i dont understand why so few games implement a toggleable pvp status. even if it was a setting you could only turn on/off in the character selection menu before you go into game.
perhaps pvp status could give a higher exp yield, etc.
it seems really strange that this feature is not in ALL games. it would give everyone what they want, no one would be unhappy, it would produce maximum player populations (with all else being equal and on the level) and create some very interesting politics and economic relationships.
Because for many its exploitable.
PVP ON: Kill someone
PVP OFF: Taunt that same person for not being able to kill you back....
Also, your FFA PVPers STILL would complain, they want to be able to kill anyone, any time. If its flaggable, then you can't kill the ones who don't want it, and thats simply not FFA...
Not to mention the issues that a PvP flagged character has interacting with non-PvP characters that are on their "side." For example, what happens if a non-PvP character heals or buffs a PvP character? Do they get flagged at that point? Can the PvP character not get heals from other players?
i would say that players with different statuses would be unable to interact. no buffing, fighting, group, or even trading. since this is not a permanent feature for a toon, it wouldnt really cause THAT many disruptions. as for players going back and forth between the statuses, so what? they still can only fight people who are in PVP mode anyway.
if someone wants to hit you once, and then stand there for the 20-60 second log off period without moving, somehow not die, change statuses to PVE only, and log back in, just to try to slightly annoy a PVP player...well, i guess i cant solve EVERY problem, just think this is the best solution ive heard, when everyone else seems content to become increasingly polarized and bitter....
I mean, it's not an absolutely terrible solution and many games actually do it as I'm sure you're aware of.
Still, I think that open PvP zones/regions is a better solution. Why? Because if you're PvP flagged you're obviously looking for a fight, so you're going to just wander around and attack the first PvP flagged person you see who will also be looking for a fight (if he wasn't he woudln't be flagged). So instead of making these guys wander around the PvE area searching for each other for an hour, why not give them a zone to go to and fight?
i dont understand why so few games implement a toggleable pvp status. even if it was a setting you could only turn on/off in the character selection menu before you go into game.
perhaps pvp status could give a higher exp yield, etc.
it seems really strange that this feature is not in ALL games. it would give everyone what they want, no one would be unhappy, it would produce maximum player populations (with all else being equal and on the level) and create some very interesting politics and economic relationships.
Because for many its exploitable.
PVP ON: Kill someone
PVP OFF: Taunt that same person for not being able to kill you back....
Also, your FFA PVPers STILL would complain, they want to be able to kill anyone, any time. If its flaggable, then you can't kill the ones who don't want it, and thats simply not FFA...
Not to mention the issues that a PvP flagged character has interacting with non-PvP characters that are on their "side." For example, what happens if a non-PvP character heals or buffs a PvP character? Do they get flagged at that point? Can the PvP character not get heals from other players?
i would say that players with different statuses would be unable to interact. no buffing, fighting, group, or even trading. since this is not a permanent feature for a toon, it wouldnt really cause THAT many disruptions. as for players going back and forth between the statuses, so what? they still can only fight people who are in PVP mode anyway.
if someone wants to hit you once, and then stand there for the 20-60 second log off period without moving, somehow not die, change statuses to PVE only, and log back in, just to try to slightly annoy a PVP player...well, i guess i cant solve EVERY problem, just think this is the best solution ive heard, when everyone else seems content to become increasingly polarized and bitter....
I mean, it's not an absolutely terrible solution and many games actually do it as I'm sure you're aware of.
Still, I think that open PvP zones/regions is a better solution. Why? Because if you're PvP flagged you're obviously looking for a fight, so you're going to just wander around and attack the first PvP flagged person you see who will also be looking for a fight (if he wasn't he woudln't be flagged). So instead of making these guys wander around the PvE area searching for each other for an hour, why not give them a zone to go to and fight?
then youve still obstenibly made a tonne of content that many players will just not want to go to...some players simply do not like PvP at all. both player styles should be allowed...not watered down
It's not about making the punishments so harsh that NO ONE ever murders, it's about making murder a very serious affair. If you decide to murder someone, it's a big deal and it's really going to cost you. So you better be damn sure that it's worth it.
Makes sense. Thanks!
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
There's something I fail to understand about UO ruleset styled open world PVP.
If the goal of the system is to punish players who murder, with the idea that eventually they will stop murdering...
Then why provide them with game mechanics that allow them to murder in the first place?
Your argument is valid, but I think at the same time there is a reason to allow open-PvP with severe murder punishment instead of restricting murder outright.
Basically, it just makes the game more realistic and adds a sense of danger. It's one thing to be a complete ass when you know the victim of your assery can't do anything about it. It's another thing when you know that if you push this guy hard enough he may just decide to eat 3 weeks worth of stat loss and kill you.
It's not about making the punishments so harsh that NO ONE ever murders, it's about making murder a very serious affair. If you decide to murder someone, it's a big deal and it's really going to cost you. So you better be damn sure that it's worth it.
this fails to address the issue. if a player doesent want to get PKed, he's not really going to care that his ganker is out there receiving some mildish punishment....this solution fails to saticfy EITHER party, since everyone can still die, and ganking has been made less fun.
mildish ? Didn't I specifically say "severe" murder punishment. The example I gave was losing 3 weeks worth of stats / skills / levels. I wouldn't call this mildish.
It's basically an attempt to make the game world more "realistic" but still have some measure of ganker protection. I do kind of like the danger of having to worry about murderers, but I feel like the penalty for murder is always too mild so it doesn't really deter gankers and the game turns into a gankfest.
Also, I don't really consider "ganker" to be a valid playstyle. That's like saying a valid playstyle of Monopoly is to kick all the pieces over.
There's something I fail to understand about UO ruleset styled open world PVP.
If the goal of the system is to punish players who murder, with the idea that eventually they will stop murdering...
Then why provide them with game mechanics that allow them to murder in the first place?
Your argument is valid, but I think at the same time there is a reason to allow open-PvP with severe murder punishment instead of restricting murder outright.
Basically, it just makes the game more realistic and adds a sense of danger. It's one thing to be a complete ass when you know the victim of your assery can't do anything about it. It's another thing when you know that if you push this guy hard enough he may just decide to eat 3 weeks worth of stat loss and kill you.
It's not about making the punishments so harsh that NO ONE ever murders, it's about making murder a very serious affair. If you decide to murder someone, it's a big deal and it's really going to cost you. So you better be damn sure that it's worth it.
this fails to address the issue. if a player doesent want to get PKed, he's not really going to care that his ganker is out there receiving some mildish punishment....this solution fails to saticfy EITHER party, since everyone can still die, and ganking has been made less fun.
mildish ? Didn't I specifically say "severe" murder punishment. The example I gave was losing 3 weeks worth of stats / skills / levels. I wouldn't call this mildish.
It's basically an attempt to make the game world more "realistic" but still have some measure of ganker protection. I do kind of like the danger of having to worry about murderers, but I feel like the penalty for murder is always too mild so it doesn't really deter gankers and the game turns into a gankfest.
Also, I don't really consider "ganker" to be a valid playstyle. That's like saying a valid playstyle of Monopoly is to kick all the pieces over.
why not consider ganker a valid playstyle? cuz they are jerks? so? the games that let gankers ruined them are poorly made, its not the fault of the paying customers who like to kill other players, than the structure of the game fails to accomidate the victim.
again, with the 3 week stat penalty. makes no sense, and wont appeal to anyone, and therefore wont attract those players, and therefore the game might as well just not have pvp.
Gangksters cost companies money by driving off paying subscribers who are not keen on the experiance. And those types of players are far less interested in just fighting amongst themselves: They want to cause trouble to someone who doesn't like it.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
There's something I fail to understand about UO ruleset styled open world PVP.
If the goal of the system is to punish players who murder, with the idea that eventually they will stop murdering...
Then why provide them with game mechanics that allow them to murder in the first place?
Your argument is valid, but I think at the same time there is a reason to allow open-PvP with severe murder punishment instead of restricting murder outright.
Basically, it just makes the game more realistic and adds a sense of danger. It's one thing to be a complete ass when you know the victim of your assery can't do anything about it. It's another thing when you know that if you push this guy hard enough he may just decide to eat 3 weeks worth of stat loss and kill you.
It's not about making the punishments so harsh that NO ONE ever murders, it's about making murder a very serious affair. If you decide to murder someone, it's a big deal and it's really going to cost you. So you better be damn sure that it's worth it.
this fails to address the issue. if a player doesent want to get PKed, he's not really going to care that his ganker is out there receiving some mildish punishment....this solution fails to saticfy EITHER party, since everyone can still die, and ganking has been made less fun.
mildish ? Didn't I specifically say "severe" murder punishment. The example I gave was losing 3 weeks worth of stats / skills / levels. I wouldn't call this mildish.
It's basically an attempt to make the game world more "realistic" but still have some measure of ganker protection. I do kind of like the danger of having to worry about murderers, but I feel like the penalty for murder is always too mild so it doesn't really deter gankers and the game turns into a gankfest.
Also, I don't really consider "ganker" to be a valid playstyle. That's like saying a valid playstyle of Monopoly is to kick all the pieces over.
why not consider ganker a valid playstyle? cuz they are jerks? so? the games that let gankers ruined them are poorly made, its not the fault of the paying customers who like to kill other players, than the structure of the game fails to accomidate the victim.
again, with the 3 week stat penalty. makes no sense, and wont appeal to anyone, and therefore wont attract those players, and therefore the game might as well just not have pvp.
I think we may be arguing over our interpretations of the word ganker. I'm basically using ganker to mean someone that wanders around killing unsuspecting newbies or weakened players for fun and profit. Basically a griefer.
I don't consider this a valid playstyle because they are essentially bullies. They have fun by causing misery. I mean, you can say it is a playstyle which I can't really dispute, but it's not one that I think developers should support.
The harsh murder penalty system isn't meant to attract gankers...it's meant to keep them away or deter that activity. The idea is to increase the immersion factor of the game by not putting up invisible walls. For example, in most games, you CANNOT kill another player, there is an invisible wall there. It makes the game feel like less of a world and more of a game, it's less immersive.
If instead, you COULD kill players, but there are harsh consequences to do so, it just feels more immersive. And even though killing would not be at all common, it would still happen, but only rarely.
I just like having the most freedom of choice as possible.
I don't think they need to go to that extreme. But they do need to realize it only takes a relatively small number of asshats to ruin off a large number of players.
If someone's first experience in a game is getting owned repeatedly by someone they have no chance of killing, then that player is going to come to a few conclusions. 1) The game most be very boring at higher levels. 2) The community sucks. 4) Their time is better spent pursuing other interest.
The real problem lies in the cut and dry systems that have been implemented in the past. There has been little to no improvement on pvp risks, rewards, and penalties.
Thinking outside the box...
Every pvp encounter is different. This is of course the main reason so many of us love to do it. Why shouldn't every encounter's risks, rewards, and penalties also act accordingly.
Take Jack, a typical red player out looking for a target. He stumbles across billy. Billy's time in game is pretty much the opposite of jack's. He spends his time being an upstanding citizen in the game world. His standing could be determined by many factors (in-game player relations determined by player to player rating, npc relations determined by deeds completed, factional standings with not only combat game elements but also trade/craft/etc... and so on). Jack, being his typical self, decides to slaughter and loot billy just because, well, he can. What Jack didn't realize is that billy is practically royalty in his corner of the world. Jack must now suffer the consequences of Billy's npc wraith.
NPC wraith? What...?
Well, yeah... Jack just can't go around killing everything and everyone he so damn pleases. Some of his victims have friends, family, and others that care for them. Billy may also be a vital assett to a trade organization or other such industry. Maybe the organization he works for is not so pleased as well. So, what do they do? How do they do it? And, at what cost?
Here's where the developers fill in the blanks... The possibilities of having a system controlled by player actions could be endless.
NPCs doing the hunting/slaughtering
NPCs burning down a player's house and running them out of the area.
NPCs forcing fines.
NPCs forcing imprisonment.
Those aren't even examples but simple suggestions of something to work with. The current systems aren't systems. They are like those gates you setup for a puppy to keep it out of a specific area. Eventually, it's going to grow old enough and knowledgable enough to get over it or push right through it with nothing on the other side to stop it. Developers need that something on the other side to stop it part. Actions have consequences.... consequences are NEVER linear!
Developers can't just say outright, "You can't do this or go here anymore." We all know how long that lasts. it's like getting an IP ban from some network.... it's impossibly stupid to think that something like it will last. A minute later that same person will be back under a different IP going through someone else's network. What now? Ban someone else's network as well? And the downward spiral continues. This would be the number one reason for networks having personal information, email activation, etc. You can be a punk and get banned but don't expect to bounce right back from it as easily. The same goes for developers of these game systems. They are expecting the playground to be neat and organized by the time the kids are done recess. Well, if you don't have the teachers monitoring constantly... it just doesn't work out that way!
I could honestly talk for hours about this subject. There is no clear path as to what is right and what is wrong. There is however, what works and what doesn't. Currently, nothing aside from controlled environment pvp is working as the developers most likely initially intended.
For PvP to be successful in a game and to avoid ganking of lower level players, may I suggest the following:
· Non level based progression. Skill based system is a must.
· Have no way for players to “inspect” other players and identify progress level/class/skill level. Can’t emphasize this enough. If you don’t know the capabilities/skill level of the player harmlessly mining on the horizon, you will be less inclined to attack
· Make equipment matter. Now, while I agree that player ability should play a role in who wins in PvP, armor/weapons should matter. If fighting naked would put a player at a large disadvantage, it will discourage the naked griefers who risk nothing to ruin other players game. For this to work you must:
· Have equipment durability loss based on death. In other words, when you die in PvP (or PvE), your equipment takes a durability hit. Items can be repaired but every time you do, they take a small permanent durability loss. After X number of repairs, item is broken and can no longer be used. This would add an element of risk every time you engage in combat. Would have added benefit of making crafting viable profession and promote player driven economy.
* Would replace full-loot rules that seem to alienate most mmo players while adding a “risk factor/consequences” for play behavior.
· Have player run cities/towns/traders. Force people to invest in the game. Players would engage in more meaningful PvP (and less plain old griefing) if they had an invested interest in-game. “Humm, maybe I shouldn’t be a d-bag to everyone in game or they may burn my village to the ground.” Also, no NPC vendors (apart from some starter equipment). If players are forced to buy equipment from other players, reputations become important.
· One character per account. Reduce the temptation to use alts to grief. (And yes, some people will just multi account but most won’t.)
Anyway, just my opinion and random rambling…
A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true...
The problem doesn't lie with the freedom people get to be assholes to others, (there will always be people like that) but in stuff like cramped or funneled world design, ensuring that the people who want to avoid conflict can't and giving those who want to gank others too much of an easy time.
Also I can assure you that the amount of people enjoying roaming around in a gameworld looking for random pvp fun (aka "gankers", "griefers", "pk' ers" or "basement dwelling no-lifers" as they are often called by their victims) is huge and shouldn't be dismissed as just a minority ruining the game for others.
It's a "cancer" which pays monthly fees just the same and they do bring a lot of life and excitement to a game. Inspiring their victims to get their friends together and get back on them: all around good times ensuing, to give an example.
Also the danger of unexpected player conflict makes for much more excitement in going about your daily chores. Gameworlds with the only threat being predictable npc a.i. are boring and stale fast in my personal experience.
So yeah, it comes down to avoiding stuff like having very clear chokepoints and hotspots where gankers are guaranteed a high amount of easy kills: make them look, search and work hard for those and all is fine. World design and the governing mechanics are crucial to get the balance right.
*points as EVE to give an example of a sandbox gameworld where pvp-fan and pvp-averse crowds can coexist with (reasonably) safe areas as well as extensive free for all parts (even though complete safety is never guaranteed like it shouldn't)*
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.- -And on the 8th day, man created God.-
lol... I don't think you should consider players absolute scum... Just that you should prepare for the worst, and know that there will always be people who want to ruin other people's experience, or people who want to destroy your game or community or whatever. It's definitely important when developing an online game to make sure that you design for the worst case scenario. This is also good when thinking about cheaters and ways players will try to exploit the game.
Then for a town murder you lose xp/skills if caught (high% chance)
I'm guessing that by "towns" you really mean safe zones that will be relatively large and have monsters to hunt etc. is this correct?
If so, then this is fairly similar to what UO had after the statloss patch. They made it so if a "red" died they lost some stats or skills (can't remember which one). This patch did do a lot to curtail PKing, but maybe not enough.
It actually did too much - it effectively killed PVP. That's why they removed it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
devs think of their players as walking wallets, and thats not gonna change...
about the topic at hand, the solution is fairly easy. get away with the idea of multiple chars.
if all the chars in your account shared the same "karma" or "reputation", and people found themselves attacked by guards or suffering from stat loss even on newly created chars, the majority of the problem would go away.
likewise, someone helping a red player (giving/trading him items or partying with him) also shares his reputation and ends up having his same problems. this solves normal players helping their murderous friends, or multiple accounts.
people COULD be jerks if they have fun that way. but the consecuences of their behaviour would haunt them forever, so they better be sure they really want to play the whole game that way.
One toon per account would help a lot, very few people like paying for 2 accounts, they are forced to either live as a red or have friends to help them out, this way half the wannabe hardcore PvPers would think twice before comitting a murder or two.
Sure this will not fix the issue but it will weed out the wannabe hardcore PvPers, the onle ones who are left are the one who accept the ruleset and play as a red which i think is fine.
The problem can simply be summed up that gamers are mostly bad people when not restricted. It may not never be the majority, but as usual in human affairs, a handful can do tons of damage.
Developers just need to make up their minds if their games are PVP first, sandbox second or sandbox first and PvP second.
You can't have it both ways and be successful. Besides FFA pvp'ers In my experience, don't really care what game they are PvP'ing in be it a themepark or a sandbox. They just want to fight other gamers, with little to no limitations. That's the draw. Everything else, like building and creating is secondary. Not to say PvP'ers can't enjoy both but I have yet to meet a gamer who refused to play a PvP oriented game unless it was a sandbox.
Take FFA pvp out of sandbox games completely. It doesn't need to be there. FFA has a place and an audience. I'm quite sure it doesn't need to be in a sandbox game.
Originally posted by Sagasaint devs think of their players as walking wallets, and thats not gonna change...
about the topic at hand, the solution is fairly easy. get away with the idea of multiple chars.
if all the chars in your account shared the same "karma" or "reputation", and people found themselves attacked by guards or suffering from stat loss even on newly created chars, the majority of the problem would go away.
likewise, someone helping a red player (giving/trading him items or partying with him) also shares his reputation and ends up having his same problems. this solves normal players helping their murderous friends, or multiple accounts.
people COULD be jerks if they have fun that way. but the consecuences of their behaviour would haunt them forever, so they better be sure they really want to play the whole game that way.
I kind of like the idea of karma or penalties being account wide. You can switch identities, but you can't switch your karma. It would make it especially hard for low level characters. It would still allow for people to roll alts.
I think it would be interesting for a game to somehow allow 'evil' play. The problem is that evil play being fun for one player is usually a bad experience for several other players.
If you made allowances for established group rivalries I think it could work. i.e. Kill stealing from a person in a guild you are at 'war' with or who is in an opposing faction would not get you any bad karma points. Taking the loot from the kill of a person who you aren't at 'war' with result in bad karma points. Unless the loot was abandoned (the player walked more than 20 yards away).
You'd also need a system where you could work off the bad karma. I'm not sure what balances out stealing loot and killing people. Perhaps you pay blood money to the person through an NPC system. The system would of course collect a % of it, but the person got killed or lost their loot would get money.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I did notice something about this thread and its posts. Most all of the posts were about the pk/ganker/griefers. What about the victims? They are players who, if hit enough will just drop the game and go somewhere else. Shouldn't have played in the first place? Should have known what you were getting into? Just how big of a crowd (player base) of homicidal killers do you think are out there? Companies HAVE to think of the basic numbers of players they can get to buy/pay for their game. Their jobs and corporate existance depends on that factor. FFA PVP players get tired and go on to the next game as quickly as console players. But you simply cannot afford to put out MMOs FFA PVP games on a regular basis and survive in the industry.
Well, it is true that quick in - quick out games of this type can bring in some sales cash, mostly based on marketing lurid hype. What games are like this? Can't say - they are gone. Oh btw: I would never buy/pay for a FFA/PVP game or one that is PVP centric. Just not worth it. I hear ArcheAge will be open world PVP. Forget it then - not happening. I am going for SWTOR, GW2 and TSW. Entertainment for ALL of their players, not just the homicidal.
The problem can simply be summed up that gamers are mostly bad people when not restricted. It may not never be the majority, but as usual in human affairs, a handful can do tons of damage.
Comments
I mean, it's not an absolutely terrible solution and many games actually do it as I'm sure you're aware of.
Still, I think that open PvP zones/regions is a better solution. Why? Because if you're PvP flagged you're obviously looking for a fight, so you're going to just wander around and attack the first PvP flagged person you see who will also be looking for a fight (if he wasn't he woudln't be flagged). So instead of making these guys wander around the PvE area searching for each other for an hour, why not give them a zone to go to and fight?
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
then youve still obstenibly made a tonne of content that many players will just not want to go to...some players simply do not like PvP at all. both player styles should be allowed...not watered down
Makes sense. Thanks!
mildish
? Didn't I specifically say "severe" murder punishment. The example I gave was losing 3 weeks worth of stats / skills / levels. I wouldn't call this mildish.
It's basically an attempt to make the game world more "realistic" but still have some measure of ganker protection. I do kind of like the danger of having to worry about murderers, but I feel like the penalty for murder is always too mild so it doesn't really deter gankers and the game turns into a gankfest.
Also, I don't really consider "ganker" to be a valid playstyle. That's like saying a valid playstyle of Monopoly is to kick all the pieces over.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
why not consider ganker a valid playstyle? cuz they are jerks? so? the games that let gankers ruined them are poorly made, its not the fault of the paying customers who like to kill other players, than the structure of the game fails to accomidate the victim.
again, with the 3 week stat penalty. makes no sense, and wont appeal to anyone, and therefore wont attract those players, and therefore the game might as well just not have pvp.
Gangksters cost companies money by driving off paying subscribers who are not keen on the experiance. And those types of players are far less interested in just fighting amongst themselves: They want to cause trouble to someone who doesn't like it.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
I think we may be arguing over our interpretations of the word ganker. I'm basically using ganker to mean someone that wanders around killing unsuspecting newbies or weakened players for fun and profit. Basically a griefer.
I don't consider this a valid playstyle because they are essentially bullies. They have fun by causing misery. I mean, you can say it is a playstyle which I can't really dispute, but it's not one that I think developers should support.
The harsh murder penalty system isn't meant to attract gankers...it's meant to keep them away or deter that activity. The idea is to increase the immersion factor of the game by not putting up invisible walls. For example, in most games, you CANNOT kill another player, there is an invisible wall there. It makes the game feel like less of a world and more of a game, it's less immersive.
If instead, you COULD kill players, but there are harsh consequences to do so, it just feels more immersive. And even though killing would not be at all common, it would still happen, but only rarely.
I just like having the most freedom of choice as possible.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Wolves prey on sheep
Eventually wolves kill all the sheep
Wolves turn on each other
Game dies due to unsustainable population.
I don't think they need to go to that extreme. But they do need to realize it only takes a relatively small number of asshats to ruin off a large number of players.
If someone's first experience in a game is getting owned repeatedly by someone they have no chance of killing, then that player is going to come to a few conclusions. 1) The game most be very boring at higher levels. 2) The community sucks. 4) Their time is better spent pursuing other interest.
The real problem lies in the cut and dry systems that have been implemented in the past. There has been little to no improvement on pvp risks, rewards, and penalties.
Thinking outside the box...
Every pvp encounter is different. This is of course the main reason so many of us love to do it. Why shouldn't every encounter's risks, rewards, and penalties also act accordingly.
Take Jack, a typical red player out looking for a target. He stumbles across billy. Billy's time in game is pretty much the opposite of jack's. He spends his time being an upstanding citizen in the game world. His standing could be determined by many factors (in-game player relations determined by player to player rating, npc relations determined by deeds completed, factional standings with not only combat game elements but also trade/craft/etc... and so on). Jack, being his typical self, decides to slaughter and loot billy just because, well, he can. What Jack didn't realize is that billy is practically royalty in his corner of the world. Jack must now suffer the consequences of Billy's npc wraith.
NPC wraith? What...?
Well, yeah... Jack just can't go around killing everything and everyone he so damn pleases. Some of his victims have friends, family, and others that care for them. Billy may also be a vital assett to a trade organization or other such industry. Maybe the organization he works for is not so pleased as well. So, what do they do? How do they do it? And, at what cost?
Here's where the developers fill in the blanks... The possibilities of having a system controlled by player actions could be endless.
NPCs doing the hunting/slaughtering
NPCs burning down a player's house and running them out of the area.
NPCs forcing fines.
NPCs forcing imprisonment.
Those aren't even examples but simple suggestions of something to work with. The current systems aren't systems. They are like those gates you setup for a puppy to keep it out of a specific area. Eventually, it's going to grow old enough and knowledgable enough to get over it or push right through it with nothing on the other side to stop it. Developers need that something on the other side to stop it part. Actions have consequences.... consequences are NEVER linear!
Developers can't just say outright, "You can't do this or go here anymore." We all know how long that lasts. it's like getting an IP ban from some network.... it's impossibly stupid to think that something like it will last. A minute later that same person will be back under a different IP going through someone else's network. What now? Ban someone else's network as well? And the downward spiral continues. This would be the number one reason for networks having personal information, email activation, etc. You can be a punk and get banned but don't expect to bounce right back from it as easily. The same goes for developers of these game systems. They are expecting the playground to be neat and organized by the time the kids are done recess. Well, if you don't have the teachers monitoring constantly... it just doesn't work out that way!
I could honestly talk for hours about this subject. There is no clear path as to what is right and what is wrong. There is however, what works and what doesn't. Currently, nothing aside from controlled environment pvp is working as the developers most likely initially intended.
For PvP to be successful in a game and to avoid ganking of lower level players, may I suggest the following:
· Non level based progression. Skill based system is a must.
· Have no way for players to “inspect” other players and identify progress level/class/skill level. Can’t emphasize this enough. If you don’t know the capabilities/skill level of the player harmlessly mining on the horizon, you will be less inclined to attack
· Make equipment matter. Now, while I agree that player ability should play a role in who wins in PvP, armor/weapons should matter. If fighting naked would put a player at a large disadvantage, it will discourage the naked griefers who risk nothing to ruin other players game. For this to work you must:
· Have equipment durability loss based on death. In other words, when you die in PvP (or PvE), your equipment takes a durability hit. Items can be repaired but every time you do, they take a small permanent durability loss. After X number of repairs, item is broken and can no longer be used. This would add an element of risk every time you engage in combat. Would have added benefit of making crafting viable profession and promote player driven economy.
* Would replace full-loot rules that seem to alienate most mmo players while adding a “risk factor/consequences” for play behavior.
· Have player run cities/towns/traders. Force people to invest in the game. Players would engage in more meaningful PvP (and less plain old griefing) if they had an invested interest in-game. “Humm, maybe I shouldn’t be a d-bag to everyone in game or they may burn my village to the ground.” Also, no NPC vendors (apart from some starter equipment). If players are forced to buy equipment from other players, reputations become important.
· One character per account. Reduce the temptation to use alts to grief. (And yes, some people will just multi account but most won’t.)
Anyway, just my opinion and random rambling…
A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true...
A carebox game you say?
*shivers*
A slightly different point of view:
The problem doesn't lie with the freedom people get to be assholes to others, (there will always be people like that) but in stuff like cramped or funneled world design, ensuring that the people who want to avoid conflict can't and giving those who want to gank others too much of an easy time.
Also I can assure you that the amount of people enjoying roaming around in a gameworld looking for random pvp fun (aka "gankers", "griefers", "pk' ers" or "basement dwelling no-lifers" as they are often called by their victims) is huge and shouldn't be dismissed as just a minority ruining the game for others.
It's a "cancer" which pays monthly fees just the same and they do bring a lot of life and excitement to a game. Inspiring their victims to get their friends together and get back on them: all around good times ensuing, to give an example.
Also the danger of unexpected player conflict makes for much more excitement in going about your daily chores. Gameworlds with the only threat being predictable npc a.i. are boring and stale fast in my personal experience.
So yeah, it comes down to avoiding stuff like having very clear chokepoints and hotspots where gankers are guaranteed a high amount of easy kills: make them look, search and work hard for those and all is fine. World design and the governing mechanics are crucial to get the balance right.
*points as EVE to give an example of a sandbox gameworld where pvp-fan and pvp-averse crowds can coexist with (reasonably) safe areas as well as extensive free for all parts (even though complete safety is never guaranteed like it shouldn't)*
My brand new bloggity blog.
How about this:
If someone sees you gank another player, they can run to the guards and report you for murdering the person?
Eh?
Me too.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.-
-And on the 8th day, man created God.-
it gets much easier after your first murder.
Have a sense of humor, no need to get ALL MODDY !
A Simpson's quote shouldn't be worth a warning. You are lucky anyone is bothering to read this rag.
lol... I don't think you should consider players absolute scum... Just that you should prepare for the worst, and know that there will always be people who want to ruin other people's experience, or people who want to destroy your game or community or whatever. It's definitely important when developing an online game to make sure that you design for the worst case scenario. This is also good when thinking about cheaters and ways players will try to exploit the game.
Thrones Online - Current Online Tactical RPG in development
It actually did too much - it effectively killed PVP. That's why they removed it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
devs think of their players as walking wallets, and thats not gonna change...
about the topic at hand, the solution is fairly easy. get away with the idea of multiple chars.
if all the chars in your account shared the same "karma" or "reputation", and people found themselves attacked by guards or suffering from stat loss even on newly created chars, the majority of the problem would go away.
likewise, someone helping a red player (giving/trading him items or partying with him) also shares his reputation and ends up having his same problems. this solves normal players helping their murderous friends, or multiple accounts.
people COULD be jerks if they have fun that way. but the consecuences of their behaviour would haunt them forever, so they better be sure they really want to play the whole game that way.
One toon per account would help a lot, very few people like paying for 2 accounts, they are forced to either live as a red or have friends to help them out, this way half the wannabe hardcore PvPers would think twice before comitting a murder or two.
Sure this will not fix the issue but it will weed out the wannabe hardcore PvPers, the onle ones who are left are the one who accept the ruleset and play as a red which i think is fine.
If it's not broken, you are not innovating.
The problem can simply be summed up that gamers are mostly bad people when not restricted. It may not never be the majority, but as usual in human affairs, a handful can do tons of damage.
Which reminds me:
http://images.mmorpg.com/images/galleries/formatted/342011/fbecf6b9-fb4d-4612-9ff8-7f265911bc8d.jpg
http://images.mmorpg.com/images/galleries/formatted/342011/72f9123d-4ac2-4d40-be64-ff8e9b304ec6.jpg
Pics were too big to enter, kinda. ^^
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
IMO, if players can grief, that is the fault of the developers.
Let's take a simple example, kill stealing.
If you don't want a player to be able to "steal" the loot from another player, then why would you put that feature in the game?
It's poor design to have game features where you simply tell players what they are not allowed to do, and then the game design allows them to do it.
Don't click on the loot after someone else kills a mob and take!
Why not?
If I'm not supposed to do that, then why did you put it in the game dumb ass?
It's not like that ability magically appeared. The developers had to put it there.
Developers just need to make up their minds if their games are PVP first, sandbox second or sandbox first and PvP second.
You can't have it both ways and be successful. Besides FFA pvp'ers In my experience, don't really care what game they are PvP'ing in be it a themepark or a sandbox. They just want to fight other gamers, with little to no limitations. That's the draw. Everything else, like building and creating is secondary. Not to say PvP'ers can't enjoy both but I have yet to meet a gamer who refused to play a PvP oriented game unless it was a sandbox.
Take FFA pvp out of sandbox games completely. It doesn't need to be there. FFA has a place and an audience. I'm quite sure it doesn't need to be in a sandbox game.
I kind of like the idea of karma or penalties being account wide. You can switch identities, but you can't switch your karma. It would make it especially hard for low level characters. It would still allow for people to roll alts.
I think it would be interesting for a game to somehow allow 'evil' play. The problem is that evil play being fun for one player is usually a bad experience for several other players.
If you made allowances for established group rivalries I think it could work. i.e. Kill stealing from a person in a guild you are at 'war' with or who is in an opposing faction would not get you any bad karma points. Taking the loot from the kill of a person who you aren't at 'war' with result in bad karma points. Unless the loot was abandoned (the player walked more than 20 yards away).
You'd also need a system where you could work off the bad karma. I'm not sure what balances out stealing loot and killing people. Perhaps you pay blood money to the person through an NPC system. The system would of course collect a % of it, but the person got killed or lost their loot would get money.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I did notice something about this thread and its posts. Most all of the posts were about the pk/ganker/griefers. What about the victims? They are players who, if hit enough will just drop the game and go somewhere else. Shouldn't have played in the first place? Should have known what you were getting into? Just how big of a crowd (player base) of homicidal killers do you think are out there? Companies HAVE to think of the basic numbers of players they can get to buy/pay for their game. Their jobs and corporate existance depends on that factor. FFA PVP players get tired and go on to the next game as quickly as console players. But you simply cannot afford to put out MMOs FFA PVP games on a regular basis and survive in the industry.
Well, it is true that quick in - quick out games of this type can bring in some sales cash, mostly based on marketing lurid hype. What games are like this? Can't say - they are gone. Oh btw: I would never buy/pay for a FFA/PVP game or one that is PVP centric. Just not worth it. I hear ArcheAge will be open world PVP. Forget it then - not happening. I am going for SWTOR, GW2 and TSW. Entertainment for ALL of their players, not just the homicidal.
hehe those pics are great, is there a link to all the pics so i can look at em all? yea grind in mmos sucks and so does afk macroing MO for the win.
there are 2 types of mmo, imitators and innovaters.