Consequences vs. restrictions

Gouki4u · March 2006

Currently most MMOs have a variety of restrictions in place to keep player killing from being the rampant problem it was back in the early days of UO. While nobody misses being ganked some of us do think it cheapens the experience of the virtual world. After all cut throats, pirates, and bandits of every kind fit in with the kind of adventures most MMOs try to offer. Why not let the players in on some of that fun?

The answer is obviously that it ruins the game for others. Nobody wants to get randomly murdered while traveling to the next town. Thus the restrictions.

What if there were consequences instead of restrictions? Some games have areas that are not safe from player killing. What if areas became unsafe for player killers? You commit crimes, and you become a wanted person. You can't show your face in towns, and players, and NPC bounty hunters alike will likely come to claim your head since rewards are often posted for wanted criminals. What if the guilty ones were the players who had to be careful who they came into contact with?

If a PKer was forced to live as a renegade in the most remote areas of the world, couldn't buy things from merchants, and couldn't get quests perhaps it would make them think twice about their actions.

The reason I favor this kind of approach instead of the restrictions is because it actually lets the player choose to be evil.

Would you be willing to play a game like that, or is allowing any possibility of PKing a deal breaker?

Therumancer · March 2006

The problem here is that it's impossible to balance Free For All PVP with any kind of penelties without live GMs sitting around 24/7 making life hell for PKs. No matter how well you code, the system can be circumvented.

For example in "old skool" UO people who were PKs wound up becoming "red" and Kill On Sight to guards and such. However by simply having another character on the same account who wasn't flagged KOS and a house to act as a drop-off point for loot and stuff they could pretty much avoid all the penelties.

This is to say nothing of what happens with coordinated guilds of PVPers. Those who think that a group of friends (like the hypothetical 7th Grade Geometry class from someones example in another thread) aren't going to be able to coordinate to a huge degree, are sadly mistaken. Remember as it is now you have groups of players who camp spawn points and such in shifts in some games, not to mention the little organizations some "Ebayers" have put together for making real money off the game. People tend to forget that back in old school UO guilds like "Trinsic Borrowers" pretty much blockaded entire cities (Atlantic Shard) since with their infra structure even if people beat them it didn't matter, they would be right back out there causing trouble the next day and since it took a massive effort to do anything their prescence (ganking everyone, not just Newbies etc...) was constant.

Plus let us not forget that in a FFA PVP game 90% or more of "PVP" isn't a fight. Trust me, I've been there. As I've described before the usual technique is to wait until someone is occupied doing anything else in the game and THEN attack them, usually when they are weak. There really isn't much of a "versus" component for all intents and purposes. What's more seeing as the purpose of PVPing (to feel big and bad and piss people off) isn't nessicarly to get stuff (that's just a bonus) any attempt to balance the system by making people vastly lower than you 'worthless' is pointless. The guy who sits around and mass murders Newbies is not doing it because he is expecting to profit from it in any 'material' way.

As far as putting bounties on players who PK and stuff that is a giant joke seeing as they can log out of the game, hide in houses/instances, or do whatever. Plus if you kill them and collect a bounty, that benefits the guy who hunted them down, but it doesn't stop the PK from just heading back out and engaging in more mass murder. Even the most effective PK expects to die from time to time, all a "Reward" does is make things more profitable.

Besides which system-generated rewards in some games are considered to be a benefit to guilds. I've known players who in such a system let a guild mate kill them (for the money) when it gets high enough and then they split the cash.

While people could argue that banditry and stuff are realistic, I think the "Mobs" represent this rather well as it is. For all practical purposes a balanced and working FFA PVP system is not going to be a practical development.

-

For the record, before FFA PVP can even be considered seriously for a new generation of games designers need to work on a few fundemental questions:

1. Anyone who plays any kind of game (MMO or otherwise) knows that in a game-enviroment crime tends to pay, especially seeing as you can rez (or reload from an earlier save). In addition to the satisfaction of getting away with something, there is a huge amount to be gained from looting players in a FFA PVP game or simply picking everyone's pockets in a single player game like "Fallout".

I have yet to see a game where good behavior was really rewarded to this extent. At the best you might get some kind of "holy sword" eventually for being a good guy, but even if such is a bit better than the best "evil weapon" it pales in comparison to the rewards reaped along an evil path.

Before good and evil can really be used in a game, serious, balancing rewards for being a 'good guy' need to be developed. Other than getting a fancy shield in UO (which people talk about being a great game) there was no real benefit to playing straight. Very sad for a game based on a series which pretty much defined the idea of "moral questing" in it's single player games.

2. Game designers working on good and evil in games also need to work on some balance between the two, and allow for some differant kinds of heroism and evil. While it can be fun to be a cackling mass murderer, or a total saint, it annoys me to see very little between them.

Half the time games with a moral component don't let you act like a normal person, or even a "Han Solo" type; you basically get choices like: A: Help The Little Old Lady Accross The Street, give her arthritis medication, and half your wealth, or B: Shoot her in the head, drink her blood, and loot her groceries.

-

At any rate in closing any kind of consequences are pretty much a joke as the very nature of MMOs allows them to be circumvented (with multiple accounts if nothing else). Restrictions are the only way to go until such a time as technology improves vastly (give it a century or three) or MMO companies decide to foot the bill for having live staffers online interacting with the players due to their desicians 24/7.

>>>----Therumancer--->

APEist · March 2006

Originally posted by Gouki4u

Currently most MMOs have a variety of restrictions in place to keep player killing from being the rampant problem it was back in the early days of UO. While nobody misses being ganked some of us do think it cheapens the experience of the virtual world. After all cut throats, pirates, and bandits of every kind fit in with the kind of adventures most MMOs try to offer. Why not let the players in on some of that fun?
The answer is obviously that it ruins the game for others. Nobody wants to get randomly murdered while traveling to the next town. Thus the restrictions.
What if there were consequences instead of restrictions? Some games have areas that are not safe from player killing. What if areas became unsafe for player killers? You commit crimes, and you become a wanted person. You can't show your face in towns, and players, and NPC bounty hunters alike will likely come to claim your head since rewards are often posted for wanted criminals. What if the guilty ones were the players who had to be careful who they came into contact with?
If a PKer was forced to live as a renegade in the most remote areas of the world, couldn't buy things from merchants, and couldn't get quests perhaps it would make them think twice about their actions.
The reason I favor this kind of approach instead of the restrictions is because it actually lets the player choose to be evil.
Would you be willing to play a game like that, or is allowing any possibility of PKing a deal breaker?

www.darkfallonline.com

they have an "alignment system" which basically serves as the npcs' conscience and alters their disposition towards you based on what your "alignment" is.

since its primarily a race vs. race game (with a few racial alliances existing), you get negative aligntment for killing your own race, and negative alignment for killing allied races. you get positive alignment by killing the enemy race, or by killing people of your own race who have bad alignment (same with allied races too).

basically if you have negative alignment npcs wont trade with you, youll become KOS by gaurds, and npcs wont give you quests (which infact is a penalty, since some quests will grant new abilities and such).

another thing you have to think about is there will also be consequences within the community. if your known for being a coward newbie killer, people (after some time) will KOS you just for being you. of course youll also have negative alignment so you cant go into any npc towns without being killed either. i for one know that im going to be an anti-pk, killing anyone who griefs their own race, and hopefully getting some good pay from the people i "rescue" lol. of course ill also try and be effective in the war effort vs. the other races/racial alliances.

Therumancer · March 2006

The problem is that your assuming that the person acts alone and is going to be stupid enough not to use a "mule character" or second account to overcome most of the penelties inherant in bad NPC disposition.

Like it or not, most PKs and such operate in groups, have networks of mules, safehouses, and other stuff. Sure, people might think your a coward newbie killer and a few high levels might attack you and actually beat you and your cronies from time to time, but so what? It's an MMO, your bad guy just respawns somewhere and then your back at it when they aren't around. By the same token just because your a "coward newbie killer" does not mean your character is a wuss and that people are going to easily dispose of you even if they try.

Hate to tell you, but in old school UO the problem with the PKs was not from a minority of lone-wolf people killing players. Those existed, but at various times my "Shard" (Atlantic) had to deal with groups like "Trinsic Borrowers", "Covetous Crew", "The Mercs", and of course "Inner Circle" all at various times. Every one of these groups was organized, had tough members, slaughtered newbies left and right, and despite the best efforts of the "good guys" could not be gotten rid of.

Consequences like NPC alignment are a joke. As it is it's nearly impossible for companies to police people using multiple accounts to circumvent various game mechanics (not to mention not in their best interest to do so, more accounts means more money), never mind all the other concerns.

>>>----Therumancer--->

apertotes · March 2006

Originally posted by Therumancer
The problem is that your assuming that the person acts alone and is going to be stupid enough not to use a "mule character" or second account to overcome most of the penelties inherant in bad NPC disposition.

you can avoid this by allowing only one character per account. so if they want to be PKs and have a mule, they would have to pay twice as much. it is not a perfect workaround, but you would sort out lots of 16 year old PKs.

in fact, from a role play point of view, i have always thought that mmos shouldnt allow multi characters accounts.

Amaranthar · March 2006

Therumancer, that was a well thought out and thorough post. I hope everyone reads the entire thing so they can understand what you have said. It's important to the future of MMOs that people understand these things, that only through long experiance and a nuetral stance people like you and me have seen it.

However, I'd like to point out one thing. If "crimes" were allowed without artificial restrictions, but if at the same time the burden is placed squarely on the players commiting the "crimes", then I believe it can work.

Suppose that a character, who's commited a "crime" in the game world, is permanently marked as a criminal. Suppose that if he gets caught, the punishment is severe enough to make most think twice about commiting the "crime" in the first place. Is this not realistic? Would it not work?

I'll also suggest that it's not the crime that players detest so much, it's the constant crime that open PvP systems allow.

And to APEist, you need to read Therumancer's post.
While Darfall appears to solve most of the problems with wide open PvP, they haven't. What will happen, and this is well spelled out in Therumancers post, is that guilds of PKers will buy extra accounts, make "red" PKer characters, send out some "blue" scouts to look for advantageous places to go to kill other players, and loot them dry. They won't care about any alignment or consequences, becaue they will only play their "red" characters when they are doing this, always using them only in advantaged situations, and otherwise play their "blue" characters.

Gouki4u · March 2006

Figures that after I repost this in the dev corner it actually attracts some attention on here. Doh!

Therumancer, you definitely make some good points, and shoot my theory full of holes. I failed to take into large groups of organized PKs, and mule characters.

I wonder if there are any ingame consequences for evil which could deter PKing. I suppose guards could come burn down your house, but then your mule just gets a house for you to use. It is a shame. I really dislike the idea of restrictions, but they seem to be the only workable solution so far.

Any input either way on this issue is still more than welcome!

Nerf09 · March 2006

WoW has 60 levels. The difference between a level 5 and 10 is massive.

10 and 15

15 and 20

20 and 25

25 and 30

30 and 35

35 and 40

.

No to mention twinking, and in open PvP its usualy never 1 vs. 1.

SO therefore PvP in everquest clones will always remain, everyone listen carefully, "A GANKING EXPERIENCE." Nothing more. If you want a war create a MMO-RTS where an NPC army of 20 has the ability to defeat or at least cause damage to an NPC army of 40, and there arent 60, 100, 200 character levels.

Allot of us playing RTS games always had that thougth in the back of our minds, "Wouldnt it be cool if this were first person and this map was persistant."

Gouki4u · March 2006

Nerf, I completely agree, and wouldn't even attempt this system in an everquest clone. Personally I wouldn't attempt an everquest clone at all, but that is an entirely different topic.

APEist · March 2006

Originally posted by Amaranthar
And to APEist, you need to read Therumancer's post.
While Darfall appears to solve most of the problems with wide open PvP, they haven't. What will happen, and this is well spelled out in Therumancers post, is that guilds of PKers will buy extra accounts, make "red" PKer characters, send out some "blue" scouts to look for advantageous places to go to kill other players, and loot them dry. They won't care about any alignment or consequences, becaue they will only play their "red" characters when they are doing this, always using them only in advantaged situations, and otherwise play their "blue" characters.

and to the both of you, you need to have played AC:DT, or else your opinions mean nothing to me on this topic. its been done before, its worked before. old school UO and AC:DT are my type of games, sorry about that, and thus Roma Victor/DF/The Chronicle will be the games I (and other gamers like me) will play, if the developers dont seriously screw things up. there really is no point arguing it, you have your type of game, we have ours. and believe it or not there is a sizeable population who want the same as me. id say a good 8%(+) of the industry, and believe me thats enough for a fun game.

also allowing 1 char per account is the best solution to this, a bunch of kids willing to pay 30 bcks a month? let em have it lol.

APEist · March 2006

Originally posted by Therumancer

"PVP" isn't a fight. Trust me, I've been there.
>>>----Therumancer--->

as have i, and i loved it. nothing better than killing one of the best known pvprs on the server when they jump you with a buddy while your at 1/4th health. or rolling with my friends, usually a group of 6 or lower, and stomping groups of 20+. you just dont get that challenge elsewhere.

also, all the tactics you are naming that were used by large/organized guilds... there are ways around all those tactics, there are countertactics to all those tactics. if it hampers people's play to the point they cant enjoy it any longer, then the game isnt for them. admittedly the hardcore pvpr population is far from a majority in the general mmo population, but were still there, and there is a good amount of us (as i stated in my other post)

for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

APEist · March 2006

Originally posted by Nerf09

WoW has 60 levels. The difference between a level 5 and 10 is massive.
10 and 15
15 and 20
20 and 25
25 and 30
30 and 35

35 and 40
.
.
.
No to mention twinking, and in open PvP its usualy never 1 vs. 1.
SO therefore PvP in everquest clones will always remain, everyone listen carefully, "A GANKING EXPERIENCE." Nothing more. If you want a war create a MMO-RTS where an NPC army of 20 has the ability to defeat or at least cause damage to an NPC army of 40, and there arent 60, 100, 200 character levels.
Allot of us playing RTS games always had that thougth in the back of our minds, "Wouldnt it be cool if this were first person and this map was persistant."

and thats why a skill-based system is necessary. and some form of player-looting, optimally full-looting.

ironore · March 2006

You know on a game where there was no real gap between levels and there was more to do than just level up your character, PKers might find something else to do.

However, if they still just wanted to kill people for the fun of it, I say let the penalties and the bounties and the guard attacks go just as the OP said, BUT after a PKer has commited crimes against a few people he comes up for perma-death the next time they get him. So as has been said, it isn't really that profitable to PK and now it is actually counter-productive. Those that get PKed really don't have that much to worry about. If they are not a PKer themselves they will just come back and find they lost a little bit of what they had on them. That's life. I think it's dumb for players to have 100% secure possesions. The PKer will find that soon he will have to start over. I think this alone will cut down on the PKing. However, it can still happen when the benefit seems worth more than the risk. What this might do is allow for some REAL bandits who confront you on the road and demand you give them some gold. Now it is in their best interest to take it and leave you alone. It might be in your interest as an individual to give them some but be able to keep your other items. If they kill you they get it all and the consequences, and that might be some consolation to you, but you'd probably rather keep your stuff this time.

Now it is true that guilds can organize these things, but if they have to start new PK characters all the time and re-equip them (because when the last one got perma-killed you can bet all HIS stuff was taken) then they will find it to be a drain on their finances.

I think that's a start.

Classicstar · March 2006

This wont work at all soon rpk leave that game if they been restricted so much that they cant do anything for a real FFA pvp its a stupid idead to put system like that ingame.

Let players or clans make politics rules in the game you get eveil players and good players.

rpk groups searching for the honorble groups try disrupt there quests or dungeon runs or try take over there towns or clan houses.

Clans forming patrol groups protect towns or go to enemy towns wars chases thats FFA:)

Classicstar · March 2006

And all perma red from lvl1 you risk of been pked no safe zones.

I was in a clan where we had so many attacks on our clan house we desided to go into the mountains and take our base there nobody find out for a longtime.

Or like strong rpk clan who control alot of areas but we desided to make a small strong group and search for them everywhere they quest or hunt and attack them when ever we could they where pissed they hated us lol we died yes but they had losses to and many times we destroy there dungeon runs or quest we a spy in there clan :P

Thats what i like players make the game not some stupid systems controlling gankers pkers.

devilduck · March 2006

Consequences would have to extend to not only the criminal but to anyone doing business with the criminal. For example in the real world a pawn broker if caught fencing stolen goods can be held liable too. Or if someone helped hid the criminal they would be an accomplice.

So how do we translate this into game terms? Perhaps have a karma or like rating that takes a hit each time a person has dealings with a criminal. This penalty could increase each time until the acomplice become a criminal as well.

Another way could be to allow players to establish their own reward/penalty systems. For example, a player community knows So and So is a mule of a criminal. They could black list the mule from their community as well. That communities guards would not only attack the criminal on sight but also the mules. Could this lead to players being vindictive against each other for no reason? Sure, but the control would be in the players hands and not in some artificial contraint.

PvP to be fun and balanced must be designed as part of a complete game from the ground up. It can not be added as an after thought with out placing heavy restrictions on it such as Battlegrounds or a duel system. But I feel if it is done right from the beginning it can be fun and rewarding.

Kaos&Light · March 2006

Originally posted by APEist
Originally posted by Amaranthar
And to APEist, you need to read Therumancer's post. While Darfall appears to solve most of the problems with wide open PvP, they haven't. What will happen, and this is well spelled out in Therumancers post, is that guilds of PKers will buy extra accounts, make "red" PKer characters, send out some "blue" scouts to look for advantageous places to go to kill other players, and loot them dry. They won't care about any alignment or consequences, becaue they will only play their "red" characters when they are doing this, always using them only in advantaged situations, and otherwise play their "blue" characters.

and to the both of you, you need to have played AC:DT, or else your opinions mean nothing to me on this topic. its been done before, its worked before. old school UO and AC:DT are my type of games, sorry about that, and thus Roma Victor/DF/The Chronicle will be the games I (and other gamers like me) will play, if the developers dont seriously screw things up. there really is no point arguing it, you have your type of game, we have ours. and believe it or not there is a sizeable population who want the same as me. id say a good 8%(+) of the industry, and believe me thats enough for a fun game.
also allowing 1 char per account is the best solution to this, a bunch of kids willing to pay 30 bcks a month? let em have it lol.

Old school UO is precisely what he's talking about. The average griefer account consisted of:
1 Red for PKing
1 Thief (usually nekkid, hanging around the bank so he could swipe your stuff and drop it in his deposit box before the guards killed him.)
1 Blue combat character
2 Tradesmules for supporting the two

Now, go to Siege where one was only allowed one character per account... and suddenly you're in an FFA PvP environment with maybe a third (if that) of the ganking and griefing going on. And most of that was from guys with 3+ accounts.

boboslave · March 2006

Should be

Rules & Consequences VS Rules & Restrictions.

I've been very interested in this idea lately, and i think if done well it would show something rather grand.

Rules - Must have rules in the game that can through creativity be broken by players.
Consequences - Bad things happen to those that do bad things....and get caught! The challenge would be of course, not getting caught now wouldn't it?

Someone steals from you and is stupid enough not to cover his tracks very well, hire a tracker to find your prey for you, wait for the right moment, and strike back! The game should punish you by offering opportunities to others players to get at you.

Howdy, Stranger!

Consequences vs. restrictions

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Consequences vs. restrictions

Comments