This is why all these games have carebear rules, not because players don't like PVP'ing
...or because PVP typically centers around skill-based competition, which open PVP isn't.
Most players want PVP to be meaningful, which it isn't if fights are decided by non-skill factors like time spent playing or bringing more friends. So PVP games sell better when they leave these non-skill factors out, because they're better at providing meaningful PVP.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
This is why all these games have carebear rules, not because players don't like PVP'ing
...or because PVP typically centers around skill-based competition, which open PVP isn't.
Most players want PVP to be meaningful, which it isn't if fights are decided by non-skill factors like time spent playing or bringing more friends. So PVP games sell better when they leave these non-skill factors out, because they're better at providing meaningful PVP.
Originally posted by NIII I'm not a huge Tibia fanboy, in fact I haven't played it in quite some time, but I have to admit, I'm surprised at how little it is talked about on this site.
Because the death penalty in Tibia is so severe, only masochists would enjoy a game where you lost months of work from one death. I'm talking level 100+ losses.
They have resolved some of the issues of power abuse where some one could prevent a player from playing the game. But it's still not the best. I played Tibia from 2003-2007 and don't regret quitting it for good.
This is why all these games have carebear rules, not because players don't like PVP'ing
...or because PVP typically centers around skill-based competition, which open PVP isn't.
Most players want PVP to be meaningful, which it isn't if fights are decided by non-skill factors like time spent playing or bringing more friends. So PVP games sell better when they leave these non-skill factors out, because they're better at providing meaningful PVP.
Dont know about anyone else, but i consider the things youre talking about to be the least meaningful of all. Whats meaningful about knowing youre goung to be fight X number of people at X location and theyre likely X classes vs your X classes? In most of those situations, the only thing that matters is who has more of a specific class or 2. As an example, Scenarios in WAR. You know youre going to be fighting with a certain number of players vs an equal number of yours. And 9 out of 10 times, the side with more (or higher level/better geared) healers wins. Its boring and stale.
Yet in open PvP, even in cases like WARs RvR (which is slightly different than straight up open pvp with murder systems and such due to it being a faction vs faction game), you always have the X factors. You have no idea how many youre going to be fighting, how many of which classes, what level or quality of gear theyre going to have, and whole list of other factors. You might go into a battle at first thinking "oh this isnt so bad, theres not too many of them" then all of a sudden a large force appears behind you and starts mowing your force down and tehn taking up defensive positions to keep you away from your objective.
In other open PvP games ive played (like RF Online or Rohan) we have situatins where you're just out doing something like questing or farming, all of a sudden a few enemies show up hoping to take your farming spot, or just looking for some kills. Now youve got to decide, stay and fight or run. If you stay and fight, and manage to win, will that be the end of it or will they come back with reinforcements? Do you have time to get some reinforcements, and how quickly can they get there? Will this just be a minor skirmish between a few of you or will it turn into an all out war with bodies dropping all over the place, potentially for a couple of hours? Will you be outnumbered grealy and still be able to prevail and eventually cause the enemy to just give up and run away with their tail between their legs?
That's meaningful PvP to me. Never knowing whats going to happen, who youre going to face, and just how far you can take a fight. I love open PvP for being able to cause large scale wars by simply finding the right people at the right time and stirring up some trouble. That was my favorite thing to do in RF. Go hit up the common farming areas or hang out in the shadows of the town entrances looking for some victims. Becaus ei knew without a doubt that if i stuck around long enough they would bring all of the most powerful members of their race + their Archons to try and fight me off. Theres nothing more fun in a PvP MMO to me than watching an enemy zerg showing up with the specific purpose of taking you out.... and failing miserably at it.
Items and gear in FFA PvP MMOs tend to be easily replaced, typically stolen from weaker players anyways from a PKer. Stat loss on a death from a player bounty on the other hand, means more tangible consequences for the offending party. The trouble is, the stat loss has to be large enough to make a PKer think twice, and there also needs to be restrictions on any other characters on the account so said player can't murder an innocent player, then switch over to an alt to hide.
Haven and Hearh has a nice system of dealing with criminals and murderers. Perma-death aside, other players can track a criminal player down to their hearth fire (home base), summon, and kill them, even if they're offline. In other words, no offline hiding for crimes they committed ingame.
Dont know about anyone else, but i consider the things youre talking about to be the least meaningful of all. Whats meaningful about knowing youre goung to be fight X number of people at X location and theyre likely X classes vs your X classes
Open PVP systems allow very dull mechanics to matter, which is bad design. Did you AFK-harvest more ore to kick off a mostly-non-interactive crafting system? Did you join the biggest clan? Did your clan spend time cultivating its territory to accumulate a permanent power advantage over your enemies? Did your faction just happen to have more players online tonight? Did you grind longer than your opponents?
Another side of the argument is that conflict makes things interesting.
Think of your favorite war/action movie. It had tension. The tension was created when the protagonist(s) were made to seem like they were going to lose at multiple points during the plotline. You were interested specifically because the outcome wasn't predetermined.
In open PVP, the outcome is virtually always predetermined (and by much more than "oh they have more healers" in WAR.) The overwhelming majority of world PVP fights are completely onesided so that if you froze things at the start of the fight you already know who's going to win.
It's like trying to find tension in a war movie about a modern army slaughtering sick civilians. There isn't any. It's completely predetermined, and completely uninteresting.
Meanwhile skill has a larger sway in MMORPG instanced PVP, and a much larger sway in typical instanced PVP. Consequently you frequently have tension -- in addition to all of the most interesting mechanics mattering (decisions made during combat.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Bounty sytems suck. In Shadowbane if you pissed someone off they burned down your house. That's accountability. It ain't perfect but it's the best system anyone has come up with yet.
Well said. Shadowbane > All
The thread was over when the above was posted. There is no way any type of bounty system can work. You have to have accountability. Everyone here missed the above point.
The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
This is why all these games have carebear rules, not because players don't like PVP'ing
...or because PVP typically centers around skill-based competition, which open PVP isn't.
Most players want PVP to be meaningful, which it isn't if fights are decided by non-skill factors like time spent playing or bringing more friends. So PVP games sell better when they leave these non-skill factors out, because they're better at providing meaningful PVP.
There isn't just one definition of "meaningful" PvP. Mine, for instance, would seem to differ radically from yours. You seem to like PvP which is most like medieval jousting; two similarly equipped, similarly skilled combatants fighting uninterrupted according to a set of rules about what happens on surrender, looting, etc.
Wheras to me, this sems like the polar opposite of "meaningful" PvP.
EDIT: Diplomacy isn't a skill? Logistics isn't a skill? Organising a large group isn't a skill? Commanding a group in combat isn't a skill? Gathering intelligence isn't a skill? Using tactics to deceive an enemy as to your real strength isn't a skill? Propaganda isn't a skill? Sun Tzu, Machiavelli and Von Clauswitz would all like a word with you about your extremely narrow definition of "skill".
Once again you are making the cardinal error of confusing what you prefer with what is right, just like you did in the death penalty thread. It is absolutely 100% completely fine for you to prefer the kind of PvP that you happen to like. It is, however, evident nonsense to say that your PvP is the only "meaningful" PvP.
I am going to have to disagree. It is not some rules issue that keeps PvP a small minority, it is the simple fact that most people want to play a relaxing, controlled game, with risks evaluated and decided upon. Most people do not want to play an open PvP game, with uncontrolled death.
Carebear rules exist because the majority of players want to have fun, not live in fear of the assasin.
this x 100
this is why the games comming out these days follow the carebear rules. because the majority want it.
i dont want to call them carebears since... well its not cool anymore, instead i call them
playing for entertainment, like going to a movies, most of the time is a happy ending
about 90% of the population
and
playing for gaming, games with a challenge, something that doesnt always end with a happy ending unless you worked for it. about 10% of the population
as investor that wants money, i would also go for making games for entertainment, 11 million people will pay for easy god mode? 300k wont, HAH ! make it easy god mode, i dont have to think twice about it
as a gamer that wants quality in depth games, it is a sad future i see. we will have to feed our gaming thirst on pac-man and pong, since everything else is to easy to even be called a game.
food for thought: can it still be called a game when you can't loose?
I disagree with the difference you do between "playing for entertainment" and "playing for challenge".
Personnally, i don't like non-consensual pvp. By your logic, i'm playing for entertainment. You're right. But i don't play for challenge. You're wrong.
For example, i have absolutely no problem with a crafting system that can explode in your hands if you don't do the right thing. I have no problem with a system that can blow up hours of "work" if you screw up.
On the other hand, i have problems with non-consensual pvp, because most of the time, this kind of pvp is not welcomed.
It could be lowbie ganking. Wait, you said "challenge" ? Where's the challenge for the high level ganking someone who can't fight back efficiently ? And where's the challenge for the lowbie who can't do anything to stop it, except logging out perhaps ?
Ok, it's not always lowbie ganking. But sometimes, you just don't want to pvp. You want to do something else... And there, there's some boring and annoying player opponent who insist on fighting you. When this happen, when you want to do something else, this player and this kind of pvp is nothing but annoyance. No thank you.
Notice i also have problems with endless dungeon raiding with raid bosses who will only die thanks to some gimmick. This one is also annoyance. Not that i want it to die on the first try. But, where's the challenge, exactly, when you can retry forever until it dies ? I'd much rather have a system where, if you fail, your team gets branched to another scenario : you failed to kill the boss, now you have another challenge to overcome, and if you fail, you have another one again.
And make this series of challenge last for a week. So you have an "intelligent raid lock". Instead of some stupid "oh noes ! invisible walls!!"
Dont know about anyone else, but i consider the things youre talking about to be the least meaningful of all. Whats meaningful about knowing youre goung to be fight X number of people at X location and theyre likely X classes vs your X classes
Open PVP systems allow very dull mechanics to matter, which is bad design. Did you AFK-harvest more ore to kick off a mostly-non-interactive crafting system? Did you join the biggest clan? Did your clan spend time cultivating its territory to accumulate a permanent power advantage over your enemies? Did your faction just happen to have more players online tonight? Did you grind longer than your opponents?
Another side of the argument is that conflict makes things interesting.
Think of your favorite war/action movie. It had tension. The tension was created when the protagonist(s) were made to seem like they were going to lose at multiple points during the plotline. You were interested specifically because the outcome wasn't predetermined.
In open PVP, the outcome is virtually always predetermined (and by much more than "oh they have more healers" in WAR.) The overwhelming majority of world PVP fights are completely onesided so that if you froze things at the start of the fight you already know who's going to win.
It's like trying to find tension in a war movie about a modern army slaughtering sick civilians. There isn't any. It's completely predetermined, and completely uninteresting.
Meanwhile skill has a larger sway in MMORPG instanced PVP, and a much larger sway in typical instanced PVP. Consequently you frequently have tension -- in addition to all of the most interesting mechanics mattering (decisions made during combat.)
I remember us having this very discussion a couple of months ago. And I see your opinions remain the same... as is custom ofc nobody ever changes their mind or is swayed on the internet =D
Mine is also still the same. The unknown and random factors of open world pvp is what makes it great fun for me. Dropping me in a 5v5 pre-set just doesnt give me that thrill. I'm not talking about stealthing around killing ppl questing ofc, but roaming in a warband (yes I played Warhammer) and not knowing what is out there, potentially a force many times bigger then yours is a kick. Win or lose doesnt really matter in the end. Also I find that open world pvp games bring a sort of meta game that I enjoy very much and that instanced games mostly lack.
Just opinions, like yours. I think we can safely say both arena type and open world have their respective crowd without generalizing too much about which one is "the best". I played for only a short period in what was considered one of EU-WARs best pvp guilds and you cannot seriously mean these ppl had less or no skill. I'm sure you didnt
edit: I'm just talking arena vs open world here. Not factors behind like would you get an unfair advantage afk-grinding and stuff like that. I liked WAR, I didnt like Darkfall.
I am going to have to disagree. It is not some rules issue that keeps PvP a small minority, it is the simple fact that most people want to play a relaxing, controlled game, with risks evaluated and decided upon. Most people do not want to play an open PvP game, with uncontrolled death.
Carebear rules exist because the majority of players want to have fun, not live in fear of the assasin.
this x 100
this is why the games comming out these days follow the carebear rules. because the majority want it.
i dont want to call them carebears since... well its not cool anymore, instead i call them
playing for entertainment, like going to a movies, most of the time is a happy ending
about 90% of the population
and
playing for gaming, games with a challenge, something that doesnt always end with a happy ending unless you worked for it. about 10% of the population
as investor that wants money, i would also go for making games for entertainment, 11 million people will pay for easy god mode? 300k wont, HAH ! make it easy god mode, i dont have to think twice about it
as a gamer that wants quality in depth games, it is a sad future i see. we will have to feed our gaming thirst on pac-man and pong, since everything else is to easy to even be called a game.
food for thought: can it still be called a game when you can't loose?
I disagree with the difference you do between "playing for entertainment" and "playing for challenge".
Personnally, i don't like non-consensual pvp. By your logic, i'm playing for entertainment. You're right. But i don't play for challenge. You're wrong.
For example, i have absolutely no problem with a crafting system that can explode in your hands if you don't do the right thing. I have no problem with a system that can blow up hours of "work" if you screw up.
On the other hand, i have problems with non-consensual pvp, because most of the time, this kind of pvp is not welcomed.
It could be lowbie ganking. Wait, you said "challenge" ? Where's the challenge for the high level ganking someone who can't fight back efficiently ? And where's the challenge for the lowbie who can't do anything to stop it, except logging out perhaps ?
Ok, it's not always lowbie ganking. But sometimes, you just don't want to pvp. You want to do something else... And there, there's some boring and annoying player opponent who insist on fighting you. When this happen, when you want to do something else, this player and this kind of pvp is nothing but annoyance. No thank you.
Notice i also have problems with endless dungeon raiding with raid bosses who will only die thanks to some gimmick. This one is also annoyance. Not that i want it to die on the first try. But, where's the challenge, exactly, when you can retry forever until it dies ? I'd much rather have a system where, if you fail, your team gets branched to another scenario : you failed to kill the boss, now you have another challenge to overcome, and if you fail, you have another one again.
And make this series of challenge last for a week. So you have an "intelligent raid lock". Instead of some stupid "oh noes ! invisible walls!!"
nah thats just grieffing and it happens in ALL games (they always find a way)
but i see your point and you are right, some game mechanics do allow for a player to NOT play a game unwillingly, i remember so many times in eve when i was station camped by 200 people outside. for hours, and all you could do is sit there and spin the camera around your ship chatting with corp mates doing their roam far away without you
i liked the overt/covert status in SWG (pre cu of course) where if you where imperial covert you could do whatever you want without pvp unless you started a fight with anything rebel, you look at a overt rebel (pc or NPC) the wrong way and bam you are overt as well, you wanted to wear a faction uniform? you need to be overt to do it. etc...anything to do with the galactic civil war would put you on FFA PvP automatically, but if you wanted you could remain covert as long as you dont do anything stupid.
back on topic, the only bounty system that i can see that works is a personaly bounty contract. where you Victim A gives Player X a quest/mission to kill criminal y. and only player x (and his party) can claim the reward if the party kills Criminal Y
Victim A can create as many personal contracts as his wallet can afford and give as many people he wants.
victim A has 1 000 000 gold and creats 10x 100k gold contracts
he gives player X 5 of them and player W 3 an dplayer Z 2
player X can kill him 5 times receiving 100k for each kill (up to 500k for all 5)
player W can kill him 3 times receiving 100k for each kill (up to 300k for all 3)
and player Z can kill him twice receiving 100k for each kill (up to 200k for both)
the only problem i see is this
Victim A has created 1 000 000 contracts for 1 gold each
it could be limited by puting a minimum bounty allowed to create a contract and make it signifficantly high depending on the economy to avoid abuse.
I can see several bounty systems at work simultaneously. For low levels, a simple "wanted poster" with a reward for whoever brings them in dead or alive, preferably dead. Anyone can do it, including shysters who split the reward with the target. For the higher level problems, you could assign a target to a specific player, and only that player could redeem the reward.
Another mechanism is faction: you kill very many good players, and you are branded an outlaw. Anyone can kill outlaws and get a bounty. Kill enough outlaws, and you might become good again. Outlaws have severely restricted town access, and will have a hard time trading with anyone. Hard to be a successful outlaw.
Personally I utterly fail to see the need for a bounty system for having open PvP at all ... its an obviously stupid idea, and the OP already gave the reasons why it is stupid.
Personally I utterly fail to see the need for a bounty system for having open PvP at all ... its an obviously stupid idea, and the OP already gave the reasons why it is stupid.
...because of the exploitable bounty system, fix that and it will no longer be stupid, which it is right now: a stupid alternative-world simulation for sadists.
It's easy. Just make the bounty worth slightly less than the penalty for that person dying.
That way if they get themselves killed and claim the bounty. They still lose out.
Uhm, thats... Brilliant. Really, too bad no one told Lord Brittish this in '97.
But it should still be enough to make it worth to take it so I guess it only works when you have a pretty tough death penalty.
Except someone will get their 2nd character, second account, or friend in game to kill them after they remove all of their armor/weapons, to remove the bounty. I'm talking about an unexploitable bounty system.
Open PVP systems allow very dull mechanics to matter, which is bad design. Did you AFK-harvest more ore to kick off a mostly-non-interactive crafting system? Did you join the biggest clan? Did your clan spend time cultivating its territory to accumulate a permanent power advantage over your enemies? Did your faction just happen to have more players online tonight? Did you grind longer than your opponents?
Another side of the argument is that conflict makes things interesting.
Think of your favorite war/action movie. It had tension. The tension was created when the protagonist(s) were made to seem like they were going to lose at multiple points during the plotline. You were interested specifically because the outcome wasn't predetermined.
In open PVP, the outcome is virtually always predetermined (and by much more than "oh they have more healers" in WAR.) The overwhelming majority of world PVP fights are completely onesided so that if you froze things at the start of the fight you already know who's going to win.
It's like trying to find tension in a war movie about a modern army slaughtering sick civilians. There isn't any. It's completely predetermined, and completely uninteresting.
Meanwhile skill has a larger sway in MMORPG instanced PVP, and a much larger sway in typical instanced PVP. Consequently you frequently have tension -- in addition to all of the most interesting mechanics mattering (decisions made during combat.)
I remember us having this very discussion a couple of months ago. And I see your opinions remain the same... as is custom ofc nobody ever changes their mind or is swayed on the internet =D
Mine is also still the same. The unknown and random factors of open world pvp is what makes it great fun for me. Dropping me in a 5v5 pre-set just doesnt give me that thrill. I'm not talking about stealthing around killing ppl questing ofc, but roaming in a warband (yes I played Warhammer) and not knowing what is out there, potentially a force many times bigger then yours is a kick. Win or lose doesnt really matter in the end. Also I find that open world pvp games bring a sort of meta game that I enjoy very much and that instanced games mostly lack.
Just opinions, like yours. I think we can safely say both arena type and open world have their respective crowd without generalizing too much about which one is "the best". I played for only a short period in what was considered one of EU-WARs best pvp guilds and you cannot seriously mean these ppl had less or no skill. I'm sure you didnt
edit: I'm just talking arena vs open world here. Not factors behind like would you get an unfair advantage afk-grinding and stuff like that. I liked WAR, I didnt like Darkfall.
I agree. What I don't understand though is why people who are so ardently in the pro Arena camp, would seek their pvp in mmorpgs.
MMO's offer the chance for players to get involved in large scale battles and all the tactics and diplomacy centered around such conflict. Outside of mmos this potential is not so readily seen. Few top level fps/moba/rts games allow 100's-1000's or people to scheme and war against each other in a persistant world. So it is obvious why those seeking large scale, flexible, open world conflict would look for it in massively multiplayer games.
On the flip side we have arenas, the advocates of which believe it is more about 'skill and ability'. Well if that is the case, why exactly are you playing them in mmos which are gear/character stat centric with worse server tech than you seen in dedicated, arena based skill games and shooters?
Leaving aside premades rolling over pugs. Facing the same few teams, with the same configurations, using the same tactics, in exactly the same environment over and over again is not something I personally consider to be the most interesting for of pvp one can encounter in games which are supposed to have massive game worlds and endless variety. Especially when you consider random rolls and tab targetting is often the order of the day.
For me arenas/instances are good for mmos as and when there is little to no open world action and you are looking for a quick fix. Over and above that, if at the time I am up for an intense equal team battle, skill based, e-sport type game, I'll find that in a game specifically set up to cater for such a battle.
@OP. Just have xp loss on death. If the player still goes and gets his bounty cleared, so what, you have had a negative effect on him which is the whole point. Ofc, people are even less likely to play a game with xp loss than a simple open pvp one, but then I don't agree that borked BH systems are preventing people from open pvp games. Carebearism is whats stopping that most of the time methinks.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
It's easy. Just make the bounty worth slightly less than the penalty for that person dying.
That way if they get themselves killed and claim the bounty. They still lose out.
Uhm, thats... Brilliant. Really, too bad no one told Lord Brittish this in '97.
But it should still be enough to make it worth to take it so I guess it only works when you have a pretty tough death penalty.
Except someone will get their 2nd character, second account, or friend in game to kill them after they remove all of their armor/weapons, to remove the bounty. I'm talking about an unexploitable bounty system.
The closest thing to an unexploitable bounty system is one where the person issuing the bounty controls the conditions. That produces Bounty Contract PvP; the target of a bounty is always trying to twist the bounty so that he can minimize the sting or actually profit from it while those issuing bounties will try to maximize the sting. The ultimate point is that the bounty issuers would figure out what bounty has bite. It may be generic to the game or specific to the character, but the goal is to have meaningful bounties.
As AzurePower points out, a good start is to say "I'll pay 50 cents on the dollar for any of Criminal Bob's assets that you destroy." The assumption is that destroying assets costs far less than 50 cents on the dollar for a bounty hunter.
As I observed in my earlier post, being able to say "I'll pay 8 gold for the death of Criminal Bob's horse Trigger" is even better. Trigger may be worth 100 gold, so if a bounty hunter wanted more money, he could steal the horse. But stealing the horse could be done by Criminal Bob's alt, so that's too exploitable as a bounty. The bounty issuer wants the horse dead because he knows that it's a signature part of Criminal Bob's character.
After the horse is dead, Criminal Bob shows up on an identical horse. Or perhaps on a horse worth 7 gold named "Trigger". The bounty issuer has to figure out a new bounty because he doesn't believe that he found the right one for Criminal Bob.
Why is the horse example better than the straight 50-cents-on-the-dollar deal? Because Criminal Bob can destroy his own assets and get 50 cents on the dollar. That includes everything that he has stolen and can't get to town to sell for a good price. Or anything that he can attach his name to but not transport. So he 'steals' a house then burns it down and gets 50 cents on the dollar.
I think I also mentioned that bounties cannot stack. When you do something in a game that has bounties associated with it, you get to pick the one you want to receive. If bounties stacked, then the bounty issuer would no longer be in control of the bounty. If bounty stacking was desireable, then the bounty system could allow for explicit stacking. "I'll pay 8 gold for the death of Criminal Bob's horse Trigger on top of bounties A, B and C issued by other characters."
It's easy. Just make the bounty worth slightly less than the penalty for that person dying.
That way if they get themselves killed and claim the bounty. They still lose out.
Uhm, thats... Brilliant. Really, too bad no one told Lord Brittish this in '97.
But it should still be enough to make it worth to take it so I guess it only works when you have a pretty tough death penalty.
Except someone will get their 2nd character, second account, or friend in game to kill them after they remove all of their armor/weapons, to remove the bounty. I'm talking about an unexploitable bounty system.
The closest thing to an unexploitable bounty system is one where the person issuing the bounty controls the conditions. That produces Bounty Contract PvP; the target of a bounty is always trying to twist the bounty so that he can minimize the sting or actually profit from it while those issuing bounties will try to maximize the sting. The ultimate point is that the bounty issuers would figure out what bounty has bite. It may be generic to the game or specific to the character, but the goal is to have meaningful bounties.
As AzurePower points out, a good start is to say "I'll pay 50 cents on the dollar for any of Criminal Bob's assets that you destroy." The assumption is that destroying assets costs far less than 50 cents on the dollar for a bounty hunter.
As I observed in my earlier post, being able to say "I'll pay 8 gold for the death of Criminal Bob's horse Trigger" is even better. Trigger may be worth 100 gold, so if a bounty hunter wanted more money, he could steal the horse. But stealing the horse could be done by Criminal Bob's alt, so that's too exploitable as a bounty. The bounty issuer wants the horse dead because he knows that it's a signature part of Criminal Bob's character.
After the horse is dead, Criminal Bob shows up on an identical horse. Or perhaps on a horse worth 7 gold named "Trigger". The bounty issuer has to figure out a new bounty because he doesn't believe that he found the right one for Criminal Bob.
Why is the horse example better than the straight 50-cents-on-the-dollar deal? Because Criminal Bob can destroy his own assets and get 50 cents on the dollar. That includes everything that he has stolen and can't get to town to sell for a good price. Or anything that he can attach his name to but not transport. So he 'steals' a house then burns it down and gets 50 cents on the dollar.
I think I also mentioned that bounties cannot stack. When you do something in a game that has bounties associated with it, you get to pick the one you want to receive. If bounties stacked, then the bounty issuer would no longer be in control of the bounty. If bounty stacking was desireable, then the bounty system could allow for explicit stacking. "I'll pay 8 gold for the death of Criminal Bob's horse Trigger on top of bounties A, B and C issued by other characters."
If the bounty is not high enough it won't be worth anyone's time to hunt Criminal Bob down, or even PVP Criminal Bob if someone randomly runs into him.
Players maximize their grinding time when playing, doing whatever gives them the most gold or exp divided by time, and that includes maximizing their gains when PVP'ing. If the bounty is too low, nobody will even considering going after it, and PVP'ing is a bigger risk than NPC killing.
Unfortunately we can't rely on roleplayers or players policing themselves, too many games gave players a chance to do that, but the task was too large.
Except someone will get their 2nd character, second account, or friend in game to kill them after they remove all of their armor/weapons, to remove the bounty. I'm talking about an unexploitable bounty system.
Well, I get what you're talking about - but what the heck is the point ?
You do PvP in a game, you lose, and then you can put a bounty on the attacker - what ? Why ??
Even if you cannot exploit it, its still a stupid idea.
If you dont want to lose PvP battles, you shouldnt play a PvP game.
If the bounty is not high enough it won't be worth anyone's time to hunt Criminal Bob down, or even PVP Criminal Bob if someone randomly runs into him.
Absolutely. That's why bounty contract PvP must exist, so that if it is possible to place a bounty that bring misery to a criminal, profit to a bounty hunter and satisfaction to a bounty issuer, it will be found.
Originally posted by Nerf09
Players maximize their grinding time when playing, doing whatever gives them the most gold or exp divided by time, and that includes maximizing their gains when PVP'ing. If the bounty is too low, nobody will even considering going after it, and PVP'ing is a bigger risk than NPC killing.
If we're restricting ourselves to level and loot grinders being played by min/maxers then there's no need to discuss a bounty system. Nor an interesting crafting system. Nor any system that doesn't return maximum levels and loot in the shortest time.
If the bounty is not high enough it won't be worth anyone's time to hunt Criminal Bob down, or even PVP Criminal Bob if someone randomly runs into him.
Players maximize their grinding time when playing, doing whatever gives them the most gold or exp divided by time, and that includes maximizing their gains when PVP'ing. If the bounty is too low, nobody will even considering going after it, and PVP'ing is a bigger risk than NPC killing.
Unfortunately we can't rely on roleplayers or players policing themselves, too many games gave players a chance to do that, but the task was too large.
That's the other side of the issue. The bounty system has to have incentives for the bounty hunters to participate. Bounty hunting in MMORPGs can be very frustrating since the target can simply log off and go watch TV and there is nothing you can do about it. Few people will spend hours waiting for someone to log back on just for a simple bounty. So unless the game makes it very easy to track people down, the bounty hunters have to be well compensated for the effort they expand. Of course the bigger you make the rewards, the easier it becomes to exploit the system.
It's easy. Just make the bounty worth slightly less than the penalty for that person dying. That way if they get themselves killed and claim the bounty. They still lose out.
Uhm, thats... Brilliant. Really, too bad no one told Lord Brittish this in '97. But it should still be enough to make it worth to take it so I guess it only works when you have a pretty tough death penalty.
Except someone will get their 2nd character, second account, or friend in game to kill them after they remove all of their armor/weapons, to remove the bounty. I'm talking about an unexploitable bounty system.
The closest thing to an unexploitable bounty system is one where the person issuing the bounty controls the conditions. That produces Bounty Contract PvP; the target of a bounty is always trying to twist the bounty so that he can minimize the sting or actually profit from it while those issuing bounties will try to maximize the sting. The ultimate point is that the bounty issuers would figure out what bounty has bite. It may be generic to the game or specific to the character, but the goal is to have meaningful bounties. As AzurePower points out, a good start is to say "I'll pay 50 cents on the dollar for any of Criminal Bob's assets that you destroy." The assumption is that destroying assets costs far less than 50 cents on the dollar for a bounty hunter. As I observed in my earlier post, being able to say "I'll pay 8 gold for the death of Criminal Bob's horse Trigger" is even better. Trigger may be worth 100 gold, so if a bounty hunter wanted more money, he could steal the horse. But stealing the horse could be done by Criminal Bob's alt, so that's too exploitable as a bounty. The bounty issuer wants the horse dead because he knows that it's a signature part of Criminal Bob's character. After the horse is dead, Criminal Bob shows up on an identical horse. Or perhaps on a horse worth 7 gold named "Trigger". The bounty issuer has to figure out a new bounty because he doesn't believe that he found the right one for Criminal Bob. Why is the horse example better than the straight 50-cents-on-the-dollar deal? Because Criminal Bob can destroy his own assets and get 50 cents on the dollar. That includes everything that he has stolen and can't get to town to sell for a good price. Or anything that he can attach his name to but not transport. So he 'steals' a house then burns it down and gets 50 cents on the dollar. I think I also mentioned that bounties cannot stack. When you do something in a game that has bounties associated with it, you get to pick the one you want to receive. If bounties stacked, then the bounty issuer would no longer be in control of the bounty. If bounty stacking was desireable, then the bounty system could allow for explicit stacking. "I'll pay 8 gold for the death of Criminal Bob's horse Trigger on top of bounties A, B and C issued by other characters."
If the bounty is not high enough it won't be worth anyone's time to hunt Criminal Bob down, or even PVP Criminal Bob if someone randomly runs into him. Players maximize their grinding time when playing, doing whatever gives them the most gold or exp divided by time, and that includes maximizing their gains when PVP'ing. If the bounty is too low, nobody will even considering going after it, and PVP'ing is a bigger risk than NPC killing. Unfortunately we can't rely on roleplayers or players policing themselves, too many games gave players a chance to do that, but the task was too large.
If there is a way for some one to exploit a bounty. Then it's a problem with the game mechanics of the game in question.
Let's give an example of how of how a correct bounty could be put in place.
Mr. Jones is level 5. The price for dying at level 5 costs a flat rate of 100 gold. This is excluding extra loses such as gear. If Mr. Jones was completely naked and dies, he would still lose 100 gold. A bounty to be placed on Mr. Jones would be capped at 90 gold.
Now we have Mr. Smith. He is level 50. The price for his death would cost him 1000 gold. A bounty for his death cannot exceed 900 gold.
Just an example for you to get the picture. If this system does not work which what ever game you may give as an example to where it would not work, again it's a problem with the game mechanics of the game in question itself.
You cannot tailor a bounty system for a game. You must tailor a game for the bounty system if you want it to be unexploitable.
Another thing. A bounty should be a reward for pursuing a marked person. Not a deterrent for PKing.
Another thing. A bounty should be a reward for pursuing a marked person. Not a deterrent for PKing.
IIRC the late Shadowbane implemented this particular approach near flawlessly? Via XP gains IINM.A worthwhile incentive for an open PvP fan/player if you ask me.Still...1 thing done right with the rest 9 wrong....
Comments
...or because PVP typically centers around skill-based competition, which open PVP isn't.
Most players want PVP to be meaningful, which it isn't if fights are decided by non-skill factors like time spent playing or bringing more friends. So PVP games sell better when they leave these non-skill factors out, because they're better at providing meaningful PVP.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
qft;
/thread
Because the death penalty in Tibia is so severe, only masochists would enjoy a game where you lost months of work from one death. I'm talking level 100+ losses.
They have resolved some of the issues of power abuse where some one could prevent a player from playing the game. But it's still not the best. I played Tibia from 2003-2007 and don't regret quitting it for good.
-Azure Prower
http://www.youtube.com/AzurePrower
Dont know about anyone else, but i consider the things youre talking about to be the least meaningful of all. Whats meaningful about knowing youre goung to be fight X number of people at X location and theyre likely X classes vs your X classes? In most of those situations, the only thing that matters is who has more of a specific class or 2. As an example, Scenarios in WAR. You know youre going to be fighting with a certain number of players vs an equal number of yours. And 9 out of 10 times, the side with more (or higher level/better geared) healers wins. Its boring and stale.
Yet in open PvP, even in cases like WARs RvR (which is slightly different than straight up open pvp with murder systems and such due to it being a faction vs faction game), you always have the X factors. You have no idea how many youre going to be fighting, how many of which classes, what level or quality of gear theyre going to have, and whole list of other factors. You might go into a battle at first thinking "oh this isnt so bad, theres not too many of them" then all of a sudden a large force appears behind you and starts mowing your force down and tehn taking up defensive positions to keep you away from your objective.
In other open PvP games ive played (like RF Online or Rohan) we have situatins where you're just out doing something like questing or farming, all of a sudden a few enemies show up hoping to take your farming spot, or just looking for some kills. Now youve got to decide, stay and fight or run. If you stay and fight, and manage to win, will that be the end of it or will they come back with reinforcements? Do you have time to get some reinforcements, and how quickly can they get there? Will this just be a minor skirmish between a few of you or will it turn into an all out war with bodies dropping all over the place, potentially for a couple of hours? Will you be outnumbered grealy and still be able to prevail and eventually cause the enemy to just give up and run away with their tail between their legs?
That's meaningful PvP to me. Never knowing whats going to happen, who youre going to face, and just how far you can take a fight. I love open PvP for being able to cause large scale wars by simply finding the right people at the right time and stirring up some trouble. That was my favorite thing to do in RF. Go hit up the common farming areas or hang out in the shadows of the town entrances looking for some victims. Becaus ei knew without a doubt that if i stuck around long enough they would bring all of the most powerful members of their race + their Archons to try and fight me off. Theres nothing more fun in a PvP MMO to me than watching an enemy zerg showing up with the specific purpose of taking you out.... and failing miserably at it.
Stat loss.
Items and gear in FFA PvP MMOs tend to be easily replaced, typically stolen from weaker players anyways from a PKer. Stat loss on a death from a player bounty on the other hand, means more tangible consequences for the offending party. The trouble is, the stat loss has to be large enough to make a PKer think twice, and there also needs to be restrictions on any other characters on the account so said player can't murder an innocent player, then switch over to an alt to hide.
Haven and Hearh has a nice system of dealing with criminals and murderers. Perma-death aside, other players can track a criminal player down to their hearth fire (home base), summon, and kill them, even if they're offline. In other words, no offline hiding for crimes they committed ingame.
Uhm, thats... Brilliant. Really, too bad no one told Lord Brittish this in '97.
But it should still be enough to make it worth to take it so I guess it only works when you have a pretty tough death penalty.
Open PVP systems allow very dull mechanics to matter, which is bad design. Did you AFK-harvest more ore to kick off a mostly-non-interactive crafting system? Did you join the biggest clan? Did your clan spend time cultivating its territory to accumulate a permanent power advantage over your enemies? Did your faction just happen to have more players online tonight? Did you grind longer than your opponents?
Another side of the argument is that conflict makes things interesting.
Think of your favorite war/action movie. It had tension. The tension was created when the protagonist(s) were made to seem like they were going to lose at multiple points during the plotline. You were interested specifically because the outcome wasn't predetermined.
In open PVP, the outcome is virtually always predetermined (and by much more than "oh they have more healers" in WAR.) The overwhelming majority of world PVP fights are completely onesided so that if you froze things at the start of the fight you already know who's going to win.
It's like trying to find tension in a war movie about a modern army slaughtering sick civilians. There isn't any. It's completely predetermined, and completely uninteresting.
Meanwhile skill has a larger sway in MMORPG instanced PVP, and a much larger sway in typical instanced PVP. Consequently you frequently have tension -- in addition to all of the most interesting mechanics mattering (decisions made during combat.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well said. Shadowbane > All
The thread was over when the above was posted. There is no way any type of bounty system can work. You have to have accountability. Everyone here missed the above point.
The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
There isn't just one definition of "meaningful" PvP. Mine, for instance, would seem to differ radically from yours. You seem to like PvP which is most like medieval jousting; two similarly equipped, similarly skilled combatants fighting uninterrupted according to a set of rules about what happens on surrender, looting, etc.
Wheras to me, this sems like the polar opposite of "meaningful" PvP.
EDIT: Diplomacy isn't a skill? Logistics isn't a skill? Organising a large group isn't a skill? Commanding a group in combat isn't a skill? Gathering intelligence isn't a skill? Using tactics to deceive an enemy as to your real strength isn't a skill? Propaganda isn't a skill? Sun Tzu, Machiavelli and Von Clauswitz would all like a word with you about your extremely narrow definition of "skill".
Once again you are making the cardinal error of confusing what you prefer with what is right, just like you did in the death penalty thread. It is absolutely 100% completely fine for you to prefer the kind of PvP that you happen to like. It is, however, evident nonsense to say that your PvP is the only "meaningful" PvP.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
I disagree with the difference you do between "playing for entertainment" and "playing for challenge".
Personnally, i don't like non-consensual pvp. By your logic, i'm playing for entertainment. You're right. But i don't play for challenge. You're wrong.
For example, i have absolutely no problem with a crafting system that can explode in your hands if you don't do the right thing. I have no problem with a system that can blow up hours of "work" if you screw up.
On the other hand, i have problems with non-consensual pvp, because most of the time, this kind of pvp is not welcomed.
It could be lowbie ganking. Wait, you said "challenge" ? Where's the challenge for the high level ganking someone who can't fight back efficiently ? And where's the challenge for the lowbie who can't do anything to stop it, except logging out perhaps ?
Ok, it's not always lowbie ganking. But sometimes, you just don't want to pvp. You want to do something else... And there, there's some boring and annoying player opponent who insist on fighting you. When this happen, when you want to do something else, this player and this kind of pvp is nothing but annoyance. No thank you.
Notice i also have problems with endless dungeon raiding with raid bosses who will only die thanks to some gimmick. This one is also annoyance. Not that i want it to die on the first try. But, where's the challenge, exactly, when you can retry forever until it dies ? I'd much rather have a system where, if you fail, your team gets branched to another scenario : you failed to kill the boss, now you have another challenge to overcome, and if you fail, you have another one again.
And make this series of challenge last for a week. So you have an "intelligent raid lock". Instead of some stupid "oh noes ! invisible walls!!"
I remember us having this very discussion a couple of months ago. And I see your opinions remain the same... as is custom ofc nobody ever changes their mind or is swayed on the internet =D
Mine is also still the same. The unknown and random factors of open world pvp is what makes it great fun for me. Dropping me in a 5v5 pre-set just doesnt give me that thrill. I'm not talking about stealthing around killing ppl questing ofc, but roaming in a warband (yes I played Warhammer) and not knowing what is out there, potentially a force many times bigger then yours is a kick. Win or lose doesnt really matter in the end. Also I find that open world pvp games bring a sort of meta game that I enjoy very much and that instanced games mostly lack.
Just opinions, like yours. I think we can safely say both arena type and open world have their respective crowd without generalizing too much about which one is "the best". I played for only a short period in what was considered one of EU-WARs best pvp guilds and you cannot seriously mean these ppl had less or no skill. I'm sure you didnt
edit: I'm just talking arena vs open world here. Not factors behind like would you get an unfair advantage afk-grinding and stuff like that. I liked WAR, I didnt like Darkfall.
nah thats just grieffing and it happens in ALL games (they always find a way)
but i see your point and you are right, some game mechanics do allow for a player to NOT play a game unwillingly, i remember so many times in eve when i was station camped by 200 people outside. for hours, and all you could do is sit there and spin the camera around your ship chatting with corp mates doing their roam far away without you
i liked the overt/covert status in SWG (pre cu of course) where if you where imperial covert you could do whatever you want without pvp unless you started a fight with anything rebel, you look at a overt rebel (pc or NPC) the wrong way and bam you are overt as well, you wanted to wear a faction uniform? you need to be overt to do it. etc...anything to do with the galactic civil war would put you on FFA PvP automatically, but if you wanted you could remain covert as long as you dont do anything stupid.
back on topic, the only bounty system that i can see that works is a personaly bounty contract. where you Victim A gives Player X a quest/mission to kill criminal y. and only player x (and his party) can claim the reward if the party kills Criminal Y
Victim A can create as many personal contracts as his wallet can afford and give as many people he wants.
victim A has 1 000 000 gold and creats 10x 100k gold contracts
he gives player X 5 of them and player W 3 an dplayer Z 2
player X can kill him 5 times receiving 100k for each kill (up to 500k for all 5)
player W can kill him 3 times receiving 100k for each kill (up to 300k for all 3)
and player Z can kill him twice receiving 100k for each kill (up to 200k for both)
the only problem i see is this
Victim A has created 1 000 000 contracts for 1 gold each
it could be limited by puting a minimum bounty allowed to create a contract and make it signifficantly high depending on the economy to avoid abuse.
I can see several bounty systems at work simultaneously. For low levels, a simple "wanted poster" with a reward for whoever brings them in dead or alive, preferably dead. Anyone can do it, including shysters who split the reward with the target. For the higher level problems, you could assign a target to a specific player, and only that player could redeem the reward.
Another mechanism is faction: you kill very many good players, and you are branded an outlaw. Anyone can kill outlaws and get a bounty. Kill enough outlaws, and you might become good again. Outlaws have severely restricted town access, and will have a hard time trading with anyone. Hard to be a successful outlaw.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
Personally I utterly fail to see the need for a bounty system for having open PvP at all ... its an obviously stupid idea, and the OP already gave the reasons why it is stupid.
...because of the exploitable bounty system, fix that and it will no longer be stupid, which it is right now: a stupid alternative-world simulation for sadists.
lets see what pitchblackgames can do with prime online : ) bounty system
Except someone will get their 2nd character, second account, or friend in game to kill them after they remove all of their armor/weapons, to remove the bounty. I'm talking about an unexploitable bounty system.
I agree. What I don't understand though is why people who are so ardently in the pro Arena camp, would seek their pvp in mmorpgs.
MMO's offer the chance for players to get involved in large scale battles and all the tactics and diplomacy centered around such conflict. Outside of mmos this potential is not so readily seen. Few top level fps/moba/rts games allow 100's-1000's or people to scheme and war against each other in a persistant world. So it is obvious why those seeking large scale, flexible, open world conflict would look for it in massively multiplayer games.
On the flip side we have arenas, the advocates of which believe it is more about 'skill and ability'. Well if that is the case, why exactly are you playing them in mmos which are gear/character stat centric with worse server tech than you seen in dedicated, arena based skill games and shooters?
Leaving aside premades rolling over pugs. Facing the same few teams, with the same configurations, using the same tactics, in exactly the same environment over and over again is not something I personally consider to be the most interesting for of pvp one can encounter in games which are supposed to have massive game worlds and endless variety. Especially when you consider random rolls and tab targetting is often the order of the day.
For me arenas/instances are good for mmos as and when there is little to no open world action and you are looking for a quick fix. Over and above that, if at the time I am up for an intense equal team battle, skill based, e-sport type game, I'll find that in a game specifically set up to cater for such a battle.
@OP. Just have xp loss on death. If the player still goes and gets his bounty cleared, so what, you have had a negative effect on him which is the whole point. Ofc, people are even less likely to play a game with xp loss than a simple open pvp one, but then I don't agree that borked BH systems are preventing people from open pvp games. Carebearism is whats stopping that most of the time methinks.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
The closest thing to an unexploitable bounty system is one where the person issuing the bounty controls the conditions. That produces Bounty Contract PvP; the target of a bounty is always trying to twist the bounty so that he can minimize the sting or actually profit from it while those issuing bounties will try to maximize the sting. The ultimate point is that the bounty issuers would figure out what bounty has bite. It may be generic to the game or specific to the character, but the goal is to have meaningful bounties.
As AzurePower points out, a good start is to say "I'll pay 50 cents on the dollar for any of Criminal Bob's assets that you destroy." The assumption is that destroying assets costs far less than 50 cents on the dollar for a bounty hunter.
As I observed in my earlier post, being able to say "I'll pay 8 gold for the death of Criminal Bob's horse Trigger" is even better. Trigger may be worth 100 gold, so if a bounty hunter wanted more money, he could steal the horse. But stealing the horse could be done by Criminal Bob's alt, so that's too exploitable as a bounty. The bounty issuer wants the horse dead because he knows that it's a signature part of Criminal Bob's character.
After the horse is dead, Criminal Bob shows up on an identical horse. Or perhaps on a horse worth 7 gold named "Trigger". The bounty issuer has to figure out a new bounty because he doesn't believe that he found the right one for Criminal Bob.
Why is the horse example better than the straight 50-cents-on-the-dollar deal? Because Criminal Bob can destroy his own assets and get 50 cents on the dollar. That includes everything that he has stolen and can't get to town to sell for a good price. Or anything that he can attach his name to but not transport. So he 'steals' a house then burns it down and gets 50 cents on the dollar.
I think I also mentioned that bounties cannot stack. When you do something in a game that has bounties associated with it, you get to pick the one you want to receive. If bounties stacked, then the bounty issuer would no longer be in control of the bounty. If bounty stacking was desireable, then the bounty system could allow for explicit stacking. "I'll pay 8 gold for the death of Criminal Bob's horse Trigger on top of bounties A, B and C issued by other characters."
If the bounty is not high enough it won't be worth anyone's time to hunt Criminal Bob down, or even PVP Criminal Bob if someone randomly runs into him.
Players maximize their grinding time when playing, doing whatever gives them the most gold or exp divided by time, and that includes maximizing their gains when PVP'ing. If the bounty is too low, nobody will even considering going after it, and PVP'ing is a bigger risk than NPC killing.
Unfortunately we can't rely on roleplayers or players policing themselves, too many games gave players a chance to do that, but the task was too large.
Well, I get what you're talking about - but what the heck is the point ?
You do PvP in a game, you lose, and then you can put a bounty on the attacker - what ? Why ??
Even if you cannot exploit it, its still a stupid idea.
If you dont want to lose PvP battles, you shouldnt play a PvP game.
Absolutely. That's why bounty contract PvP must exist, so that if it is possible to place a bounty that bring misery to a criminal, profit to a bounty hunter and satisfaction to a bounty issuer, it will be found.
If we're restricting ourselves to level and loot grinders being played by min/maxers then there's no need to discuss a bounty system. Nor an interesting crafting system. Nor any system that doesn't return maximum levels and loot in the shortest time.
That's the other side of the issue. The bounty system has to have incentives for the bounty hunters to participate. Bounty hunting in MMORPGs can be very frustrating since the target can simply log off and go watch TV and there is nothing you can do about it. Few people will spend hours waiting for someone to log back on just for a simple bounty. So unless the game makes it very easy to track people down, the bounty hunters have to be well compensated for the effort they expand. Of course the bigger you make the rewards, the easier it becomes to exploit the system.
If there is a way for some one to exploit a bounty. Then it's a problem with the game mechanics of the game in question.
Let's give an example of how of how a correct bounty could be put in place.
Mr. Jones is level 5. The price for dying at level 5 costs a flat rate of 100 gold. This is excluding extra loses such as gear. If Mr. Jones was completely naked and dies, he would still lose 100 gold. A bounty to be placed on Mr. Jones would be capped at 90 gold.
Now we have Mr. Smith. He is level 50. The price for his death would cost him 1000 gold. A bounty for his death cannot exceed 900 gold.
Just an example for you to get the picture. If this system does not work which what ever game you may give as an example to where it would not work, again it's a problem with the game mechanics of the game in question itself.
You cannot tailor a bounty system for a game. You must tailor a game for the bounty system if you want it to be unexploitable.
Another thing. A bounty should be a reward for pursuing a marked person. Not a deterrent for PKing.
-Azure Prower
http://www.youtube.com/AzurePrower
IIRC the late Shadowbane implemented this particular approach near flawlessly? Via XP gains IINM.A worthwhile incentive for an open PvP fan/player if you ask me.Still...1 thing done right with the rest 9 wrong....