyone and the PvE in particular is atrocious. Please don't bring up incursions, anoms in null sec, or WH sleeper. They are all still boring. Not as soul crushingly boring as missions but still pretty bad. Mining...well that is something you don't actually do per se. It's an activity done while your alt tabbed out watching movies, reading a book, doing homework, staring at the paint to dry, organizing your sock drawer...well you get the picture
The problem here is that you assume the "Griefer" is playing the same game as you are and cares about the same thing....advancing thier character, keeping thier character, playing the game in a "normal" way....they aren't. The true "Griefer" only cares about one thing.....ruining some other players day. Their character, thier gear are entirely disposable to them...just tools to be used to achieve thier goal. Now "gimping" thier characters ability to PvP can be a decent solution....but ONLY if it isn't easy to replace that character on another with another account. That means costing them enough INVESTMENT to replace that character with a new one that is capable of harming thier newbie/lowbie prey (thier typical prey of choice). Now with F2P that pretty much leaves out FINANCIAL (in real world $$) investment to burn that account and create a new one. So we are left with TIME investment..... meaning how much time would the individual have to invest into building a new character on a new account that was capable of effectively PvPing newbies/lowbies? You CAN cost the player enough of a time investment that it's an effective deterrent for most "Griefers" but that also means that any NON-GRIEFER genuine new player has to invest that much time in order to effectively PvP. So potentialy doable....but also has ramifications for the new player experience for everybody.
Most attempts at "player policing" have failed miserably.....mostly because you need a well established, tight-knit, pre-existing player community that has no tolerance for anti-social behavior. However most FFA PvP games fail to establish that community because they are swarmed with anti-social players from the outset, and the "good" players that you would want to form that community are quickly driven off or won't even consider such a game, so the community never forms. Even in cases where you do get such a community, it really only works in conjunction with GM Action....as the only reliable action to stop a griefer is an account ban (assuming the account requires some investment in it).
Originally posted by NovusodAge of Wushu has the best open world pvp balance since Star Wars Galaxies.This is the basic formula for making good PvP:- The world has to be very big- There should be some long term goals (not battle ground objectives that are completed in one session)- Down time for people who grief (Environment enforced)- Bounty hunting system (Player enforced)- It is a PK system with no factions- Don't constantly over inflate the power of players (EVE example The Titan has been the best ship in the game for 10 years)
You fail to mention that the bounty system is only if the other player kills you in an unconscious state. If they just take your Life down to zero and leave you there to die eventually you can't put a bounty on them and there are zero repercussions for this person. So players figured this out in about 3 days and stopped killing other players all of the way.This is exactly why I stopped playing that game. I was tending crops to make some food (crafting). 3 people from a griefer guild come along and put me unconscious. I come back. They do this repeatedly and laugh at me for being such and idiot to play a PVP game without a guild to back me up. That's the last time I logged into that game. I found out that this open world PVP is not what I want to spend my time being a part of. To those that like this system I say have fun and enjoy it but it's not for me.
While I don't play Wushu anymore, you can now put bounties on people who knock you unconscious. This was introduced a few months ago.
The problem here is that you assume the "Griefer" is playing the same game as you are and cares about the same thing....advancing thier character, keeping thier character, playing the game in a "normal" way....they aren't. The true "Griefer" only cares about one thing.....ruining some other players day. Their character, thier gear are entirely disposable to them...just tools to be used to achieve thier goal. Now "gimping" thier characters ability to PvP can be a decent solution....but ONLY if it isn't easy to replace that character on another with another account. That means costing them enough INVESTMENT to replace that character with a new one that is capable of harming thier newbie/lowbie prey (thier typical prey of choice). Now with F2P that pretty much leaves out FINANCIAL (in real world $$) investment to burn that account and create a new one. So we are left with TIME investment..... meaning how much time would the individual have to invest into building a new character on a new account that was capable of effectively PvPing newbies/lowbies? You CAN cost the player enough of a time investment that it's an effective deterrent for most "Griefers" but that also means that any NON-GRIEFER genuine new player has to invest that much time in order to effectively PvP. So potentialy doable....but also has ramifications for the new player experience for everybody.
Most attempts at "player policing" have failed miserably.....mostly because you need a well established, tight-knit, pre-existing player community that has no tolerance for anti-social behavior. However most FFA PvP games fail to establish that community because they are swarmed with anti-social players from the outset, and the "good" players that you would want to form that community are quickly driven off or won't even consider such a game, so the community never forms. Even in cases where you do get such a community, it really only works in conjunction with GM Action....as the only reliable action to stop a griefer is an account ban (assuming the account requires some investment in it).
Grumpy, I've never seen a MMO that had policing that actually worked. They always have an "out" for the PKers. Evidently they don't want to hurt them, and would rather let them hurt their game to the point of breaking.
Cname mentioned Moonlight Blade earlier. I don't know that game at all. But that sounds like basically the same thing, so maybe there's one game doing it. There might be some others.
I don't see where it matters what the PKer griefers think. If they can't do it mechanically, they can't do it. Your picking out the best possible failure of my suggestion, and that includes FTP. Screw FTP, I'm one of the biggest anti-FTP posters. If someone wants to make a great worldly freedom game full of social possibilities and PvE/PvWorld excitement, then they don't want to go FTP and limit players from that experience. People will pay for a great game, in masses, as WoW showed. WoW wasn't successful because it was an EQ clone, it was successful because it was a tremendous product that beat everyone else to it. Now it's time for the next step and build a world that breaths life.
The first company that does that without all the stupid choices (FTP and "win-by-buy", FP View only, PvP with no justice, Level/Gear grind that forces games out of "worldly" game play, instanced game play, small worlds, etc., etc.) will be the next WoW. Unfortunately there's not many in the industry who know how to put together such a worldly and social game. (Who's that one guy? Ralph Coster or something like that? Even he doesn't quite seem to get my point here, but very very close. I'll keep working on him if the chance arises. )
In the meantime, there's opportunity for indies to do something here. Maybe not the greatest game possible, but something worth playing among the many clones out there. But I have yet to see one of those come along either.
Comments
I agree with you, however the open loot drop is something dangerous for MMO since it scares away many, many players... Which is why I like the criminal loot much more. The player have the choice to be a criminal, however by doing so he's taking increasing risks (weakened, prison, loot drop...) while if he choose to not be a criminal, he can enjoy his game without these kind of risks
I agree with you, however the open loot drop is something dangerous for MMO since it scares away many, many players... Which is why I like the criminal loot much more. The player have the choice to be a criminal, however by doing so he's taking increasing risks (weakened, prison, loot drop...) while if he choose to not be a criminal, he can enjoy his game without these kind of risks
Except many people (myself included) want ow pvp with full loot precisely because we like the thrill/risk. There will never be a compromise that pleases everybody, unfortunately.Doesn't Darkfall, Mortal Online and Runes of Magic already offer open world pvp with full loot ?
I agree with you, however the open loot drop is something dangerous for MMO since it scares away many, many players... Which is why I like the criminal loot much more. The player have the choice to be a criminal, however by doing so he's taking increasing risks (weakened, prison, loot drop...) while if he choose to not be a criminal, he can enjoy his game without these kind of risks
Except many people (myself included) want ow pvp with full loot precisely because we like the thrill/risk. There will never be a compromise that pleases everybody, unfortunately.Doesn't Darkfall, Mortal Online and Runes of Magic already offer open world pvp with full loot ?
Yeah and I love dfuw. I don't know if RoM is full loot. I didn't think it was.Moonlight Blade's solution for the collect bounty by friend scam is a triple-blind system: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/6108800
A would be bounty killer is not informed of the identity of the targeted person until he is successful tracked and found. The mission system also provide better chance for a lower level bounty killer to take down a higher level griefer than normal PvP.
In addition, a bounty killer need pay up a substantial deposit to take a bounty, which is forfeited if he failed to make the killing in time. The mission time is frozen whenever the target when offline.
The PKer killed by a bounty killer is given a significant debuff making him more susceptible to other punishment system if his infamy is high eg caught by other players playing roles of city guards.
"A game is fun if it is learnable but not trivial" -- Togelius & Schmidhuber
That's interesting, but I don't see why the extended system. I mean, it's the same thing as having stat loss for PKers when they are tracked down and punished. Why do you even need to hide their identity if the punishment actually works to detour such PK actions on a wide scale?
And that is what a good game design should be after. A punishment for PKing that causes players to weigh the balances of whether it's worth it or not. And by "worth it" to PK, I'm thinking of a game where there are freeform things going on in the world all the time, and conflicting goals that may require a little muscle from time to time. For example, two different clerics of different deities both after the same artifact for their respective temples, giving them reason to risk some stat loss or making enemies.
I think in such cases, any stat loss should be minor, and let larger stat losses build up for more quantities of PKing. Let players have this option of natural and fluid conflict, let them go to war if it gets into more conflict, but let those who just kill repeatedly for no other reason face the growing "debt to society" of larger and hurtful stat losses.
Once upon a time....
The triple-blind protocol prevents two parties from working together in collusion to exploit the system.
In most forced PvP game, malicous PKers could run away and avoid battle if they see the odds or location are against them - and then returning to strike hapless victim later after the law enforcers have left.
A contracted bounty killer can choose to cloak and approached the mission target in stealth mode or covertly in the open (e.g. the bounty killer can form a party with the unsuspecting target and choose to attack the target when his HP is low).
In MB, part of the gameplay does involve certain type of players stalking and preying on treasure diggers, robbing their of their artifacts. Such robbers would gain infamy for PKing and can be targeted by bounty killers.
"A game is fun if it is learnable but not trivial" -- Togelius & Schmidhuber
It's not that PvP itself is unpopular. You can see that in how popular FPS style games like the Battlefield series are ( and FPS games tend to do PvP much better in general then MMO's). It's the FFA part. It's the sense of anarchy and distrust and randomness to the violence that is unpopular. The author of the article is exactly right in that the inability to impose some of the societal consequences and constraints for anti-social behavior is where FFA games tend to fall down.
I'm not sure it's really that solvable an issue without some sort of hard-coded (or effectively so) barrier against PvP in certain areas of the game or under certain conditions. For many of the gankers, thier characters are just tools to harm other players (not characters, players) so even very harsh penalties against those PK characters can prove ineffective if the player can simply open another account and create another character at little cost to themselves..... and many Developers are afraid to impose harsh enough penalties in the first place because of the fear that will cost them too much of thier initial player base.... as most of us don't even bother to look at a title that has FFA PvP as a feature anymore after so many failed attempts.
Personaly, I like PvP alot...but not generaly in MMO's. MMO's don't tend to do a very good job of PvP. I play FPS games or turn based strategy games or something like World of Tanks for PvP. In MMO's, I'll consider ones that have faction based PvP.....even open world faction based PvP works ok.....as even though you can get "ganked" in what you otherwise might consider to be a safe area....your pretty sure to see a freindly response to such incidents.
FFA PvP just tends not to work well for me....as it too often just becomes a psychopath/sociopath simulater. Although I do intend to give Pathfinder Online a try when it comes out. It's a very difficult thing for Dev's to put in effective controls to deter too much anti-social behavior in FFA PvP.....far more then what little is gained from having FFA as opposed to faction based in my opinion.
So it's a game play system on top of the PvP controls? (That actually sounds like a fun aspect, something I'd like to see MMOs shoot for much more. "Treasure" has been watered down to something more akin to "daily wages" in MMOs these days.)
My point, if you think about it, is aside from your input here. It's that you don't really need that system as it does the same thing as long term "murderer" flags plus stat loss. I'd like to see more to it than just that to give it more depth, and your game information is one way to do that.
At least that's how I see it from the info provided.
Once upon a time....
So make it so the pk'er, if taken out by a person who has accepted the bounty, suffers a large xp/skill penalty.
Essentialy make it so that the more bounties exacted against the pk'er the more the pk'er destroys his character.
Conversely, there could also be a time limit so that after a a certain time this gets reset to some sort of "level 1 bounty" so that it doesn't completely dissuade someone from pk'ing another player.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
If a PK character gets knocked back in development a little each time they have "justice served", and if that PKer has been "rampant", that's not only a deterrent but makes it impossible for that character to continue PKing due to weakness. And PKers can do that with all their characters on an account, and on any number of accounts, they still end up crippled for their efforts.
That's a fact. But for some reason no one wants to accept that. And for the life of me, I can't understand why not.Once upon a time....
Personally I love PVP always have and always will. however I stand quite against FFAPVP Full loot without restriction. for worlds to function they need rules and they need consequence. The PP system that FoM had was very good in that matter, Basically if someone killed you and you reported it that person would gain PP points. PP points means that you can be arrested by the player Police force and sent to prison to work off said PP. this worked extremely well until the game descended into a FFA FPS.
If I were to design a system I would add NPC controlled cities that if a person with a bounty on their head entered the NPC guards would aggro them and attack. Cities like these would be designed for the guildless who cant be protected by guild alliances and allies.
That being said I would also allow players to create their own guild cities so those who want to be ganking guilds can have their own city and not be completely SOL because of their play style.
To finish that off I would put in place a bounty system that allows players to collect money from killing gankers so that they don't get off scott free.
Because i can.
I'm Hopeful For Every Game, Until the Fan Boys Attack My Games. Then the Knives Come Out.
Logic every gamers worst enemy.
Except that "griefers"....at least the variety I've usualy encountered don't actualy care about thier gear or characters at all....they just care about ruining other players day. They tend to be playing a different sort of game then other players....that game is called "Make the other guy miserable". Gear is not important to them as long as they have capability to kill a newbie/lowbie.....and they can either do that naked or simply have an alt spend a few minutes grinding sufficient cash to get a set of basic gear to do that with.
That's part of the difficulty with FFA PvP.....finding a consequence that the worst element actualy CARES about and can effectively be subjected to without circumventing. If the "greifer" doesn't care about the things a typical player would... thier character, gear, advancement, reputation, etc.... then it becomes very, very difficult to find something that is a meaningfull control for behavior.
Exactly! (edit to add: small penalties that can rapidly add up)
This allows for some open world PvP, but most players will consider the effects of their actions even with this. And if the game has things in it that might cause open world conflicts to arise naturally, in a Role Play sense or for important issues, they can do so without some form of artificial restriction.
And yet, rampant PKers become limp and can destroy their own characters for being jerks in the game.
And once gamers and developers accept that this is really the only way to control "crime" in these massively social games, then similar systems can be developed for theft. And "ownership rules" can be established more extensively for both players and guilds/cities/kingdoms.
Once upon a time....
The effectiveness on that depends upon how much investment (cash or time) it takes to get a new character on a new account to the point where he can PvP and has some potential to kill another newbie/lowbie.
If the game is F2P there really is no effective control in keeping a player from making as many new accounts as they want....certainly not any sort of automated control. So the question then becomes, can you impose enough of a time penalty that it's actualy painfull for a player to trash an existing account/character and start over with a new one? That might be possible but it also implies an effect on the new player experience of ALL new players....not just those who are griefers starting new accounts.
I don't blanketly rule out the possability of having a FFA PvP game with effective enough controls that it doesn't become off-puting to others....but it's not something most Developers have been able to pull off so far.
I have, in fact, played a commercial online game that was technicaly FFA PvP and even full loot that was an extremely freindly environment. That was a MUD called Gemstone. However, even though the ruleset technicaly allowed for PvP....it was NOT a PvP game and the game was so heavly policed by GM's that ANY kill by anyone was likely to get the player pulled up directly by the GM's to explain thier action. PvP simply wasn't part of the culture of the game and that was repeatedly enforced by the player community and the GM's. It was possible...and you did have very rare player killings, but almost all of them were with very sound reasoning (and often consentual). However, I don't think that would scale very well to commercial MMO's where the player to GM ratio's were much different.....and especialy ones which expected to have regular PvP just not the "griefing" type.
I'm just not sure what is so importantly gained by the FFA PvP mechanic that really makes it worth doing? Is it the sense of danger and thrill that you could be attacked and killed by anyone, anywhere at any time? Others would consider that having to play with a sense of "paranoia"......and I think you are seeing the limitations of the appeal of that style of gaming....it certainly has some market, but clearly that market is limited.....alot of people simply don't want to play that game as an MMO for any extended time period.
I don't see why it would matter as far as the pay type of the game. Because a gimped PK character is incapable of continuing those actions. The key here is that the game doesn't make it easy to recover that extent of loss, as you pointed out.
Your point about the MUD and the easier task of GMs to personally enforce these issues is exactly why it needs to be put to the player base through enabled "justice" systems. The game defines what players can do so as to control what's done, and players can police it themselves under those rules.
The importance of what's gained can be defined in the game description: "Worldly". You gain a world that's open to possibilities and more "realistic" socially. You add massive social aspects, which is something almost entirely missing from MMOs, yet you don't force it on the average player. They don't have to play "social", but they can make use of it in need (and I'd propose that the system in place makes it very easy and non-social in it's practice. Something like going to an AH-Auction House). So the victim goes to the BH-"Bounty House" (just a placer for the name here), places an order based on a flag on the perp, and later gets "mail" when some other player carries out justice. Or, the player wants a more personal investment in the justice system, goes the the "BH", talks to various Bounty Hunters and checks out their history, and makes a contract after talking money. Or the victim's guild might have a special deal with a Bounty Hunter guild known for success. The game's system could be as simple as the Bounty House and an option for choice of an individual or guild that's registered there, and leave all the rest up to the players to choose how they use it.
Players would not have to play with paranoia under this sort of system. Most PKers are not going to go "rampant", and those who do will pay for it and the victims know this. Instead of saying "I quit" they'll be saying "you'll pay for that".
Edit to add: This does leave open the rare situation where a player might just PK another for the hell of it, but isn't a rampant PKer so has little to lose. This offers two things to the plus...
Once upon a time....
I had to giggle so much after watching a .gif posted in the forums of an FFA pvp survival title with the title "How Newbies Feel":
i decided to look up the article referenced from Massively. A bit too whiny but the author makes some good points but ultimately misses out on one of the major reasons FFA PvP games fail.
As the years go by I have far less time to play video games. I have played most of the FFA PvP MMO's over the years and have enjoyed some of them, particularly EvE. With that said I am always at a loss why people have never expressed the perceived "cost" or "loss" in being ganked in FFA PvP games as a function of time. Time is ultimately our most valuable resource and one that the west possibly over emphasizes since everything in modern society is tied to time. When a player is ganked in a game, their efforts prior to that moment can be seen in terms of wasted or lost time. I realize we are playing games which are popularly viewed as "time wasters" but with that said, most people like to think that the time they spend doing something has meaning. Even if its only tied to the accomplishments and achievements in a pixelated world. But what happens when that meaning is taken away? All that "hard work" and the time it took to accomplish it now gone. You couple that with less time to play and this is a major reason why FFA PvP games without rules don't work over the long term for the majority of the populace. Less time to play with the possibility of it accomplishing nothing isn't an idea that has wide spread appeal. On a side note, look at all the themepark games that award players with tokens that can be used to purchase dungeon, raid or pvp gear. It wasn't always this way. Even themeparks have incorporated the concept of time spent=something useful
Another major problem I have with advocates of FFA PvP that arrogantly proclaim "deal with it or leave" is that too many people take option 2. You would think after all these years I wouldn't still be dumbfounded over the lack foresight of my fellow man but every once in a while I am. Games cost a ton of money to make and quite a bit of money to add content and maintain. With that in mind, why on earth would you openly encourage people to leave? The less people that play, the less content gets produced, the less bugs get fixed, the more likely the game closes. Not rocket science. Like politicians, game developers need to make compromises. You can't please everyone but taking a hard line and sticking with it past the point of reason does not make either a good politician or developer.
Last but not least I need to mention the curious case of EvE. Touted as the most successful western sandbox title to date with subs that increase every year, EvE is the paragon of FFA PvP...or is it? First of all, EvE isn't completely FFA PvP and is definitely not full loot. High security space makes EvE not completely FFA. At the end of the day, high sec is one of the bigger reasons, if not the biggest reason, EvE is commercially successful. It is also commonly lampooned by a very vocal minority of the EvE playerbase and said playerbase wants to either see high sec nerfed into the ground or removed completely. Thankfully CCP isn't suicidal and followed through with their wishes but it is worth noting in this discussion the facet most people (rightfully) consider the primary reason for EvE's working PvP model is one that many players of said game want to see removed. Also, the whole "their subs increase every year" thing is somewhat misleading. EvE is very unique in that at least half the playerbase has at least 2 accounts if not more. I personally had 3 going at one time. Most of the people in my pirate corp had at least that many. EvE's reality is that their population may not necessarily be growing, they are just acquiring more accounts via existing accounts. How long this can last is anyone's guess though some of the new space MMO's coming out could ultimately determine that sooner rather than later. It should come as no surprise that EvE has tried to change their new player experience several times over the years in the hopes of retaining more new players with dubious results. EvE is not for everyone and the PvE in particular is atrocious. Please don't bring up incursions, anoms in null sec, or WH sleeper. They are all still boring. Not as soul crushingly boring as missions but still pretty bad. Mining...well that is something you don't actually do per se. It's an activity done while your alt tabbed out watching movies, reading a book, doing homework, staring at the paint to dry, organizing your sock drawer...well you get the picture
@Amaranthar,
The problem here is that you assume the "Griefer" is playing the same game as you are and cares about the same thing....advancing thier character, keeping thier character, playing the game in a "normal" way....they aren't. The true "Griefer" only cares about one thing.....ruining some other players day. Their character, thier gear are entirely disposable to them...just tools to be used to achieve thier goal. Now "gimping" thier characters ability to PvP can be a decent solution....but ONLY if it isn't easy to replace that character on another with another account. That means costing them enough INVESTMENT to replace that character with a new one that is capable of harming thier newbie/lowbie prey (thier typical prey of choice). Now with F2P that pretty much leaves out FINANCIAL (in real world $$) investment to burn that account and create a new one. So we are left with TIME investment..... meaning how much time would the individual have to invest into building a new character on a new account that was capable of effectively PvPing newbies/lowbies? You CAN cost the player enough of a time investment that it's an effective deterrent for most "Griefers" but that also means that any NON-GRIEFER genuine new player has to invest that much time in order to effectively PvP. So potentialy doable....but also has ramifications for the new player experience for everybody.
Most attempts at "player policing" have failed miserably.....mostly because you need a well established, tight-knit, pre-existing player community that has no tolerance for anti-social behavior. However most FFA PvP games fail to establish that community because they are swarmed with anti-social players from the outset, and the "good" players that you would want to form that community are quickly driven off or won't even consider such a game, so the community never forms. Even in cases where you do get such a community, it really only works in conjunction with GM Action....as the only reliable action to stop a griefer is an account ban (assuming the account requires some investment in it).
Grumpy, I've never seen a MMO that had policing that actually worked. They always have an "out" for the PKers. Evidently they don't want to hurt them, and would rather let them hurt their game to the point of breaking.
Cname mentioned Moonlight Blade earlier. I don't know that game at all. But that sounds like basically the same thing, so maybe there's one game doing it. There might be some others.
I don't see where it matters what the PKer griefers think. If they can't do it mechanically, they can't do it. Your picking out the best possible failure of my suggestion, and that includes FTP. Screw FTP, I'm one of the biggest anti-FTP posters. If someone wants to make a great worldly freedom game full of social possibilities and PvE/PvWorld excitement, then they don't want to go FTP and limit players from that experience. People will pay for a great game, in masses, as WoW showed. WoW wasn't successful because it was an EQ clone, it was successful because it was a tremendous product that beat everyone else to it. Now it's time for the next step and build a world that breaths life.
The first company that does that without all the stupid choices (FTP and "win-by-buy", FP View only, PvP with no justice, Level/Gear grind that forces games out of "worldly" game play, instanced game play, small worlds, etc., etc.) will be the next WoW. Unfortunately there's not many in the industry who know how to put together such a worldly and social game. (Who's that one guy? Ralph Coster or something like that? Even he doesn't quite seem to get my point here, but very very close. I'll keep working on him if the chance arises.
)
In the meantime, there's opportunity for indies to do something here. Maybe not the greatest game possible, but something worth playing among the many clones out there. But I have yet to see one of those come along either.
Once upon a time....