It WOULD be possible to create a game with open world PvP that actually works - I've written blogs on it too.
But the PK's would HATE it because you HAVE to make the game harder and more difficult on the "rule breaker" than you do for the "rule followers."
Stop coddling the PK's and giving them so many "outs" - make it actually a difficult play style and it could work.
I wonder if making a red character eligible for permadeath might be enough of a disincentive?
One problem this thread suffers from is a lack of agreement on what ganking is, means different things to different people.
Some people think it applies when the many kill the one. Others feel it applies when a much higher level player attacks a much lower (less powerful) characters. Still others feel it means attacking someone who is otherwise distracted in a PVE activity such as killing NPC's.
No one agreed up on answer therefore designing solutions is a challenge. See, from my view, you can't gank people in a game like EVE, all's fair in EVE and war.
Even when the many roll the few, its all just part of the combat model IMO, and smart business besides.
But that's just me, and not really at all what you are talking about, which was more around some of my other examples of ganking.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
It is possible. But there has to be real consequences for player killing. Most games that have open world PvP either have heavy handed restrictions or end up as gank fests.
Something like an outlaw system, where if you kill too many players you become exiled from the main cities and hostile to any city guards, forced to live with no amenities. Able to be killed by other players with no penalty to them (and full loot rights). Also if they make it so the only way to return to a law abiding citizen is to hunt down other exiles and collect bounties.
Killing someone for no reason shouldnt be encouraged in games, there is a penalty in real life, and games should imitate that, otherwise people will act like dicks, simply because they can. I mean yeah, killing someone you meet is always an option, but there should be serious consequences to such actions.
Some would argue that the penatly is incurring the wrath of an opposing alliance. I mean "World War I" right?
I still maintain that ffa pvp is absolutely never an issue if the people who understand and want ffa pvp in its current incarnation are playing.
It's very difficult to lend credence to people who have no business playing an ffa pvp game and yet they play it and complain.
I don't mean to sound harsh nor do I mean to sound rude but why are people playing games that have rulesets that they don't like?
if i don't like tackle football I don't play tackle football.
I don't go around joining a game and then start complaining that i'm being tackled.
You have a good point, but there are a couple things to consider:
1) What is the effect on the player how is killed? Is it like WoW where they just die and the only penalty to them is a corpse run? Is it like classic UO where their whole body and everything they were carrying can be looted? Is it somewhere in between?
The reason I bring this up is because the full blow open PvP could be somewhat successful if the penalties for being killed are not too substantial.
However, going back to a game like UO where dying resulted in losing everything and it's just too severe. The problem is you're not going to find enough people willing to play that kind of game, at least not to make it profitable for a AAA developer. You may get another indie company making it and it may have people playing, but it would never be a huge hit.
To get beyond the fringe, fanatical PvPers and make things as mainstream as possible to attract a large playerbase, in order to have open world PvP there has to be some bounderies and severe consequences for the PvPers.
I still maintain that ffa pvp is absolutely never an issue if the people who understand and want ffa pvp in its current incarnation are playing.
It's very difficult to lend credence to people who have no business playing an ffa pvp game and yet they play it and complain.
I don't mean to sound harsh nor do I mean to sound rude but why are people playing games that have rulesets that they don't like?
Agreed. All that Creslin spells out in the first post—a world where mighty heroes would rise to defeat villians, etc.—is self contradictory. It's asking for a world where people have the freedom to engage in murders and villainy or become heroes and stop them, while also wanting built-in controls to stop people from unacceptable forms of villainy. The very definition of having one's cake and eating it too.
If you don't want ganking and corpse camping, then you don't really want open world PvP.
You have a good point, but there are a couple things to consider:
1) What is the effect on the player how is killed? Is it like WoW where they just die and the only penalty to them is a corpse run? Is it like classic UO where their whole body and everything they were carrying can be looted? Is it somewhere in between?
The reason I bring this up is because the full blow open PvP could be somewhat successful if the penalties for being killed are not too substantial.
However, going back to a game like UO where dying resulted in losing everything and it's just too severe. The problem is you're not going to find enough people willing to play that kind of game, at least not to make it profitable for a AAA developer. You may get another indie company making it and it may have people playing, but it would never be a huge hit.
To get beyond the fringe, fanatical PvPers and make things as mainstream as possible to attract a large playerbase, in order to have open world PvP there has to be some bounderies and severe consequences for the PvPers.
well, a few thoughts...
i"m not sure it should be mainstream. I realize that some might say that more money and effort would make more ffa pvp games available but I wonder if these games really are mainstream?
And if they need changes in order to make them more mainstream then are those changes really making them somethign they they were never meant to be? Some argue that WoW helped make mmo's more mainstream. Yet there is a contingent of players who do not like the changes that WoW brought to the genre and argue that because mmo's have become mainstream there is very little development in features that made the genre attractive to them.
Also, look at mainstream entertainment. Mainstream restaurants. Though there is of course a place for this one might point out that mainstream "anything" is never really thought of as "great".
Maybe ffa pvp is what it is.
My first mmo was lineage 2. That was a reasonably hardcore experience. I had no intention of doing anything but trying it for a week. I read up on every little detail before I tried it. I knew I would be pk'ed, that if I was red I'd drop things, if I was killed by mobs I'd drop things and that there was a huge grind and that things were extremely expensive.
I did my research and had no surprises. And i ended up loving it and playing for over 4 1/2 years.
This is not to say that there shouldn't be mainstream games with ffa pvp. I just wonder if the creation of such a thing is really just creating something wholely different.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
The only real problem I see with an open world/ffa pvp environment is time. I mean you have a community but if someone gets gank you dont have a group of players rushing to aid. Due to various reasons. Such as distance of travel or harvesting or farming whatever. The time factor seems to the biggest issue. How many people want to stop what they are doing in game and make gankers pkers suffer. Most people play games within a limitted time frame and would rather not put the effort to stop ganking or pking from happening. TIME!!!!!
Just look at Lineage 2, played it for about 4 years, and there was little to no ganking on that game.
Why?
Well, for startes, your name would turn red and you could drop gear after dying.
Secondly, you could piss an entire clan, even an alliance, and by doing that, you could get your guild into big trouble, politics was the most important thing in that game.
Casual themparks without any consequences shouldn't have open world PVP, period, when there is no consequence for ganking, everyone can be an asshole all the time.
But it's sad to see people on this forum saying things like "if you want open world pvp you are a ganker", it's clear you never played a good MMO with open world pvp sweetheart...
It WOULD be possible to create a game with open world PvP that actually works - I've written blogs on it too.
But the PK's would HATE it because you HAVE to make the game harder and more difficult on the "rule breaker" than you do for the "rule followers."
Stop coddling the PK's and giving them so many "outs" - make it actually a difficult play style and it could work.
I wonder if making a red character eligible for permadeath might be enough of a disincentive?
One problem this thread suffers from is a lack of agreement on what ganking is, means different things to different people.
Some people think it applies when the many kill the one. Others feel it applies when a much higher level player attacks a much lower (less powerful) characters. Still others feel it means attacking someone who is otherwise distracted in a PVE activity such as killing NPC's.
No one agreed up on answer therefore designing solutions is a challenge. See, from my view, you can't gank people in a game like EVE, all's fair in EVE and war.
Even when the many roll the few, its all just part of the combat model IMO, and smart business besides.
But that's just me, and not really at all what you are talking about, which was more around some of my other examples of ganking.
It is just so easy to have no... let's call it morality in a FFA PvP MMO.
Societies need rules, need morality in order to function. Sure, there can be war - war between two societies or between two ideologies - but FFA PvP in MMO's is always so.. dog eat dog "every man for himself" it's just not realistic.
FFA PvP as it has been in MMOs is like filling a game with nothing but psychopathic murderers.
I still maintain that ffa pvp is absolutely never an issue if the people who understand and want ffa pvp in its current incarnation are playing.
It's very difficult to lend credence to people who have no business playing an ffa pvp game and yet they play it and complain.
I don't mean to sound harsh nor do I mean to sound rude but why are people playing games that have rulesets that they don't like?
Agreed. All that Creslin spells out in the first post—a world where mighty heroes would rise to defeat villians, etc.—is self contradictory. It's asking for a world where people have the freedom to engage in murders and villainy or become heroes and stop them, while also wanting built-in controls to stop people from unacceptable forms of villainy. The very definition of having one's cake and eating it too.
If you don't want ganking and corpse camping, then you don't really want open world PvP.
I didn't believe Creslin was trying to say that GAnking and corpse camping should be removed to have open world PVP, instead I was in the impression that this post and whole thread is on how to control Ganking and Corpse Camping. Because without punishment, you can constantly gank, and corpse camp without any issues, until you got tired or have to go eat. One can die forever and respawn and continue the gank and corpse camp if there is no reason for me to stop.
And really who wants to stop me if i am the ganker, in the whole time I was in AOC, my guildmates just tells me to log into an alt and play that character until they are tired. There was no longer an Guildmates to the rescue, destroy and loot the ganker and camper.
Because there is no longer a need to do so, the GAnker and Corpse camper isn't afraid of dying at the hands of the many, because they can just come back and repeat their process because on that Tuesday they just wanna be the D*ck of the server.
Thats the main reason why FFA pvp can't exist at its current form.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
It WOULD be possible to create a game with open world PvP that actually works - I've written blogs on it too.
But the PK's would HATE it because you HAVE to make the game harder and more difficult on the "rule breaker" than you do for the "rule followers."
Stop coddling the PK's and giving them so many "outs" - make it actually a difficult play style and it could work.
I wonder if making a red character eligible for permadeath might be enough of a disincentive?
One problem this thread suffers from is a lack of agreement on what ganking is, means different things to different people.
Some people think it applies when the many kill the one. Others feel it applies when a much higher level player attacks a much lower (less powerful) characters. Still others feel it means attacking someone who is otherwise distracted in a PVE activity such as killing NPC's.
No one agreed up on answer therefore designing solutions is a challenge. See, from my view, you can't gank people in a game like EVE, all's fair in EVE and war.
Even when the many roll the few, its all just part of the combat model IMO, and smart business besides.
But that's just me, and not really at all what you are talking about, which was more around some of my other examples of ganking.
It is just so easy to have no... let's call it morality in a FFA PvP MMO.
Societies need rules, need morality in order to function. Sure, there can be war - war between two societies or between two ideologies - but FFA PvP in MMO's is always so.. dog eat dog "every man for himself" it's just not realistic.
FFA PvP as it has been in MMOs is like filling a game with nothing but psychopathic murderers.
How is that realistic?
In an virtual world where death has no meaning, there can not be morality.
In reality we only have 1 life, therefore we think twice, and sometimes three times before we do anything.
Therefore, perma death is the only way for a Ganker to think twice before they act.
We are all Murderers, its because we are bound by the rules of death that we don't act on it in reality, but in an virtual environment, I can kill you as many times as i want, and I will never go to jail or get killed.
Ofcourse Religion and Morals taught by our Parents also takes into effect in our decision making process, but the Law of Death is what really makes most of the decisions in real life.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
It is just so easy to have no... let's call it morality in a FFA PvP MMO.
Societies need rules, need morality in order to function. Sure, there can be war - war between two societies or between two ideologies - but FFA PvP in MMO's is always so.. dog eat dog "every man for himself" it's just not realistic.
FFA PvP as it has been in MMOs is like filling a game with nothing but psychopathic murderers.
How is that realistic?
Well, look at the early societies or the wild west in the U.S.
Sure you had areas that had "law" but you also had peopel who went and killed and took what they wanted. People then banded together to protect themselves and to fight outlaws, bandits, etc.
I think that the underlying idea for ffa pvp is that players do the same thing. You could be solo but you also risk the chance of dealing with outlaws. Or, youi can band together and have more people watching your back.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
There are going to be a varied opinions on this, and mine would be that to have something not be a gank fest is to be done several ways:
1. Combat - the combat is done so people have cool downs that can be popped for escaping and evening the battle more by fighting on thier terms, when they decide to fight, The benefit should be, that when a person runs away they give away an objective to another person to compete for open world pvp or questing or crafting... so the aggressor still accomplishes something.
2. Bounty system. Players place bounties on PKers and people hunt them down keeping them away from a certain area of interest.
3. Alignment system of morality. If a person is a negatively aligned to a certain area they will be attacked by everything in the area making it easier for a person to escape a person with a negative alignment.
4. Have open world objectives in seperate areas from questing areas so the focus of pvp or even quests realting to pvp, or crafting relating to pvp happens in open world pvp areas even though there would be areas, or all areas are contested for pvp.
5. Have objectives that fit with a pvp areas - so for questing objects which can be instantly accessed, and for crafting it can be several mechanics such as protecting cargo and getting a cut of the protits and mats, to controlling an area to loot resources and while the area is captured there are defenses allowing crafters to loot. These objectives can be a daily event allowing people to capture at a certain time as well.
6. Multiple respawn areas to allow people to progress to where they want without going back to the same spot to be ganked.
7. Hiring mercenaries, similar to a bounty system, but act as guards. This makes more sense of aligned areas and having guards have special interests to the heros who pay them to protect them.
8. Have exp that is gained from ganking. Why are games so focused on lvling and punishing people who exploit the game to race to end game... if people want to waste thier time and reach end game without having fun, then it is thier loss, but for those who are actively playing the game, then thier time should be rewarded for partaking in something that requires skill and thus offering experience... and that is pvp. Even the person who gets ganked should receive exp. If people want to exploit this to lvl then it is thier loss, and similar to other games, maybe the solution is also to not have a lvling system but a skill system. And doing quests to increase skills or learn new skills completely.
So if people get experience from pvping in the open world, and not just from pvp objectives but just having a duel, then ganking would not be so bad.
Also in sand box MMOs being ganked is terrible due to loss of goods that get looted. So that should be in every game to make it reaslitic and feel dangerous but toned done for games that have rares... and thus a loot from corpse system should be modified in some way that it is punishing for dying but not to the extent it makes people nerd rage and quit.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
It WOULD be possible to create a game with open world PvP that actually works - I've written blogs on it too.
But the PK's would HATE it because you HAVE to make the game harder and more difficult on the "rule breaker" than you do for the "rule followers."
Stop coddling the PK's and giving them so many "outs" - make it actually a difficult play style and it could work.
I wonder if making a red character eligible for permadeath might be enough of a disincentive?
One problem this thread suffers from is a lack of agreement on what ganking is, means different things to different people.
Some people think it applies when the many kill the one. Others feel it applies when a much higher level player attacks a much lower (less powerful) characters. Still others feel it means attacking someone who is otherwise distracted in a PVE activity such as killing NPC's.
No one agreed up on answer therefore designing solutions is a challenge. See, from my view, you can't gank people in a game like EVE, all's fair in EVE and war.
Even when the many roll the few, its all just part of the combat model IMO, and smart business besides.
But that's just me, and not really at all what you are talking about, which was more around some of my other examples of ganking.
It is just so easy to have no... let's call it morality in a FFA PvP MMO.
Societies need rules, need morality in order to function. Sure, there can be war - war between two societies or between two ideologies - but FFA PvP in MMO's is always so.. dog eat dog "every man for himself" it's just not realistic.
FFA PvP as it has been in MMOs is like filling a game with nothing but psychopathic murderers.
How is that realistic?
Let's assume for a second that is true. There are players who want to play that game. Why do you have a problem with it? Nobody is forcing you to participate.
Keep in mind we're talking about a video game where we play as elves with magic swords killing dragons, reality is a long long way away.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
It is just so easy to have no... let's call it morality in a FFA PvP MMO.
Societies need rules, need morality in order to function. Sure, there can be war - war between two societies or between two ideologies - but FFA PvP in MMO's is always so.. dog eat dog "every man for himself" it's just not realistic.
Sure you had areas that had "law" but you also had peopel who went and killed and took what they wanted. People then banded together to protect themselves and to fight outlaws, bandits, etc.
I think that the underlying idea for ffa pvp is that players do the same thing. You could be solo but you also risk the chance of dealing with outlaws. Or, youi can band together and have more people watching your back.
What I am really saying is that in EVERY FFA PvP game in the history of the genre, the bandits become the law and have all the power because the REAL law - the devs - cater exclusively to the PK.
PK's are coddled SO much by the devs in FFA PvP games, while players who try and have some dignity and honor are harrassed and chased away by the community because "they are noobs who can't handle REAL PvP."
No other MMO community chases away it's own players and potential players faster and more readily than the FFA PvP community.
I wonder why that is?
When the only answer is to "find like minded players" to have a chance to fight back, it's really, really hard to do because most of the like minded players LEAVE the game - so you are left with dog eat dog again - you are just forced to pick which dog's side you are on.
9 times out of 10 if someone can kill you / grief you / gank you without penalty - they will.
For every tenth player who won't, there are 9 who will. How are we supposed to band together and fight back and FORCE some honor and respect and sense of purpose to the game?
We can just find another game, and we do. And the sandbox genre doesn't advance and the "dream" of REAL good FFA PvP that isn't just a shit show dies a little more each day.
I truly enjoy open-world PVP. In fact, I played TERA longer than I would have had it not had some flavor of it.
I do think it's possible to have it without ganking, or the overabundance of ganking, but the genre really hasn't found a good way to handle it yet.
It needs to be some sort of reward/punishment system along the lines of marking you as a ganker/murderer/whatever but with more of a punishment to deter the ganking (maybe you lose PVP experience? You are marked as a murderer, so you suffer some financial restitution from the bank vault??)
It is just so easy to have no... let's call it morality in a FFA PvP MMO.
Societies need rules, need morality in order to function. Sure, there can be war - war between two societies or between two ideologies - but FFA PvP in MMO's is always so.. dog eat dog "every man for himself" it's just not realistic.
Sure you had areas that had "law" but you also had peopel who went and killed and took what they wanted. People then banded together to protect themselves and to fight outlaws, bandits, etc.
I think that the underlying idea for ffa pvp is that players do the same thing. You could be solo but you also risk the chance of dealing with outlaws. Or, youi can band together and have more people watching your back.
What I am really saying is that in EVERY FFA PvP game in the history of the genre, the bandits become the law and have all the power because the REAL law - the devs - cater exclusively to the PK.
PK's are coddled SO much by the devs in FFA PvP games, while players who try and have some dignity and honor are harrassed and chased away by the community because "they are noobs who can't handle REAL PvP."
No other MMO community chases away it's own players and potential players faster and more readily than the FFA PvP community.
I wonder why that is?
I don't really buy that but I also don't think it's exactly "wrong".
In lineage 2, besides some infamous pk'ers, there were some pk guilds. What ended up happening, at least wiith my experience on Hindemith server, was that groups would form to take them out whenever they could. In some cases where they would get a castle, the server would rise up and remove them. There were always enemies for these guys.
So to my thinking it was "working as intended".
If no one rises up to challenge these guys then it's the fault of the players. Not everyone who does ffa pvp is a pker. I know I"m not. Though if I don't like a person or group I will pk them. But otherwise I was never interested in killing another player "just because".
The other issue is that there are just bad players. And they are everywhere. Not only in ffa pvp games. Scammers exist in pve games as well. They will lie and trick others in order to take advantage.
And my thought is that they should be known and that the players can deal with them.
Now, having said that, I"m on the fence with pk penalties. I generally like them but can easily see the argument that there is no need for them as players should be banding together and taking them out.
And I will reassert that you can't chase away players who are in agrement with the ffa pvp rules.
What you are saying seems to be that there are players who are not in agreement with the ffa pvp rules and are being chased away. How can you chase someone away from something where they shouldn't ahve been in the first place?
This is the problem wtih the ffa pvp argument.
People claim that there are issues with it but I don't see any issues if you are on board with the ruleset. Again, I'll use myself as an example. If I don't like the ruleset or just don't want to deal with it then I play on another server or go to another game.
In the end there is no one stopping the "honorable" players from froming guilds and taking on pk guilds/bandits, etc.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Originally posted by Creslin321When MMORPGs first became popular with the release of UO...I think that many of us had a dream of how the PvP in the game would work. We thought that PvP would help support the whole ideal of a virtual world. Feuds would be born, mighty heroes would rise to defeat villians, wicked people would methodically plot robberies or murders, while peacekeepers tried to stop them. And every aspect of these scenarios would have created by players...it would have been marvelous.But this isn't really what happened. What happened, was ganking. Many players quickly learned that the benefits of rampant player killing far outweighed the penalties, and since UO was basically just a game, many people had no moral qualms with mass murder. So the strong preyed upon the weak, and I think the dream was killed. Instead of really interesting scenarios playing out, players were just constantly in fear of a "PK" killing them and then mocking them in l33t sp34k while they were essentially minding their own business.And that brings me to the question I would like to pose for discussion. Is it possible to have a true open-world PvP system without ganking? And if so, how could it be accomplished? I don't think we have ever seen an open-world PvP system that really "works" in that it makes the original dream of open-world PvP supporting the virtual world come true. Every open-world PvP system I have seen either devolves into ganking, or is so limited that the open-world PvP system basically boils down to specific areas where people go to kill each other.PvP "zones" are a popular "solution" to the ganking problem, and while they can be fun, they don't really accomplish the goal that I think open-world PvP was originally intended for. So I would like to stay away from people saying that they are the solution.
No this is not what happened in UO, and if you think so, then you got it wrong, forgot what really happened or looked through a distorted glass back then.
Everyone in the UO beta told them their notoriety system was fucked up and they absolutely needed to change it asap, even take it entirely away was better than keep it, all the testers screamed them to do it for good reason, but they didn't listened and they launched the game with this total non sense. The game totally collapsed because of this huge oversight , and trammel was born few years later with a bleeding game because of this very particular aspect.
To explain it fast: There was no way to make the difference between people that was killing others for the fuck of it and people that would kill to defend the hopeless, both had to go red and were tagged as player killers by people like you OP. In fact the only fuckers that kept blue were the "noto killers" (that's how they were called back then; noto stand for notoriety), they were abusing this notoriety system to kill guys without consequences and keep into a virgin state, those stayed blue, were never tagged as "bad guys" when in fact they were the worst species because they were exploiting game mechanism (was taunting and pissing off a a guy to go (grey) and kill him without going red themselves). So the game was tagged like anti social by many people because the only thing people were seeing is a game full of red "player killers", and the blue guys (which was supposed to be good) being the worst assholes of them all. But in fact most player where totally ignorant of the real situation and where just prejudging the whole thing. The fact is, a bunch of those red guys were actually the good guys that were defending the "noobs" from the noto killers, and only a minority were random pking, those also were taken care of anti-pk guilds , but since they were also red, this was just a big mess. Pk, anti-pk, and noto guilds were at war in every damn server, this all went away with Trammel obviously which split the game into pvp and pve, rather than good and bad guys, which obviously the red and blue tag was totally misleading. Sure you had a bunch of normal players that were never involved in all this, but well people just totally misunderstood this and tagged the game as "anti social".
Those things still aren't fixed today, a lot of sandbox use the same system and never actually fixed this crap. The funny part is that in most sandbox today you don't even have anti pk guilds. Those Open pvp games are all about ffa killing, there is no community and defending the noob aspect anymore as it was in Uo, this is all dead and buried. Developer don't even try to make this happen again, as i said they never fixed the blue vs red crap, in fact they put it again at each new open world pvp game as if it was the perfect system.
I still maintain that ffa pvp is absolutely never an issue if the people who understand and want ffa pvp in its current incarnation are playing.
It's very difficult to lend credence to people who have no business playing an ffa pvp game and yet they play it and complain.
I don't mean to sound harsh nor do I mean to sound rude but why are people playing games that have rulesets that they don't like?
Agreed. All that Creslin spells out in the first post—a world where mighty heroes would rise to defeat villians, etc.—is self contradictory. It's asking for a world where people have the freedom to engage in murders and villainy or become heroes and stop them, while also wanting built-in controls to stop people from unacceptable forms of villainy. The very definition of having one's cake and eating it too.
If you don't want ganking and corpse camping, then you don't really want open world PvP.
I didn't believe Creslin was trying to say that GAnking and corpse camping should be removed to have open world PVP, instead I was in the impression that this post and whole thread is on how to control Ganking and Corpse Camping. Because without punishment, you can constantly gank, and corpse camp without any issues, until you got tired or have to go eat. One can die forever and respawn and continue the gank and corpse camp if there is no reason for me to stop.
And really who wants to stop me if i am the ganker, in the whole time I was in AOC, my guildmates just tells me to log into an alt and play that character until they are tired. There was no longer an Guildmates to the rescue, destroy and loot the ganker and camper.
Because there is no longer a need to do so, the GAnker and Corpse camper isn't afraid of dying at the hands of the many, because they can just come back and repeat their process because on that Tuesday they just wanna be the D*ck of the server.
Thats the main reason why FFA pvp can't exist at its current form.
Yes, that is correct.
I was never saying that I didn't want to allow one player to gank another, ever...I'm just saying that it needs to be controlled, WAY more than it is now if the original "dream" is to ever be achieved. Yes, we need villians, but we can't have the world be 60% villianous mass murderers.
Villiany needs to have a much higher price, and be much more difficult than it is now. As it stands now, in almost every FFA PvP game, it is much more profitable to be a ganker than anything else. So it's no surprise that they devolve into gankfests.
What I am really saying is that in EVERY FFA PvP game in the history of the genre, the bandits become the law and have all the power because the REAL law - the devs - cater exclusively to the PK.
I'm going to snip the rest of the conversation and just focus on this statement.
And then tell you that you're dead wrong. In Ultima Online the devs have done nothing BUT create laws and rules and penalties against the bandits.
My friends and I were the "bandits" in this game from the first log in, and for a very short period of time went completely unchecked. Then a group of players banded together to fight us and protect the dungeons that we preyed on. This meant we had to find more allies or a new territory.
So the game world had already provided the tools for players to protect themselves, and then devs took it one step further and added the reputation system. Basically this system penalized player killers with negative karma to the point where they could no longer visit most towns effectively cutting off our bank access, and limiting our access to spend the gold and items we earned through our kills.
That wasn't enough for the devs, however, and they eventually ended up killing the whole open PvP aspect of the game.
So, not only was our bandit group policed by the playerbase, but the devs created 'laws' against our behavior as well.
Originally posted by Creslin321 Yes, that is correct. I was never saying that I didn't want to allow one player to gank another, ever...I'm just saying that it needs to be controlled, WAY more than it is now if the original "dream" is to ever be achieved. Yes, we need villians, but we can't have the world be 60% villianous mass murderers. Villiany needs to have a much higher price, and be much more difficult than it is now. As it stands now, in almost every FFA PvP game, it is much more profitable to be a ganker than anything else. So it's no surprise that they devolve into gankfests.
If you want to control "ganking low" i think Aion had a very nice concept, sure it wasn't very well implemented in the long run but the concept was great, and worked very well at launch imo. They let only very few guys go through portals to the other faction maps level locked, and since the portals were opening only a short time, ganking was very well controlled, you still kept some danger sensation into pve maps. In the beginning of Aion, before twinks appeared, the "ganking low level" aspect was in fact an awsome experience for everyone. You had a lot of people chasing the ganker, and it was great. Unfortunately this didn't lasted for many reasons (twinks, bad level setting on the maps, kisk mechanism).
Again I wanted to Emphasis on the DEATH PENALTY FOR ALL PKers
PVP is Dueling, you can do it anywhere, you can even have events in arenas where DEATH is allowed if you decided to turn it on for extra carnage, but its an agreeable duel.
Ganking is attacking another player without their prior consent, therefore its called PKing, and that should give you the Ultimate punishment, Perma Death aka Hardcore Mode.
Guild vs Guild, you can turn on Hardcore mode or not, for that something extra.
But when against PK guilds, its Perma death for one ( evil villans) , and respawning gods for the Heroes.
I believe all PKer, Gankers, Corpse Campers, and PVPers will agree that this is acceptable, because thats the thrill that PKers live for, thrill of Perma Death of their characters if you are good enough to take me on. And all that much sweeter when they escape.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
Those things still aren't fixed today, a lot of sandbox use the same system and never actually fixed this crap. The funny part is that in most sandbox today you don't even have anti pk guilds. Those Open pvp games are all about ffa killing, there is no community and defending the noob aspect anymore as it was in Uo, this is all dead and buried. Developer don't even try to make this happen again, as i said they never fixed the blue vs red crap, in fact they put it again at each new open world pvp game as if it was the perfect system.
well, how would you suggest they fix it? killing a player is basically creating a pk'ed/pk'er relationship. How do you take into account that one pk'er is avenging someone whereas another pk'er is just killing a player for giggles?
That's one ofthe things I don't like about penalties for pk'ers. If I want to avenge someone or give as good as I got, I then become a pk'er.
Which goes back to the fact that it's hard to make a game discern morality. The only absolute is that one player is killing antother player.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I was never saying that I didn't want to allow one player to gank another, ever...I'm just saying that it needs to be controlled, WAY more than it is now if the original "dream" is to ever be achieved. Yes, we need villians, but we can't have the world be 60% villianous mass murderers.
Villiany needs to have a much higher price, and be much more difficult than it is now. As it stands now, in almost every FFA PvP game, it is much more profitable to be a ganker than anything else. So it's no surprise that they devolve into gankfests.
Honestly, the best implementation I've seen of this (in a fantasy setting) is the murder flag, with hostile NPCs, and a PK jail.
If you wanna PK, it should come at a price. Being flagged (red) should make it so that it's extremely difficult to get into a town, and even if you do manage to get into one, you can't use any of the vendors / banks.
If you get killed while flagged, then you should be sent to a PK jail for a certain amount of time (I believe it was ~15minutes or something like that).
Eve's system isn't bad either, but I'm not sure how well it would work in a fantasy setting.
well, how would you suggest they fix it? killing a player is basically creating a pk'ed/pk'er relationship. How do you take into account that one pk'er is avenging someone whereas another pk'er is just killing a player for giggles?
That's one ofthe things I don't like about penalties for pk'ers. If I want to avenge someone or give as good as I got, I then become a pk'er.
Which goes back to the fact that it's hard to make a game discern morality. The only absolute is that one player is killing antother player.
Don't know that this is impossible to solve. Didn't LIneage 2 discern between PKers and White Knights, such that PKers were flagged red and anyone could retaliate against a red player without penalty?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
I wonder if making a red character eligible for permadeath might be enough of a disincentive?
One problem this thread suffers from is a lack of agreement on what ganking is, means different things to different people.
Some people think it applies when the many kill the one. Others feel it applies when a much higher level player attacks a much lower (less powerful) characters. Still others feel it means attacking someone who is otherwise distracted in a PVE activity such as killing NPC's.
No one agreed up on answer therefore designing solutions is a challenge. See, from my view, you can't gank people in a game like EVE, all's fair in EVE and war.
Even when the many roll the few, its all just part of the combat model IMO, and smart business besides.
But that's just me, and not really at all what you are talking about, which was more around some of my other examples of ganking.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
You have a good point, but there are a couple things to consider:
1) What is the effect on the player how is killed? Is it like WoW where they just die and the only penalty to them is a corpse run? Is it like classic UO where their whole body and everything they were carrying can be looted? Is it somewhere in between?
The reason I bring this up is because the full blow open PvP could be somewhat successful if the penalties for being killed are not too substantial.
However, going back to a game like UO where dying resulted in losing everything and it's just too severe. The problem is you're not going to find enough people willing to play that kind of game, at least not to make it profitable for a AAA developer. You may get another indie company making it and it may have people playing, but it would never be a huge hit.
To get beyond the fringe, fanatical PvPers and make things as mainstream as possible to attract a large playerbase, in order to have open world PvP there has to be some bounderies and severe consequences for the PvPers.
Agreed. All that Creslin spells out in the first post—a world where mighty heroes would rise to defeat villians, etc.—is self contradictory. It's asking for a world where people have the freedom to engage in murders and villainy or become heroes and stop them, while also wanting built-in controls to stop people from unacceptable forms of villainy. The very definition of having one's cake and eating it too.
If you don't want ganking and corpse camping, then you don't really want open world PvP.
well, a few thoughts...
i"m not sure it should be mainstream. I realize that some might say that more money and effort would make more ffa pvp games available but I wonder if these games really are mainstream?
And if they need changes in order to make them more mainstream then are those changes really making them somethign they they were never meant to be? Some argue that WoW helped make mmo's more mainstream. Yet there is a contingent of players who do not like the changes that WoW brought to the genre and argue that because mmo's have become mainstream there is very little development in features that made the genre attractive to them.
Also, look at mainstream entertainment. Mainstream restaurants. Though there is of course a place for this one might point out that mainstream "anything" is never really thought of as "great".
Maybe ffa pvp is what it is.
My first mmo was lineage 2. That was a reasonably hardcore experience. I had no intention of doing anything but trying it for a week. I read up on every little detail before I tried it. I knew I would be pk'ed, that if I was red I'd drop things, if I was killed by mobs I'd drop things and that there was a huge grind and that things were extremely expensive.
I did my research and had no surprises. And i ended up loving it and playing for over 4 1/2 years.
This is not to say that there shouldn't be mainstream games with ffa pvp. I just wonder if the creation of such a thing is really just creating something wholely different.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Simply put, no.
You cannot have a system in place which allows a player to kill who they want where and when they want, and not have ganking.
Of course it's possible.
Just look at Lineage 2, played it for about 4 years, and there was little to no ganking on that game.
Why?
Well, for startes, your name would turn red and you could drop gear after dying.
Secondly, you could piss an entire clan, even an alliance, and by doing that, you could get your guild into big trouble, politics was the most important thing in that game.
Casual themparks without any consequences shouldn't have open world PVP, period, when there is no consequence for ganking, everyone can be an asshole all the time.
But it's sad to see people on this forum saying things like "if you want open world pvp you are a ganker", it's clear you never played a good MMO with open world pvp sweetheart...
It is just so easy to have no... let's call it morality in a FFA PvP MMO.
Societies need rules, need morality in order to function. Sure, there can be war - war between two societies or between two ideologies - but FFA PvP in MMO's is always so.. dog eat dog "every man for himself" it's just not realistic.
FFA PvP as it has been in MMOs is like filling a game with nothing but psychopathic murderers.
How is that realistic?
I didn't believe Creslin was trying to say that GAnking and corpse camping should be removed to have open world PVP, instead I was in the impression that this post and whole thread is on how to control Ganking and Corpse Camping. Because without punishment, you can constantly gank, and corpse camp without any issues, until you got tired or have to go eat. One can die forever and respawn and continue the gank and corpse camp if there is no reason for me to stop.
And really who wants to stop me if i am the ganker, in the whole time I was in AOC, my guildmates just tells me to log into an alt and play that character until they are tired. There was no longer an Guildmates to the rescue, destroy and loot the ganker and camper.
Because there is no longer a need to do so, the GAnker and Corpse camper isn't afraid of dying at the hands of the many, because they can just come back and repeat their process because on that Tuesday they just wanna be the D*ck of the server.
Thats the main reason why FFA pvp can't exist at its current form.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
Whole game is pvp. Therefore no ganking.
In an virtual world where death has no meaning, there can not be morality.
In reality we only have 1 life, therefore we think twice, and sometimes three times before we do anything.
Therefore, perma death is the only way for a Ganker to think twice before they act.
We are all Murderers, its because we are bound by the rules of death that we don't act on it in reality, but in an virtual environment, I can kill you as many times as i want, and I will never go to jail or get killed.
Ofcourse Religion and Morals taught by our Parents also takes into effect in our decision making process, but the Law of Death is what really makes most of the decisions in real life.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
Well, look at the early societies or the wild west in the U.S.
Sure you had areas that had "law" but you also had peopel who went and killed and took what they wanted. People then banded together to protect themselves and to fight outlaws, bandits, etc.
I think that the underlying idea for ffa pvp is that players do the same thing. You could be solo but you also risk the chance of dealing with outlaws. Or, youi can band together and have more people watching your back.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
There are going to be a varied opinions on this, and mine would be that to have something not be a gank fest is to be done several ways:
1. Combat - the combat is done so people have cool downs that can be popped for escaping and evening the battle more by fighting on thier terms, when they decide to fight, The benefit should be, that when a person runs away they give away an objective to another person to compete for open world pvp or questing or crafting... so the aggressor still accomplishes something.
2. Bounty system. Players place bounties on PKers and people hunt them down keeping them away from a certain area of interest.
3. Alignment system of morality. If a person is a negatively aligned to a certain area they will be attacked by everything in the area making it easier for a person to escape a person with a negative alignment.
4. Have open world objectives in seperate areas from questing areas so the focus of pvp or even quests realting to pvp, or crafting relating to pvp happens in open world pvp areas even though there would be areas, or all areas are contested for pvp.
5. Have objectives that fit with a pvp areas - so for questing objects which can be instantly accessed, and for crafting it can be several mechanics such as protecting cargo and getting a cut of the protits and mats, to controlling an area to loot resources and while the area is captured there are defenses allowing crafters to loot. These objectives can be a daily event allowing people to capture at a certain time as well.
6. Multiple respawn areas to allow people to progress to where they want without going back to the same spot to be ganked.
7. Hiring mercenaries, similar to a bounty system, but act as guards. This makes more sense of aligned areas and having guards have special interests to the heros who pay them to protect them.
8. Have exp that is gained from ganking. Why are games so focused on lvling and punishing people who exploit the game to race to end game... if people want to waste thier time and reach end game without having fun, then it is thier loss, but for those who are actively playing the game, then thier time should be rewarded for partaking in something that requires skill and thus offering experience... and that is pvp. Even the person who gets ganked should receive exp. If people want to exploit this to lvl then it is thier loss, and similar to other games, maybe the solution is also to not have a lvling system but a skill system. And doing quests to increase skills or learn new skills completely.
So if people get experience from pvping in the open world, and not just from pvp objectives but just having a duel, then ganking would not be so bad.
Also in sand box MMOs being ganked is terrible due to loss of goods that get looted. So that should be in every game to make it reaslitic and feel dangerous but toned done for games that have rares... and thus a loot from corpse system should be modified in some way that it is punishing for dying but not to the extent it makes people nerd rage and quit.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
Let's assume for a second that is true. There are players who want to play that game. Why do you have a problem with it? Nobody is forcing you to participate.
Keep in mind we're talking about a video game where we play as elves with magic swords killing dragons, reality is a long long way away.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
What I am really saying is that in EVERY FFA PvP game in the history of the genre, the bandits become the law and have all the power because the REAL law - the devs - cater exclusively to the PK.
PK's are coddled SO much by the devs in FFA PvP games, while players who try and have some dignity and honor are harrassed and chased away by the community because "they are noobs who can't handle REAL PvP."
No other MMO community chases away it's own players and potential players faster and more readily than the FFA PvP community.
I wonder why that is?
When the only answer is to "find like minded players" to have a chance to fight back, it's really, really hard to do because most of the like minded players LEAVE the game - so you are left with dog eat dog again - you are just forced to pick which dog's side you are on.
9 times out of 10 if someone can kill you / grief you / gank you without penalty - they will.
For every tenth player who won't, there are 9 who will. How are we supposed to band together and fight back and FORCE some honor and respect and sense of purpose to the game?
We can just find another game, and we do. And the sandbox genre doesn't advance and the "dream" of REAL good FFA PvP that isn't just a shit show dies a little more each day.
I truly enjoy open-world PVP. In fact, I played TERA longer than I would have had it not had some flavor of it.
I do think it's possible to have it without ganking, or the overabundance of ganking, but the genre really hasn't found a good way to handle it yet.
It needs to be some sort of reward/punishment system along the lines of marking you as a ganker/murderer/whatever but with more of a punishment to deter the ganking (maybe you lose PVP experience? You are marked as a murderer, so you suffer some financial restitution from the bank vault??)
I don't really buy that but I also don't think it's exactly "wrong".
In lineage 2, besides some infamous pk'ers, there were some pk guilds. What ended up happening, at least wiith my experience on Hindemith server, was that groups would form to take them out whenever they could. In some cases where they would get a castle, the server would rise up and remove them. There were always enemies for these guys.
So to my thinking it was "working as intended".
If no one rises up to challenge these guys then it's the fault of the players. Not everyone who does ffa pvp is a pker. I know I"m not. Though if I don't like a person or group I will pk them. But otherwise I was never interested in killing another player "just because".
The other issue is that there are just bad players. And they are everywhere. Not only in ffa pvp games. Scammers exist in pve games as well. They will lie and trick others in order to take advantage.
And my thought is that they should be known and that the players can deal with them.
Now, having said that, I"m on the fence with pk penalties. I generally like them but can easily see the argument that there is no need for them as players should be banding together and taking them out.
And I will reassert that you can't chase away players who are in agrement with the ffa pvp rules.
What you are saying seems to be that there are players who are not in agreement with the ffa pvp rules and are being chased away. How can you chase someone away from something where they shouldn't ahve been in the first place?
This is the problem wtih the ffa pvp argument.
People claim that there are issues with it but I don't see any issues if you are on board with the ruleset. Again, I'll use myself as an example. If I don't like the ruleset or just don't want to deal with it then I play on another server or go to another game.
In the end there is no one stopping the "honorable" players from froming guilds and taking on pk guilds/bandits, etc.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
No this is not what happened in UO, and if you think so, then you got it wrong, forgot what really happened or looked through a distorted glass back then.
Everyone in the UO beta told them their notoriety system was fucked up and they absolutely needed to change it asap, even take it entirely away was better than keep it, all the testers screamed them to do it for good reason, but they didn't listened and they launched the game with this total non sense. The game totally collapsed because of this huge oversight , and trammel was born few years later with a bleeding game because of this very particular aspect.
To explain it fast: There was no way to make the difference between people that was killing others for the fuck of it and people that would kill to defend the hopeless, both had to go red and were tagged as player killers by people like you OP. In fact the only fuckers that kept blue were the "noto killers" (that's how they were called back then; noto stand for notoriety), they were abusing this notoriety system to kill guys without consequences and keep into a virgin state, those stayed blue, were never tagged as "bad guys" when in fact they were the worst species because they were exploiting game mechanism (was taunting and pissing off a a guy to go (grey) and kill him without going red themselves). So the game was tagged like anti social by many people because the only thing people were seeing is a game full of red "player killers", and the blue guys (which was supposed to be good) being the worst assholes of them all. But in fact most player where totally ignorant of the real situation and where just prejudging the whole thing. The fact is, a bunch of those red guys were actually the good guys that were defending the "noobs" from the noto killers, and only a minority were random pking, those also were taken care of anti-pk guilds , but since they were also red, this was just a big mess. Pk, anti-pk, and noto guilds were at war in every damn server, this all went away with Trammel obviously which split the game into pvp and pve, rather than good and bad guys, which obviously the red and blue tag was totally misleading. Sure you had a bunch of normal players that were never involved in all this, but well people just totally misunderstood this and tagged the game as "anti social".
Those things still aren't fixed today, a lot of sandbox use the same system and never actually fixed this crap. The funny part is that in most sandbox today you don't even have anti pk guilds. Those Open pvp games are all about ffa killing, there is no community and defending the noob aspect anymore as it was in Uo, this is all dead and buried. Developer don't even try to make this happen again, as i said they never fixed the blue vs red crap, in fact they put it again at each new open world pvp game as if it was the perfect system.
Yes, that is correct.
I was never saying that I didn't want to allow one player to gank another, ever...I'm just saying that it needs to be controlled, WAY more than it is now if the original "dream" is to ever be achieved. Yes, we need villians, but we can't have the world be 60% villianous mass murderers.
Villiany needs to have a much higher price, and be much more difficult than it is now. As it stands now, in almost every FFA PvP game, it is much more profitable to be a ganker than anything else. So it's no surprise that they devolve into gankfests.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I'm going to snip the rest of the conversation and just focus on this statement.
And then tell you that you're dead wrong. In Ultima Online the devs have done nothing BUT create laws and rules and penalties against the bandits.
My friends and I were the "bandits" in this game from the first log in, and for a very short period of time went completely unchecked. Then a group of players banded together to fight us and protect the dungeons that we preyed on. This meant we had to find more allies or a new territory.
So the game world had already provided the tools for players to protect themselves, and then devs took it one step further and added the reputation system. Basically this system penalized player killers with negative karma to the point where they could no longer visit most towns effectively cutting off our bank access, and limiting our access to spend the gold and items we earned through our kills.
That wasn't enough for the devs, however, and they eventually ended up killing the whole open PvP aspect of the game.
So, not only was our bandit group policed by the playerbase, but the devs created 'laws' against our behavior as well.
If you want to control "ganking low" i think Aion had a very nice concept, sure it wasn't very well implemented in the long run but the concept was great, and worked very well at launch imo. They let only very few guys go through portals to the other faction maps level locked, and since the portals were opening only a short time, ganking was very well controlled, you still kept some danger sensation into pve maps. In the beginning of Aion, before twinks appeared, the "ganking low level" aspect was in fact an awsome experience for everyone. You had a lot of people chasing the ganker, and it was great. Unfortunately this didn't lasted for many reasons (twinks, bad level setting on the maps, kisk mechanism).
Again I wanted to Emphasis on the DEATH PENALTY FOR ALL PKers
PVP is Dueling, you can do it anywhere, you can even have events in arenas where DEATH is allowed if you decided to turn it on for extra carnage, but its an agreeable duel.
Ganking is attacking another player without their prior consent, therefore its called PKing, and that should give you the Ultimate punishment, Perma Death aka Hardcore Mode.
Guild vs Guild, you can turn on Hardcore mode or not, for that something extra.
But when against PK guilds, its Perma death for one ( evil villans) , and respawning gods for the Heroes.
I believe all PKer, Gankers, Corpse Campers, and PVPers will agree that this is acceptable, because thats the thrill that PKers live for, thrill of Perma Death of their characters if you are good enough to take me on. And all that much sweeter when they escape.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
well, how would you suggest they fix it? killing a player is basically creating a pk'ed/pk'er relationship. How do you take into account that one pk'er is avenging someone whereas another pk'er is just killing a player for giggles?
That's one ofthe things I don't like about penalties for pk'ers. If I want to avenge someone or give as good as I got, I then become a pk'er.
Which goes back to the fact that it's hard to make a game discern morality. The only absolute is that one player is killing antother player.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Honestly, the best implementation I've seen of this (in a fantasy setting) is the murder flag, with hostile NPCs, and a PK jail.
If you wanna PK, it should come at a price. Being flagged (red) should make it so that it's extremely difficult to get into a town, and even if you do manage to get into one, you can't use any of the vendors / banks.
If you get killed while flagged, then you should be sent to a PK jail for a certain amount of time (I believe it was ~15minutes or something like that).
Eve's system isn't bad either, but I'm not sure how well it would work in a fantasy setting.
Don't know that this is impossible to solve. Didn't LIneage 2 discern between PKers and White Knights, such that PKers were flagged red and anyone could retaliate against a red player without penalty?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver