Never murdered any, but killed, sure, why not? if a game has PVP then it happens. For the record it is not possible to murder another player character as that would imply it was illegal, which if a game allows it to happen means that it is 'authorised' hence the difference between the term killing and murder.
Some games it was implied to be illegal by the game itself by branding you
Never murdered any, but killed, sure, why not? if a game has PVP then it happens. For the record it is not possible to murder another player character as that would imply it was illegal, which if a game allows it to happen means that it is 'authorised' hence the difference between the term killing and murder.
Some games it was implied to be illegal by the game itself by branding you
If its possible to kill another player then its authorised, there are games that have negative karma or other mechanics to 'dissuade' people from being 'excessive' but that is not making it 'illegal' if you think that this is implied by some games, you are probably mistaken, if its possible, then it is just part of the game and not illegal.
Yeah I murdered a character in cold pixelated blood. Premeditated too. Had the perfect alibi for why I did it to make it seem like I had a purpose. I just said it was for the Horde.
Only game I've considered what I've done to another player murder is Lineage 2. I went out with the sole intention of killing a player, I killed anyone else associated with that player. It was a genuine murder full of malice and ill intent based on revenge. My intent was to make that individual suffer if not disappear altogether which they did.
Killing players though, never invoke the feeling I am murdering them. It is a game for fun, that is part of the game. I don't consider pvp murder, just Lineage 2, things got very personal sometimes and very nasty.
You had a reason! A damn good one! They provoked you by associating with your enemy! At least that’s how I see it...
if thats not right i’ll have to edit a previous post...
if i rival guild jumped me, I would kill any and all player in that guild while /yell in world 1 - 1, 2-1, 10-1 I WILL NOT LOSE.
Again I see plenty of purpose and reason here. DONT FUCK WITH HEMLOCK
In Ultima Online Beta... there was a small fenced area of rabbits that were killable for skill gain. I went in, shut the gate and started leveling up my sword skill on them.
This was when MMOs were brand new to most people, so folks would wander by and ask why I was in there and then sometimes join me.
Being a little shit at the time (still a shit now, just bigger) I invited them in, shut the gate behind them and then murdered them in cold pixel blood. People even tried to log out, but when they came back I was still there in my bunny slaughterhouse. Funny seeing ghosts going OoOooOo while I lure the next person into the cage...
So yes, I have murdered in game.
Would I do that today? No... I'd hope not. (and even if I wanted to my skills are pretty feeble)
Don’t deny your dark side slap. It’s part of you feed it. Become whole once again.
Never murdered any, but killed, sure, why not? if a game has PVP then it happens. For the record it is not possible to murder another player character as that would imply it was illegal, which if a game allows it to happen means that it is 'authorised' hence the difference between the term killing and murder.
Some games allow killing in an FFA setting, but also have jail, prison, and beheadings for murderers.
Never murdered any, but killed, sure, why not? if a game has PVP then it happens. For the record it is not possible to murder another player character as that would imply it was illegal, which if a game allows it to happen means that it is 'authorised' hence the difference between the term killing and murder.
Some games it was implied to be illegal by the game itself by branding you
If its possible to kill another player then its authorised, there are games that have negative karma or other mechanics to 'dissuade' people from being 'excessive' but that is not making it 'illegal' if you think that this is implied by some games, you are probably mistaken, if its possible, then it is just part of the game and not illegal.
Wait a minute... So... Because I can wield a bat and kill someone else, it's NOT "illegal" because LIFE allows it?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Never murdered any, but killed, sure, why not? if a game has PVP then it happens. For the record it is not possible to murder another player character as that would imply it was illegal, which if a game allows it to happen means that it is 'authorised' hence the difference between the term killing and murder.
Some games it was implied to be illegal by the game itself by branding you
If its possible to kill another player then its authorised, there are games that have negative karma or other mechanics to 'dissuade' people from being 'excessive' but that is not making it 'illegal' if you think that this is implied by some games, you are probably mistaken, if its possible, then it is just part of the game and not illegal.
Wait a minute... So... Because I can wield a bat and kill someone else, it's NOT "illegal" because LIFE allows it?
Until we have the ability for people to "get better again" after being killed in real life, comparisons are rather pointless.
So throw logic out, too? Just testing the rationalization
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Phry said: If its possible to kill another player then its authorised, there are games that have negative karma or other mechanics to 'dissuade' people from being 'excessive' but that is not making it 'illegal' if you think that this is implied by some games, you are probably mistaken, if its possible, then it is just part of the game and not illegal.
Wait a minute... So... Because I can wield a bat and kill someone else, it's NOT "illegal" because LIFE allows it?
Here is something I never quite understood. Why would a developer go through all the effort to make a Open PvP game, I mean, they had to program that stuff in, so this was a deliberate act on their part to make it so players could kill each other. Anyway, why would they go through all this effort to put in such a feature in the game, like PvP and then have the flip-flop audacity to try and dissuade people from doing it?
If you don't want people killing each other, why on this earth would anyone go through the effort to put in FFA Open PvP to start with? That kind of, "We don't know what the fuck we are doing" game developing irks the hell out of me, which is why I never touch games like that.
If they put in PvP, then, alright, lets PvP, that is why I play Arena Games, when I PvP, there is no "Well, we kinda didn't expect you to tea bag the shit out of them after you shot them in the ass a million times" the devs are like "LOL that was great! Do it AGAIN!"
This is also why I don't really play MMO's with PvP in them, I mean, sure, if the PvP is one of those "Off to the Side" things that I can ignore, I'll give the game a whirl, but, I have yet to play an MMO where the people making the game really had their heads on right with what they were trying to accomplish with the PvP part of the game.
Just my feels on it.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Phry said: go through all this effort to put in such a feature in the game, like PvP and then have the flip-flop audacity to try and dissuade people from doing it?
If they put in PvP, then, alright, lets PvP, that is why I play Arena Games, when I PvP, there is no "Well, we kinda didn't expect you to tea bag the shit out of them after you shot them in the ass a million times" the devs are like "LOL that was great! Do it AGAIN!"
There is the difference, arena PVP is "just a game," usually for "funsies" with few if any consequences for losing, or for that matter, no real reward for winning
In a PVP centric MMORPG like EVE the stakes are very different, more like open warfare where not dying is just as, if not more important than winning.
When significant resources (player time in the end) are on the line, battles are chosen carefully, with only those with a good likelihood of success being continued.
In such a universe, it makes sense why developers would put in controls on PVP, in order to simulate a more realistic virtual world, much more challenging than creating PVP games.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Phry said: If its possible to kill another player then its authorised, there are games that have negative karma or other mechanics to 'dissuade' people from being 'excessive' but that is not making it 'illegal' if you think that this is implied by some games, you are probably mistaken, if its possible, then it is just part of the game and not illegal.
Wait a minute... So... Because I can wield a bat and kill someone else, it's NOT "illegal" because LIFE allows it?
Here is something I never quite understood. Why would a developer go through all the effort to make a Open PvP game, I mean, they had to program that stuff in, so this was a deliberate act on their part to make it so players could kill each other. Anyway, why would they go through all this effort to put in such a feature in the game, like PvP and then have the flip-flop audacity to try and dissuade people from doing it?
If you don't want people killing each other, why on this earth would anyone go through the effort to put in FFA Open PvP to start with? That kind of, "We don't know what the fuck we are doing" game developing irks the hell out of me, which is why I never touch games like that.
If they put in PvP, then, alright, lets PvP, that is why I play Arena Games, when I PvP, there is no "Well, we kinda didn't expect you to tea bag the shit out of them after you shot them in the ass a million times" the devs are like "LOL that was great! Do it AGAIN!"
This is also why I don't really play MMO's with PvP in them, I mean, sure, if the PvP is one of those "Off to the Side" things that I can ignore, I'll give the game a whirl, but, I have yet to play an MMO where the people making the game really had their heads on right with what they were trying to accomplish with the PvP part of the game.
Just my feels on it.
Because of consequences.
They want players to "kill" each other but they want to make it a choice that has consequences.
Just like managing online money or managing resources is "a thing" so is the choice to take out a player.
I remember, in Lineage 2, dealing with some players in the Cemetary who were messing with our guild members. I was surrounded by a few of them but decided to pk all of them. It was a choice. Just like they had the choice to "not" mess with our guild members.
If one could go back and forth and take each other out it would be fun but after a while it wouldn't be a thing.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Phry said: go through all this effort to put in such a feature in the game, like PvP and then have the flip-flop audacity to try and dissuade people from doing it?
If they put in PvP, then, alright, lets PvP, that is why I play Arena Games, when I PvP, there is no "Well, we kinda didn't expect you to tea bag the shit out of them after you shot them in the ass a million times" the devs are like "LOL that was great! Do it AGAIN!"
There is the difference, arena PVP is "just a game," usually for "funsies" with few if any consequences for losing, or for that matter, no real reward for winning
In a PVP centric MMORPG like EVE the stakes are very different, more like open warfare where not dying is just as, if not more important than winning.
When significant resources (player time in the end) are on the line, battles are chosen carefully, with only those with a good likelihood of success being continued.
In such a universe, it makes sense why developers would put in controls on PVP, in order to simulate a more realistic virtual world, much more challenging than creating PVP games.
I just got back into EVE, and i must say that part about not dying being as or more important than winning is so true. especially when you start flying expensive ships.
Phry said: go through all this effort to put in such a feature in the game, like PvP and then have the flip-flop audacity to try and dissuade people from doing it?
If they put in PvP, then, alright, lets PvP, that is why I play Arena Games, when I PvP, there is no "Well, we kinda didn't expect you to tea bag the shit out of them after you shot them in the ass a million times" the devs are like "LOL that was great! Do it AGAIN!"
There is the difference, arena PVP is "just a game," usually for "funsies" with few if any consequences for losing, or for that matter, no real reward for winning
In a PVP centric MMORPG like EVE the stakes are very different, more like open warfare where not dying is just as, if not more important than winning.
When significant resources (player time in the end) are on the line, battles are chosen carefully, with only those with a good likelihood of success being continued.
In such a universe, it makes sense why developers would put in controls on PVP, in order to simulate a more realistic virtual world, much more challenging than creating PVP games.
Here is how I see it.
If you give players the ability to kill each other, they will.. end of discussion.
To give players the ability to kill each other and then put in all kinds of mechanics to try to dissuade them from killing each other, comes across as a counterproductive design system.
Yes, ths one outliner like EvE as it were, with it's cult like following, but, allow me to express a logical design system, so you can see where I am coming from, imagine for a moment, you are sitting at a meeting with your head producer, and you are talking about all the various checks and balances you have put into your game, a very complex system of dermertis and deterrents to stop players from killing each other in your PvP, and they ask you this question "If you didn't want players killing each other, then why did you make a PvP game?"
Put yourself at that table.. and now sell me on this idea.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Phry said: If its possible to kill another player then its authorised, there are games that have negative karma or other mechanics to 'dissuade' people from being 'excessive' but that is not making it 'illegal' if you think that this is implied by some games, you are probably mistaken, if its possible, then it is just part of the game and not illegal.
Wait a minute... So... Because I can wield a bat and kill someone else, it's NOT "illegal" because LIFE allows it?
Here is something I never quite understood. Why would a developer go through all the effort to make a Open PvP game, I mean, they had to program that stuff in, so this was a deliberate act on their part to make it so players could kill each other. Anyway, why would they go through all this effort to put in such a feature in the game, like PvP and then have the flip-flop audacity to try and dissuade people from doing it?
If you don't want people killing each other, why on this earth would anyone go through the effort to put in FFA Open PvP to start with? That kind of, "We don't know what the fuck we are doing" game developing irks the hell out of me, which is why I never touch games like that.
If they put in PvP, then, alright, lets PvP, that is why I play Arena Games, when I PvP, there is no "Well, we kinda didn't expect you to tea bag the shit out of them after you shot them in the ass a million times" the devs are like "LOL that was great! Do it AGAIN!"
This is also why I don't really play MMO's with PvP in them, I mean, sure, if the PvP is one of those "Off to the Side" things that I can ignore, I'll give the game a whirl, but, I have yet to play an MMO where the people making the game really had their heads on right with what they were trying to accomplish with the PvP part of the game.
Just my feels on it.
Without the risk of those consequences, I might as well be in a battle ground or playing an arena game. I’m an rpg’r through and through. I want a virtual world where I can role play my alignment.
Freedom and consequences, risk and reward. Without those systems choices become meaningless. Without those systems you having meaningless killing and gameplay in general. To take it a step further, corpse camping (only bad games allow) killing low level players, why should the perpetrator even care? It’s all meaningless without risk vs reward, freedom vs consequences.
Calling consensual gaming as murder is like saying Movies and TV shows murder people all the time but wait the actors in these shows go home to their families and gamers log off and do the same thing.
I want a virtual world where I can role play my alignment.
And the big problem with that is that way too many choose to play chaotic evil aligned psycho-murderers
Not if there are consequences my brother. What you find is most become very civilized.
It’s no fun being caught and you character spending 20 plus hours in the gallows waiting on your beheading.... purple named...
In Wushu you have to straight be playing a psychopath to be purple named, I mean straight not give a fuck. There was jail before that, 5 hour prison sentence too. Hell you could meditate for a 30 mins and knock some of that infamy off, longer depending how much.
In all my hours in that game I only saw 2 or 3 purple names. One was damn good. I stayed clear. Not because I didn’t have a chance, I just didn’t need those problems.
Nah man with the systems Wushu has in place, chaotic evil wasnt something you just logged in and decided to do lol unless you were insane, or that damn good.
Phry said: go through all this effort to put in such a feature in the game, like PvP and then have the flip-flop audacity to try and dissuade people from doing it?
If they put in PvP, then, alright, lets PvP, that is why I play Arena Games, when I PvP, there is no "Well, we kinda didn't expect you to tea bag the shit out of them after you shot them in the ass a million times" the devs are like "LOL that was great! Do it AGAIN!"
There is the difference, arena PVP is "just a game," usually for "funsies" with few if any consequences for losing, or for that matter, no real reward for winning
In a PVP centric MMORPG like EVE the stakes are very different, more like open warfare where not dying is just as, if not more important than winning.
When significant resources (player time in the end) are on the line, battles are chosen carefully, with only those with a good likelihood of success being continued.
In such a universe, it makes sense why developers would put in controls on PVP, in order to simulate a more realistic virtual world, much more challenging than creating PVP games.
Here is how I see it.
If you give players the ability to kill each other, they will.. end of discussion.
To give players the ability to kill each other and then put in all kinds of mechanics to try to dissuade them from killing each other, comes across as a counterproductive design system.
Yes, ths one outliner like EvE as it were, with it's cult like following, but, allow me to express a logical design system, so you can see where I am coming from, imagine for a moment, you are sitting at a meeting with your head producer, and you are talking about all the various checks and balances you have put into your game, a very complex system of dermertis and deterrents to stop players from killing each other in your PvP, and they ask you this question "If you didn't want players killing each other, then why did you make a PvP game?"
Put yourself at that table.. and now sell me on this idea.
I'd argue the niche includes Lineage 1, 2, Wushu, ArcheAge, Runescape and even UO post Trammel, all put in checks and balances on "FFA" PVP in order to create a more balanced virtual world.
At the start of design, games are a blank slate, to which desired features are added.
PVP is a mechanic, a decision really, no different than say which progression system to use, levels, skills, horizontal, vertical etc.
So just as a game might contain levels, few would call it a "levels" game, rather it is just a game with levels, or if you will a game with PVP.
In your example said producer might ask me to justify level based progression, asking questions like how slow or fast, are they unlimited or capped, and if the latter what will the game do to retain player interest after reaching it.
Same with PVP, FFA or segregated, if FFA wide open, or with restrictions? If the answer is the former expect the producer to fire you considering how little success that design has in the virtual world space.
Perhaps if designing an arena shooter they might be more forgiving, but even those games often put in a tier system so greenhorns are not pitted against pros because, you know, it wouldn't be "fair."
Designing the "illusion" of fairness is the quiet brilliance of most shooters, gamers often incorrectly believe they have a chance when the reality is the opposite.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Phry said: If its possible to kill another player then its authorised, there are games that have negative karma or other mechanics to 'dissuade' people from being 'excessive' but that is not making it 'illegal' if you think that this is implied by some games, you are probably mistaken, if its possible, then it is just part of the game and not illegal.
Wait a minute... So... Because I can wield a bat and kill someone else, it's NOT "illegal" because LIFE allows it?
Here is something I never quite understood. Why would a developer go through all the effort to make a Open PvP game, I mean, they had to program that stuff in, so this was a deliberate act on their part to make it so players could kill each other. Anyway, why would they go through all this effort to put in such a feature in the game, like PvP and then have the flip-flop audacity to try and dissuade people from doing it?
If you don't want people killing each other, why on this earth would anyone go through the effort to put in FFA Open PvP to start with? That kind of, "We don't know what the fuck we are doing" game developing irks the hell out of me, which is why I never touch games like that.
If they put in PvP, then, alright, lets PvP, that is why I play Arena Games, when I PvP, there is no "Well, we kinda didn't expect you to tea bag the shit out of them after you shot them in the ass a million times" the devs are like "LOL that was great! Do it AGAIN!"
This is also why I don't really play MMO's with PvP in them, I mean, sure, if the PvP is one of those "Off to the Side" things that I can ignore, I'll give the game a whirl, but, I have yet to play an MMO where the people making the game really had their heads on right with what they were trying to accomplish with the PvP part of the game.
Just my feels on it.
Without the risk of those consequences, I might as well be in a battle ground or playing an arena game. I’m an rpg’r through and through. I want a virtual world where I can role play my alignment.
Freedom and consequences, risk and reward. Without those systems choices become meaningless. Without those systems you having meaningless killing and gameplay in general. To take it a step further, corpse camping (only bad games allow) killing low level players, why should the perpetrator even care? It’s all meaningless without risk vs reward, freedom vs consequences.
Oh spare me.. people playing "Evil" is just a thinly veiled excuse to be a raging asshole, and everyone knows this.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Phry said: go through all this effort to put in such a feature in the game, like PvP and then have the flip-flop audacity to try and dissuade people from doing it?
If they put in PvP, then, alright, lets PvP, that is why I play Arena Games, when I PvP, there is no "Well, we kinda didn't expect you to tea bag the shit out of them after you shot them in the ass a million times" the devs are like "LOL that was great! Do it AGAIN!"
There is the difference, arena PVP is "just a game," usually for "funsies" with few if any consequences for losing, or for that matter, no real reward for winning
In a PVP centric MMORPG like EVE the stakes are very different, more like open warfare where not dying is just as, if not more important than winning.
When significant resources (player time in the end) are on the line, battles are chosen carefully, with only those with a good likelihood of success being continued.
In such a universe, it makes sense why developers would put in controls on PVP, in order to simulate a more realistic virtual world, much more challenging than creating PVP games.
Here is how I see it.
If you give players the ability to kill each other, they will.. end of discussion.
To give players the ability to kill each other and then put in all kinds of mechanics to try to dissuade them from killing each other, comes across as a counterproductive design system.
Yes, ths one outliner like EvE as it were, with it's cult like following, but, allow me to express a logical design system, so you can see where I am coming from, imagine for a moment, you are sitting at a meeting with your head producer, and you are talking about all the various checks and balances you have put into your game, a very complex system of dermertis and deterrents to stop players from killing each other in your PvP, and they ask you this question "If you didn't want players killing each other, then why did you make a PvP game?"
Put yourself at that table.. and now sell me on this idea.
I'd argue the niche includes Lineage 1, 2, Wushu, ArcheAge, Runescape and even UO post Trammel, all put in checks and balances on "FFA" PVP in order to create a more balanced virtual world.
At the start of design, games are a blank slate, to which desired features are added.
PVP is a mechanic, a decision really, no different than say which progression system to use, levels, skills, horizontal, vertical etc.
So just as a game might contain levels, few would call it a "levels" game, rather it is just a game with levels, or if you will a game with PVP.
In your example said producer might ask me to justify level based progression, asking questions like how slow or fast, are they unlimited or capped, and if the latter what will the game do to retain player interest after reaching it.
Same with PVP, FFA or segregated, if FFA wide open, or with restrictions? If the answer is the former expect the producer to fire you considering how little success that design has in the virtual world space.
Perhaps if designing an arena shooter they might be more forgiving, but even those games often put in a tier system so greenhorns are not pitted against pros because, you know, it wouldn't be "fair."
Designing the "illusion" of fairness is the quiet brilliance of most shooters, gamers often incorrectly believe they have a chance when the reality is the opposite.
But that would be a great topic for a new thread.
I have already on other topics, explained the value of levels and progression based games, so if I was asked to justify levels, I could justify the fuck out of them.
Now, all you have done, is meander and quite frankly talk me out of why this is a good system or even why anyone should waste time with these convoluted ideas.
So again, I asked you to Sell me why I need to make a huge complex system of checks and balances just to put in PvP, when I could provide the same feelings of progression and reward for players for far less time and development by simply making the game PvE only,
or
I could make a game all about the PvP and provide a massive blood bath kill-them-all shooter arena for people to enjoy carnage in.
and I could make both of those kinds of game for far less money and social issues, then it would cost me to try and combine them.
So here is your goal.. sell me why this convoluted PvP with features that stop PvP is a good idea.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Comments
In Age of Wushu, once or twice. I always had a reason. The risk was to great not to.
Mend and Defend
if thats not right i’ll have to edit a previous post...
if i rival guild jumped me, I would kill any and all player in that guild while /yell in world 1 - 1, 2-1, 10-1 I WILL NOT LOSE.
Again I see plenty of purpose and reason here. DONT FUCK WITH HEMLOCK
wtb Wushu 2
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
In Lineage II, might be dozens of time, for occupying good leveling area.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
If you don't want people killing each other, why on this earth would anyone go through the effort to put in FFA Open PvP to start with? That kind of, "We don't know what the fuck we are doing" game developing irks the hell out of me, which is why I never touch games like that.
If they put in PvP, then, alright, lets PvP, that is why I play Arena Games, when I PvP, there is no "Well, we kinda didn't expect you to tea bag the shit out of them after you shot them in the ass a million times" the devs are like "LOL that was great! Do it AGAIN!"
This is also why I don't really play MMO's with PvP in them, I mean, sure, if the PvP is one of those "Off to the Side" things that I can ignore, I'll give the game a whirl, but, I have yet to play an MMO where the people making the game really had their heads on right with what they were trying to accomplish with the PvP part of the game.
Just my feels on it.
In a PVP centric MMORPG like EVE the stakes are very different, more like open warfare where not dying is just as, if not more important than winning.
When significant resources (player time in the end) are on the line, battles are chosen carefully, with only those with a good likelihood of success being continued.
In such a universe, it makes sense why developers would put in controls on PVP, in order to simulate a more realistic virtual world, much more challenging than creating PVP games.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
They want players to "kill" each other but they want to make it a choice that has consequences.
Just like managing online money or managing resources is "a thing" so is the choice to take out a player.
I remember, in Lineage 2, dealing with some players in the Cemetary who were messing with our guild members. I was surrounded by a few of them but decided to pk all of them. It was a choice. Just like they had the choice to "not" mess with our guild members.
If one could go back and forth and take each other out it would be fun but after a while it wouldn't be a thing.
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 you give players the ability to kill each other, they will.. end of discussion.
To give players the ability to kill each other and then put in all kinds of mechanics to try to dissuade them from killing each other, comes across as a counterproductive design system.
Yes, ths one outliner like EvE as it were, with it's cult like following, but, allow me to express a logical design system, so you can see where I am coming from, imagine for a moment, you are sitting at a meeting with your head producer, and you are talking about all the various checks and balances you have put into your game, a very complex system of dermertis and deterrents to stop players from killing each other in your PvP, and they ask you this question "If you didn't want players killing each other, then why did you make a PvP game?"
Put yourself at that table.. and now sell me on this idea.
Freedom and consequences, risk and reward. Without those systems choices become meaningless. Without those systems you having meaningless killing and gameplay in general. To take it a step further, corpse camping (only bad games allow) killing low level players, why should the perpetrator even care? It’s all meaningless without risk vs reward, freedom vs consequences.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
It’s no fun being caught and you character spending 20 plus hours in the gallows waiting on your beheading.... purple named...
In Wushu you have to straight be playing a psychopath to be purple named, I mean straight not give a fuck. There was jail before that, 5 hour prison sentence too. Hell you could meditate for a 30 mins and knock some of that infamy off, longer depending how much.
In all my hours in that game I only saw 2 or 3 purple names. One was damn good. I stayed clear. Not because I didn’t have a chance, I just didn’t need those problems.
Nah man with the systems Wushu has in place, chaotic evil wasnt something you just logged in and decided to do lol unless you were insane, or that damn good.
At the start of design, games are a blank slate, to which desired features are added.
PVP is a mechanic, a decision really, no different than say which progression system to use, levels, skills, horizontal, vertical etc.
So just as a game might contain levels, few would call it a "levels" game, rather it is just a game with levels, or if you will a game with PVP.
In your example said producer might ask me to justify level based progression, asking questions like how slow or fast, are they unlimited or capped, and if the latter what will the game do to retain player interest after reaching it.
Same with PVP, FFA or segregated, if FFA wide open, or with restrictions? If the answer is the former expect the producer to fire you considering how little success that design has in the virtual world space.
Perhaps if designing an arena shooter they might be more forgiving, but even those games often put in a tier system so greenhorns are not pitted against pros because, you know, it wouldn't be "fair."
Designing the "illusion" of fairness is the quiet brilliance of most shooters, gamers often incorrectly believe they have a chance when the reality is the opposite.
But that would be a great topic for a new thread.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Now, all you have done, is meander and quite frankly talk me out of why this is a good system or even why anyone should waste time with these convoluted ideas.
So again, I asked you to Sell me why I need to make a huge complex system of checks and balances just to put in PvP, when I could provide the same feelings of progression and reward for players for far less time and development by simply making the game PvE only,
or
I could make a game all about the PvP and provide a massive blood bath kill-them-all shooter arena for people to enjoy carnage in.
and I could make both of those kinds of game for far less money and social issues, then it would cost me to try and combine them.
So here is your goal.. sell me why this convoluted PvP with features that stop PvP is a good idea.