PVP rules [Archive]

Tybalt

11-11-2010, 02:50 PM

REV.... isn't that the guy that cried about the no guns or misleading concept art or something like that? No worries about this being mistaken for a threat... seems they are fairly empty coming from you... ;)

I know that was a little dirty but I could not resist. :P On a different note, I fully agree with him on this one. There should not be different death penalties for players based on alignment.
If any they should be set to gankers or campers. Maybe set all players to respawn at their current location if the death is PvE in nature and to the Totem if they are killed in PvP or while flagged as such. If a player is not in a Tribe they should be respawned at the nearest regional starting point(such as Round Hill).

This also has me thinking about lootable bodies.... any word on gear loss for PvP death or even PvE? I think it is a little odd to retain all your gear when you die if you respawn back at the totem. I could understand the current location respawn keeping gear. :huh: Maybe it could be set to where if you die in PvP you loose your equipment on a lootable body but if you die in PvE you do not leave behind a body or gear.

JCatano

11-11-2010, 03:05 PM

Tybalt wrote:

REV.... isn't that the guy that cried about the no guns or misleading concept art or something like that? No worries about this being mistaken for a threat... seems they are fairly empty coming from you... ;)

I know that was a little dirty but I could not resist. :P On a different note, I fully agree with him on this one. There should not be different death penalties for players based on alignment.
If any they should be set to gankers or campers. Maybe set all players to respawn at their current location if the death is PvE in nature and to the Totem if they are killed in PvP or while flagged as such. If a player is not in a Tribe they should be respawned at the nearest regional starting point(such as Round Hill).

This also has me thinking about lootable bodies.... any word on gear loss for PvP death or even PvE? I think it is a little odd to retain all your gear when you die if you respawn back at the totem. I could understand the current location respawn keeping gear. :huh: Maybe it could be set to where if you die in PvP you loose your equipment on a lootable body but if you die in PvE you do not leave behind a body or gear.

PvE death should be sent back to totem/bind, too.

Good games have risk v. reward. Why have death at all if it doesn't even really do anything?

Kinslayer

11-11-2010, 06:35 PM

https://www.xsyon.com/forums/10-game-balance/33276-death

KeithStone

11-11-2010, 07:07 PM

Tybalt wrote:

RE

This also has me thinking about lootable bodies.... any word on gear loss for PvP death or even PvE? I think it is a little odd to retain all your gear when you die if you respawn back at the totem. I could understand the current location respawn keeping gear. :huh: Maybe it could be set to where if you die in PvP you loose your equipment on a lootable body but if you die in PvE you do not leave behind a body or gear.

everything will be lootable when the game launches

Shrimps

11-11-2010, 08:18 PM

last I heard everything will be lootable only if you are at war with their tribe but only some items will be lootable if you are not. Don't know if it's changed or not.

Then theres different rules for being unconcious instead of dieing.

But I would agree that pvp death should make you spawn at starting location or totem Not sure about PVE though.

As for different respawn rules for different alignments I kinda like it, it means that there are different consequences for each alignment so not everyone will go evil because theres no reason not to.

SOFWarrior

11-11-2010, 08:31 PM

I agree with most of the others here - any death, PvE or PvP, should make you respawn at the totem, regardless of alignment.

JCatano

11-11-2010, 09:26 PM

Shrimps wrote:

last I heard everything will be lootable only if you are at war with their tribe but only some items will be lootable if you are not. Don't know if it's changed or not.

Then theres different rules for being unconcious instead of dieing.

But I would agree that pvp death should make you spawn at starting location or totem Not sure about PVE though.

As for different respawn rules for different alignments I kinda like it, it means that there are different consequences for each alignment so not everyone will go evil because theres no reason not to.

Still trying to figure out why a few people think that's a good idea. If that's how it was going to be, the devs might as well not allow mobs to damage anyone. The death would be 100% pointless.

Red, blue, green, purple... If you die, PvP or PvE, get sent back to your bind. Simple and foolproof. There is no need to reinvent the wheel when it already works in most games. The current mechanic is completely cheat-code and open to exploitation.

Jadzia

11-12-2010, 02:33 AM

prokop15 wrote:

Got a quote to support that? Pretty sure that's the opposite of what's been said.
There you go:

Xsyon wrote:

In the Prelude:

Unconsciousness results in very minor skill loss and in general the victor will be allowed to loot an item of choice as a reward for a fight well fought.

Death results in some stat and skill loss and allows the victor to fully loot the player. This is not without complications and consequences for the victor.
Here is the thread (it should be a sticky IMO), it explains looting in details: http://xsyon.com/forums/28-features/232-conflict-death-consequences-and-decisions#232

Jadzia

11-12-2010, 02:52 AM

I don't see the benefit of the current respawn system for the good and neutral players. Lets say a good player die in PvP. The PKer will probably fully loot him, and he will respawn at the same spot, with no armor, no weapon, no tools, half HP. He will have to go back to his home anyway to get new gear, so respawing where he died is more of a pain than an advantage.

I don't know what consequences will be there for PVE death (right now there isn't any as far as I know). If we will loose stuffs on PVE death too, then the situation is the same, the player has to go home to get new gear anyway. If there is no loss I agree with JCatano...why to have death implemented if there is nothing to lose. Death needs to have some consequences otherwise no one will care if he dies or not.

Perhaps a better advantage for good and neutral players could be an option to choose where to respawn, where he could choose not only his own tribe village, but all of the allied tribes' villages. This would give another reason to make allies.

Xsyon

11-12-2010, 03:41 AM

I'm taking all of this into consideration. I'll make a few quick points.

- Players will experience a bit of stat / skill loss upon any death. This is the main consequence for dying. I could add some minor item loss when killed by a creature as well, but this is not worked out. There will be damage to your armor's duration.

- The reasoning behind allowing players to spawn near their current location is for players that want to explore the world or visit tribes rather than join them. (Tribes will be able to allow outsiders to use their facilities and totems). The option to respawn at your home location will most likely be added.

- I see suggestions to remove additional consequences for evil players, but not to exchange them with other consquences. I am open to suggestions on this. Playing evil should be a challenge. It should not be the easiest road for players to take.

REVKhA

11-12-2010, 04:12 AM

Evil = already a challenge because good and neutral people will KOS them.

Stat loss should be bigger , but should never be permanent.

When you died in Neocron, you regained skilled slowly (SYNAPTIC IMPAIRMENT)

This is what this game needs, a % bar that goes down to 60 ish % when you die, it should take 5-10 minutes to be back at 100% profiency.

Permanent stat loss is just out of the question.

Respawning where you died is pretty bad, does not promote teamwork and proper survival teams. There should never be any options to spawn where you died... it does not make any sense.

Here is something for you to think about :

Evil = no locked quickslots (all lootable)

Neutral = 1 locked quickslot (1)

Good = 2 Locked quickslot (1 and 2)

Jadzia

11-12-2010, 04:31 AM

REVKhA

11-12-2010, 04:46 AM

yeah lets take some pvp tips from someone who's scared of it. I play open pvp games since 2001 (ww2online and neocron for 6 years) , You are in some carebear tribe and you have no idea what pvp is all about.

Yeah permament stat loss and respawning where you died = biggest joke i've ever seen. Totally biased.

You talkshit without even knowing what you are talking about. 10 Minutes of sitting back at your tribe totem is enough to make you scared of death. Permanent stat loss will make people quit , it's as simple as that. The most hardcore games out there do not have perm stat loss. You have no idea what you are talking about

Travel times are small, you can reach the mist in 10 minutes right now, There should be no other option but to respawn at tribe totem (home).

You are 100% biased about tradeskillers, while they are already pampered in a 100% safe zone (tribe area) , you are so scared of pvp it's not even funny, i think you never played a pvp game in your entire life.

All you want is to have a biased advantage over people who got the balls to join an evil tribe and wage war.

I think Jooky is also biased and wants you guys (paying customers) more than us. I guess this game is , after all, biased towards tradeskillers and builders , and that pvp is not really something that Notorious games want to have in the game they are building. Because you people will cry like little girls when you get killed once.

This game needs more than tribe raids, there needs to be outposts and such. If you dont want to die then stay in your tribe area.

Zheo

11-12-2010, 06:09 AM

wow.. so good players can just keep spawning on the evil players?

sounds pretty stupid to me.. yes playing evil should be hard but whats the point if good players in big fights will just spawn zerg them?

Jadzia

11-12-2010, 06:31 AM

Rev, I played open PvP games (PW and Linage2) for 2 years.
And how can someone be scared of PvP ? Are you scared of a pixel spider if you see it on your screen ? 5 years old kids can't see the difference between reality and games, I can, lol. Seems you are the one who is scared of permanent stat loss. 10 mins of temporary stat loss is nothing, while you run back to the battlefield you gain your stats back. So its not a death penalty, its nothing. I suggested perma stat loss for PvE death too, I'm not scared of it, seems you want some carebear, themepark death penalty, and scared of a more harsh one B)
And Jordi stated from day 1 that the game will give advantages for good-neutral players in return for limits in PvP and looting. Evil players won't have limit in PvP and looting but they will have disadvantages and penalties for something else. You were here then, you should remember. Its not new, the game hasn't been hijacked lol, it was planned like this from the very beginning and you knew that.

Zheo wrote:

wow.. so good players can just keep spawning on the evil players?

sounds pretty stupid to me.. yes playing evil should be hard but whats the point if good players in big fights will just spawn zerg them?
Yes they will spawn on the same spot, but fully looted without armor and weapon, with half HP...I doubt they can zerg that way.

joexxxz

11-12-2010, 07:50 AM

What about if you respawn at the cemetery???
Every one who dies will respawn there. ???

mrcalhou

11-12-2010, 08:24 AM

joexxxz wrote:

What about if you respawn at the cemetery???
Every one who dies will respawn there. ???

This would likely make spawn camping too easy.

VeryWiiTee

11-12-2010, 08:26 AM

REVKhA wrote:

yeah lets take some pvp tips from someone who's scared of it. I play open pvp games since 2001 (ww2online and neocron for 6 years) , You are in some carebear tribe and you have no idea what pvp is all about.

Yeah permament stat loss and respawning where you died = biggest joke i've ever seen. Totally biased.

You talkshit without even knowing what you are talking about. 10 Minutes of sitting back at your tribe totem is enough to make you scared of death. Permanent stat loss will make people quit , it's as simple as that. The most hardcore games out there do not have perm stat loss. You have no idea what you are talking about

Travel times are small, you can reach the mist in 10 minutes right now, There should be no other option but to respawn at tribe totem (home).

You are 100% biased about tradeskillers, while they are already pampered in a 100% safe zone (tribe area) , you are so scared of pvp it's not even funny, i think you never played a pvp game in your entire life.

All you want is to have a biased advantage over people who got the balls to join an evil tribe and wage war.

I think Jooky is also biased and wants you guys (paying customers) more than us. I guess this game is , after all, biased towards tradeskillers and builders , and that pvp is not really something that Notorious games want to have in the game they are building. Because you people will cry like little girls when you get killed once.

This game needs more than tribe raids, there needs to be outposts and such. If you dont want to die then stay in your tribe area.

Looks who whines again =)!
- It is getting a bit fun now.

Anywho, on another subject. Permanent skill loss, what does it matter? You can get it back anyway, you just need to work again. It sort of like in the real world and I don't get that you haven't learned that by now as you seem to fail a lot REV, is that in this purdy real world that you get punished when you fuck up.
- Coming from a pvp player I really LIKE permanent stat/skill loss. Honestly I think it is a great initiate to stay alive and not die.
Stats will be earned again as you use abilities and skills will be regained when you use abilities. Where is the problem? Nowhere that's where.

Dunno about spawning another place, I prefer naked corpse runs regardless of the situation.

VeryWiiTee

11-12-2010, 08:28 AM

mrcalhou wrote:

joexxxz wrote:

What about if you respawn at the cemetery???
Every one who dies will respawn there. ???

This would likely make spawn camping too easy.

And it makes it too much WoW.

joexxxz

11-12-2010, 08:42 AM

Or u can have a counter set to 3. If you die 3 times within x-amount of minutes, u can then be respawn at your tribe area.

mrcalhou

11-12-2010, 10:14 AM

VeryWiiTee wrote:

- Coming from a pvp player I really LIKE permanent stat/skill loss. Honestly I think it is a great initiate to stay alive and not die.
Stats will be earned again as you use abilities and skills will be regained when you use abilities. Where is the problem? Nowhere that's where.

Dunno about spawning another place, I prefer naked corpse runs regardless of the situation.

I think spawning at your base would be the best way to do it. I'm not sure how I feel about stat/skill lose. I wouldn't mind it if it was like Eve where we could buy a clone to insure against skill loss at the cost of resources, but I'm not a fan of not giving players an option to protect against that. I'm a HUGE fan of resource loss though.

For conquest situations though, it could be possible to bring along a mobile resurrection shrine or something that'd fit the lore. As well as having medic skills and/or magic that lets you ressurect fallen players (of course, I would suggest that this be relatively resource expensive).

Gamefreak

11-12-2010, 02:11 PM

Having reds that have to spawn at starting points just because they are red is a stupid feature, it will make less people want to play that type of role. If we don't have any reds, the game would become sort of pointless.

Just make them spawn at their totems like everyone else does.

Diocletian

11-12-2010, 02:18 PM

The idea is that the tables are stacked against evil tribes as a deterrent for everyone being evil.

Jadzia

11-12-2010, 02:30 PM

Gamefreak wrote:

Having reds that have to spawn at starting points just because they are red is a stupid feature, it will make less people want to play that type of role. If we don't have any reds, the game would become sort of pointless.

Just make them spawn at their totems like everyone else does.
You misunderstood it, evil players will spawn at their tribe area.

Xsyon wrote:

Evil player will respawn back at their 'home' location, which will usually be their tribe location. Good and neutral players can respawn near their dead body. This is one of the consequences of being evil, intended to make things more of a challenge.

Shrimps

11-12-2010, 03:19 PM

After thinking about it for a while I think that it would be best if

-Evil players always spawn at their totem

- Evil players take larger stat loss when killed by a good/neutral player

-Evil players take NO stat loss when killed in their own tribe area

- PvP deaths always result in spawning at totem for good/neutral players

-PvE deaths have an option for another tribe mate to "Help you up"(Ressurect)at 1/4 health and no stamina for good/neutral players

-Good players have 1-2 locked item slots

-Neutral has 1 locked item slot

- Any player has the possibility to turn Evil regardless of his tribes alignment if he takes actions to do so

I think that these would be a good deterrent for the Evil alignment without turning all of them away.

You have to remember though Evil players are not going to be the only source of PvP. Tribe wars will be a much much larger source of PvP thatn Evil players are intended to be.

Think of Evil players as the rock in your shoe that bugs you, while tribe wars is the Puma that's about to rip your face off.

Kinslayer

11-12-2010, 03:58 PM

I think any death for any person, be it PvP or PvE, ALL deaths should respawn at tribe totem. If the char is not in a tribe, the nearest starting spawn. ALL deaths should drop everything they are carrying, no partial loot, make it full loot, lets not cotton wool the idea. Open PvP and full loot is what we all want, right? Besides, if you dont drop everything youre carrying before respawning at your totem, it becomes a quick and free ride home, and we want to avoid an exploit like that. Remember Roma Victor when everyone used to suicide, or drown themselves in a river to get back home from the mine quicker.

For evil players, stat gain should be slower after death. This would be the penalty for being evil. Good/neutral players can regain their stats fairly quickly after death, evil players would have to work much harder to regain their stats (sucks to be evil). This way its not permanent, but its not just a 10min job either.

JCatano

11-12-2010, 05:16 PM

Xsyon wrote:

I'm taking all of this into consideration. I'll make a few quick points.

- Players will experience a bit of stat / skill loss upon any death. This is the main consequence for dying. I could add some minor item loss when killed by a creature as well, but this is not worked out. There will be damage to your armor's duration.

- The reasoning behind allowing players to spawn near their current location is for players that want to explore the world or visit tribes rather than join them. (Tribes will be able to allow outsiders to use their facilities and totems). The option to respawn at your home location will most likely be added.

- I see suggestions to remove additional consequences for evil players, but not to exchange them with other consquences. I am open to suggestions on this. Playing evil should be a challenge. It should not be the easiest road for players to take.

Skill loss... Thumbs down.

Potentially losing your gear if you can't make it back to your gravestone before it's looted is a stiff enough penalty, already. Skill loss is just something that will become tedious, especially if you don't have a mechanic that controls loss when being killed multiple times in a short period. Losing gear and being sent back to your bind spot is a nice balance of risk v. reward and being able to gear up and get back into the action without saying: "Well #&%@... I need to grind these skills back" beforehand. Durability loss on items that aren't looted, since full loot isn't always the case, is a good idea, too.

As much as you Darkfall haters may want to think that Xsyon is a totally different game; it isn't. They are both very similar at the root, and there is nothing wrong with taking the good parts from DF (or any game) and using them. Also, many other games use the same back-to-bind-after-death mechanic. They use it for a reason... It works well.

Forehead slapper there. No risk for exploring? Might as well let us teleport to any spot we want. As I've posted in the Darkfall forums many times... There is absolutely no reason to make a large, interesting world if you're going to let us port everywhere (DF portal chambers). While spawning in your death spot isn't necessarily the same thing, it certainly relates to getting anywhere without much risk at all. Without risk... Not much reward with regard to a feeling of accomplishment.

Where is the challenge when aligned as good/neutral?

So...

Die in PvE or PvP? Get sent to your bind no matter what your alignment is. Some items still on you because of different looting rules? They take a durability hit. If you want to check to see if your grave has been looted? Run back and look.

Or... Keep respawn the way it is, so we can use good/neutral alts to spy since they won't be sent to bind after death, use alts as banks to regear main after a death and being looted (hidden alt or log off alt in area your main will be in, then log it back in to regear), and I'm sure there are some other exploits I haven't thought of. I won't even mention PvP encounters. That's a mess anyone can easily foresee, especially when talking about large-scale engagements.

---

If you want a higher penalty for evil players, implement something like SWG's Battle Fatigue and Wound mechanic. In SWG, BF would accumulate slowly over combat situations. You became less effective as the value raised. Wounds would also accumulate slowly and lowered your max value in <insert stat>. To heal BF, you had to listen to/watch an Entertainer. To heal wounds, you either had to stay in a campsite (slow heal) or have a Medic/Doctor heal them.

Implement something like that and make it affect evil players more than others.

Kinslayer's idea for slower stat regain would work just as well and not require a new mechanic.

mrcalhou

11-12-2010, 05:51 PM

I agree with Jcatano.

Don't be different for the sake of being different. Please look at the way Eve's PvP and death mechanics work. They are really good models to incorporate because there is a nice balance of risk vs. reward.

Xsyon

11-12-2010, 06:01 PM

Please look at the way Eve's PvP and death mechanics work.

How do these work? I haven't played Eve.

I am definitely open to good ideas from other games. I just haven't played everything. I'm too busy working. ;)

REVKhA

11-12-2010, 06:39 PM

You can't translate eve's systems in to a game with magic, religion and tribes. Who would sell the clone ? The tribe shaman spreading pixie dust on your head at each spawn ?

Too many rules = very bad, keep it simple and balanced for everyone.
Perm stat loss = very bad
Respawn on death site = very bad

Jadzia

11-12-2010, 06:52 PM

Xsyon wrote:

Please look at the way Eve's PvP and death mechanics work.

How do these work? I haven't played Eve.

I am definitely open to good ideas from other games. I just haven't played everything. I'm too busy working. ;)
Eve's mechanics is not a good comparison, since it hasn't got open world PvP, it has huge high security areas (safe zones). In high sec space players can play the game for years without ever meeting an outlaw ship. If an outlaw ship enters the high sec space it will be insta killed by the NPC guards.
The main disadvantage of being an outlaw in Eve is being locked out of high sec space, so longer travel time, difficulties with trading and no security.

Eve's mechanism is based on insurance, clones, NPC guards...things that Xsyon hasn't got and probably will never have.

mrcalhou

11-12-2010, 07:31 PM

REVKhA wrote:

You can't translate eve's systems in to a game with magic, religion and tribes. Who would sell the clone ? The tribe shaman spreading pixie dust on your head at each spawn ?

Too many rules = very bad, keep it simple and balanced for everyone.
Perm stat loss = very bad
Respawn on death site = very bad

I don't know how the resurrection system works but from a lore perspective you could pay an offering to some diety to make sure that when you are resurrected you are resurrected with all of your skills or something.

Xsyon wrote:

How do these work? I haven't played Eve.

I am definitely open to good ideas from other games. I just haven't played everything. I'm too busy working.

Eve has a progressive system of relative safe zones. The safety ratings vary from 0.0-1.0. 0.5-1.0 are safe zones where there is some sort of retaliation from an NPC policing system but where there can still be random PvP. Also, if Corporations (Eve's equivlent of tribes) are at war with each other then they can attack each other freely in these areas. The npcs enemies in these areas are weak and don't provide very much money or resources. Same thing with minerals. Only common materials are found in these areas.

0.0-0.4 is where players can pvp and pirate without fear of NPC retaliation and these areas provide rare minerals and tougher npc enemies with better rewards.

Also, skilling in Eve takes forever if you want to do everything, but training a role doesn't take that long and skills provide a small statistical benefit, but open up roles the player can occupy as well as how specalized they can get with it. With the more specalized players being able to do more things within that role.

The player occupies the role of a person that pilots or commands a ship. When the ship they are in gets destroyed then the player has to buy a new ship and different sorts of weapon systems as well as other types of things that can be outfited. Some fittings are destroyed and some can be recovered either by the player that gets destroyed or by someone passing through or by someone that might have killed them.

This provides the basis of economy of the game since things have to be replaced so often. It also makes the player have to weigh the risks vs. rewards of any situation and what they use. A common saying in Eve is: "Never go out in anything you can't afford to lose." Which means that the expensive, but powerful ships and fittings aren't always used even though a player can use them. It might seem foolish, but having a massive turnover in player items is really, really good for crafters because then the economy can't stagnate which is why I suggested having large hits to item durability and even having things being able to be destroyed when you are killed in combat.

Personally, I don't mind having free-for-all pvp, but a large number of people do and despite how much some people clamor about how having safezones dumbs the game down, it really does a lot for attracting players to the game. More so than not having FFA will drive away the so-called "hardcore" players.

Also when your ship gets destroyed in Eve you have to go back to a place that has your docked ships and items. Which can be spread throughout multiple areas; however, when your ship is destroyed you get ejcted as a defenseless pod that is used to travel back. You can self-destruct which puts you back to the station that has your clone, which would need to be re-purchased. And Players can target you and destroy it if they choose to. NPC enemies don't attack a players pod. I like the way this works because it means you have to go back to your base of operations when you die. It also means that you aren't going to get stuck in an area that you can't get out of. Almost every game uses this system because it works really well.

Kinslayer

11-12-2010, 08:02 PM

JCatano wrote:

Xsyon wrote:

I'm taking all of this into consideration. I'll make a few quick points.

- Players will experience a bit of stat / skill loss upon any death. This is the main consequence for dying. I could add some minor item loss when killed by a creature as well, but this is not worked out. There will be damage to your armor's duration.

- The reasoning behind allowing players to spawn near their current location is for players that want to explore the world or visit tribes rather than join them. (Tribes will be able to allow outsiders to use their facilities and totems). The option to respawn at your home location will most likely be added.

- I see suggestions to remove additional consequences for evil players, but not to exchange them with other consquences. I am open to suggestions on this. Playing evil should be a challenge. It should not be the easiest road for players to take.

Skill loss... Thumbs down.

Potentially losing your gear if you can't make it back to your gravestone before it's looted is a stiff enough penalty, already. Skill loss is just something that will become tedious, especially if you don't have a mechanic that controls loss when being killed multiple times in a short period. Losing gear and being sent back to your bind spot is a nice balance of risk v. reward and being able to gear up and get back into the action without saying: "Well #&%@... I need to grind these skills back" beforehand. Durability loss on items that aren't looted, since full loot isn't always the case, is a good idea, too.

As much as you Darkfall haters may want to think that Xsyon is a totally different game; it isn't. They are both very similar at the root, and there is nothing wrong with taking the good parts from DF (or any game) and using them. Also, many other games use the same back-to-bind-after-death mechanic. They use it for a reason... It works well.

Forehead slapper there. No risk for exploring? Might as well let us teleport to any spot we want. As I've posted in the Darkfall forums many times... There is absolutely no reason to make a large, interesting world if you're going to let us port everywhere (DF portal chambers). While spawning in your death spot isn't necessarily the same thing, it certainly relates to getting anywhere without much risk at all. Without risk... Not much reward with regard to a feeling of accomplishment.

Where is the challenge when aligned as good/neutral?

So...

Die in PvE or PvP? Get sent to your bind no matter what your alignment is. Some items still on you because of different looting rules? They take a durability hit. If you want to check to see if your grave has been looted? Run back and look.

Or... Keep respawn the way it is, so we can use good/neutral alts to spy since they won't be sent to bind after death, use alts as banks to regear main after a death and being looted (hidden alt or log off alt in area your main will be in, then log it back in to regear), and I'm sure there are some other exploits I haven't thought of. I won't even mention PvP encounters. That's a mess anyone can easily foresee, especially when talking about large-scale engagements.

---

If you want a higher penalty for evil players, implement something like SWG's Battle Fatigue and Wound mechanic. In SWG, BF would accumulate slowly over combat situations. You became less effective as the value raised. Wounds would also accumulate slowly and lowered your max value in <insert stat>. To heal BF, you had to listen to/watch an Entertainer. To heal wounds, you either had to stay in a campsite (slow heal) or have a Medic/Doctor heal them.

Implement something like that and make it affect evil players more than others.

Kinslayer's idea for slower stat regain would work just as well and not require a new mechanic.This!

Also, I would add some respawn delay, something like what Zeph was pointing out in the other Death discussion in game balance. Something like RV had with Elysium, or have a copy of the game world for dead people only, and they have to run back to a respawn spot or something along those lines.

JCatano

11-12-2010, 08:37 PM

Kinslayer wrote:
This!

Also, I would add some respawn delay, something like what Zeph was pointing out in the other Death discussion in game balance. Something like RV had with Elysium, or have a copy of the game world for dead people only, and they have to run back to a respawn spot or something along those lines.

I respawn timer isn't needed if you spawn with 1 HP/1 Stamina/etc.

I'll have to vote a big "no" on the ghost-run. First time I died in MO, the ghost-run to the priest was incredibly annoying.

Keep it simple: Die in PvE or PvP, spawn at bind, evil players regain stats more slowly.

Keeps the world big (instead of travel/spawn/die/respawn/rinse and repeat), has risk v. reward and accountability, stops exploits from the mechanic, and has a tougher penalty on evil players.

Shrimps

11-12-2010, 08:46 PM

Permanent stat loss is a good idea. Being Evil should not at all be an easy task. Otherwise we end up with a system like Darkfall where being evil has no real effect on anything and everyone is KOS to everyone else because there is no reason not to kill everyone you see.

Without some form of hard coded penalties for being evil the game will probably degrade into a pkfest pretty quickly. The idea to have players police themselves is all well and good in theory but in reality it doesn't work. Without restrictions to being evil then it is not only easier but more profitable and more effective than being neutral or good.

There needs to be severe penalties or it will be 10% of the population being good/neutral and 90% evil instead of the original plan of it being the opposite.

Temporary stat loss is not a good enough penalty for death especially if it's a matter of minutes. 10 minute stat loss? ok I'll go sort my armor or make a sandwich, it's not an inconvinience at al. Maybe if we were talking 2-3 weeks temporary loss to recover stats from a death then that would be more on track. But permenant stat loss would be the better option.

Kinslayer

11-12-2010, 08:54 PM

Shrimps wrote:

Permanent stat loss is a good idea. Being Evil should not at all be an easy task. Otherwise we end up with a system like Darkfall where being evil has no real effect on anything and everyone is KOS to everyone else because there is no reason not to kill everyone you see.

Without some form of hard coded penalties for being evil the game will probably degrade into a pkfest pretty quickly. The idea to have players police themselves is all well and good in theory but in reality it doesn't work. Without restrictions to being evil then it is not only easier but more profitable and more effective than being neutral or good.

There needs to be severe penalties or it will be 10% of the population being good/neutral and 90% evil instead of the original plan of it being the opposite.

Temporary stat loss is not a good enough penalty for death especially if it's a matter of minutes. 10 minute stat loss? ok I'll go sort my armor or make a sandwich, it's not an inconvinience at al. Maybe if we were talking 2-3 weeks temporary loss to recover stats from a death then that would be more on track. But permenant stat loss would be the better option.Isn't permanent stat loss just that, permanent, no grinding it back? Temporary stat loss to me, doesnt mean your stats just come back by themselves, you have to work and grind them back yourself. Have them raise by collecting wood, or stone, that way the crafters then get help by having resources collected for them too. But if evil, you have to do 5 times the amount of work to grind your stats back than a good/neutral player would have to.

@Jcatano, youre right, ghost runs suck, I didnt like MO's system either. The system in RV wasnt bad though, where you went to an afterlife, and had to find the guy to spawn back at your spawn spot. He was always in the same spot, so all it really did was add a delay to your respawn. Although, if you spawn back with 1hp, that should be good enough, I agree.

Venciera

11-12-2010, 09:24 PM

I would prefer to use the faith/religious system to punish players that grief. In this way the more you grief the lower your faith and therefor the less luck they have in finding things, crafting items, and less benefits from food and water, etc. More importantly the longer it would take to respawn after death. Also players shouldn't be able to see each other when they die.

If players want to restore their faith they will have to return to their tribe to do so.

JCatano

11-13-2010, 01:12 AM

Shrimp -

We are talking about permanent stat loss. It can't be so detrimental that coding evil status into the game is a waste, though.

And... People are going to be PK'd a lot, anyway. Want to PK a lot without losing alignment? Declare war.

If Xsyon makes it to where we can only war-dec a certain amount of clans or something like that... Big fail (and exploitable depending on how some mechanics work). There should certainly be an upkeep cost to war, though.

Luculus

11-13-2010, 03:54 AM

Lots of ideas.

I have to point out to Revkha that what he's asking for is along the lines of an FPS, WAR or WoW. 10 min debuff and back to mindless ganking. It is just THE worst death mechanic I think I've ever played under.

I think that whatever system is chosen it needs to stick to a couple of fundamental principles:

1. It hurts to die. That is, it 'costs' a lot. This IME makes for better players and more realistic societies. Personally, after playing Darkfall, I'd go with full loot on death and respawn at totem unless revived by a teammate (slow-ish non-combat revive).

2. There are consequences for being evil. If you decide to act how you please, you will have to pay consequences. IRL that means prison, fines, social exclusion etc - pretty hard to code and enforce in a game. Something has to hit evil players harder. The reason being that previous games have proven that if there is no penalty for 'evil' behaviour, everyone becomes evil and the game's society goes to crap. There will be no advantage to being neutral/good apart from not having the disadvantage of the evil penalties. As stat loss has been mentioned, I'd be happy to try this with the option to regain them through effort.

So, summary of my thoughts:

Death = full loot and totem respawn on all death. Allies can revive but it's too slow for a full combat situation.

Red players = some 'permanent' stat loss which can be regrinded afterwards

I'd much prefer social sanctions against red tribes/players but I'm not sure exactly how they'd work.

REVKhA

11-13-2010, 04:03 AM

It should not matter who is evil, neutral or good, it should only matter when you are at war...

Pking people you are not at war with, no matter what alignment, SHOULD BE PERM STAT LOSS.

@ War ..... should be temporary stat loss, regain over time ( 5-10-15 min )

In Neocron you would lose soulight when you'd pk someone green to you (allied) , and at -37 soulight you would lose your Lock on slot 1 and people had rare weapons so they didn't gank allies.

I have played Twitch pvp mmo's since 2001 , i know what i am talking about. I'm not talking about wow here, i'm talking about TWITCH PVP , Neocron and WW2online.

Ganking should be penalized (huge stat loss). You should only be able to Pk people you are at war with (REDS) no matter what aligment you are, Being Evil should only be harder because they have no locked slots so you can loot anything from them. Neutrals 1 locked slot and Good have 2 locked slots. This kind of rule reflects a lot of the things people are scared about pvp , they dont want to lose their favorite stuff, so if you are scared of pvp just join a good aligment and you will never drop things you equip in those 2 locked slots.

Do not penalize Evil players because they have balls... that respawn idea is just awfull it's enough for me to lose interest and i want to play neutral. There is no way people should respawn on death site.

JCatano is right, we need a proper system for war dec and we need to prevent exploits.

Mixing religion with pvp is also a huge fail. Keep it simple please. Less rules is better and make them clear. Balance is the key. I think it should be all the same, you respawn at your totem on death.

aliksteel

11-13-2010, 04:37 AM

Ummm, OK I'm just going to say this fast,Like taking a band-aid off. Deep breath* REV has it right.

REVKhA wrote:

It should not matter who is evil, neutral or good, it should only matter when you are at war...

Pking people you are not at war with, no matter what alignment, SHOULD BE PERM STAT LOSS.

@ War ..... should be temporary stat loss, regain over time ( 5-10-15 min )

In Neocron you would lose soulight when you'd pk someone green to you (allied) , and at -37 soulight you would lose your Lock on slot 1 and people had rare weapons so they didn't gank allies.

I have played Twitch pvp mmo's since 2001 , i know what i am talking about. I'm not talking about wow here, i'm talking about TWITCH PVP , Neocron and WW2online.

Ganking should be penalized (huge stat loss). You should only be able to Pk people you are at war with (REDS) no matter what aligment you are, Being Evil should only be harder because they have no locked slots so you can loot anything from them. Neutrals 1 locked slot and Good have 2 locked slots. This kind of rule reflects a lot of the things people are scared about pvp , they dont want to lose their favorite stuff, so if you are scared of pvp just join a good aligment and you will never drop things you equip in those 2 locked slots.

Do not penalize Evil players because they have balls... that respawn idea is just awfull it's enough for me to lose interest and i want to play neutral. There is no way people should respawn on death site.

JCatano is right, we need a proper system for war dec and we need to prevent exploits.

Mixing religion with pvp is also a huge fail. Keep it simple please. Less rules is better and make them clear. Balance is the key. I think it should be all the same, you respawn at your totem on death.

Xsyon

11-13-2010, 04:46 AM

Just to make things clear:

Everyone mentioning Permanent Stat Loss, means stat loss that's not regained automatically and is regained through actions, leveling etc. Right?

I don't think anyone wants stats permanently lost that will never be regained. I'm definitely not going to add that. Stat loss will be able to be recuperated.

aliksteel

11-13-2010, 04:50 AM

Xsyon wrote:

Everyone mentioning Permanent Stat Loss, means stat loss that's not regained automatically and is regained through actions, leveling etc. Right?

Yes

REVKhA

11-13-2010, 04:53 AM

Xsyon wrote:

Just to make things clear:

Everyone mentioning Permanent Stat Loss, means stat loss that's not regained automatically and is regained through actions, leveling etc. Right?

I don't think anyone wants stats permanently lost that will never be regained. I'm definitely not going to add that. Stat loss will be able to be recuperated.

I think perm stat loss is ok when killing someone you are not at war with. Should be small if he is another alignment but huge if you kill someone from your own alignment with no war declared between them. This will prevent useless killing and people will think twice.

It makes sense to penalize someone for killing someone his own alignment without being at war against him. Even Perm stat loss. This way people will use diplomacy more and role playing will be enhanced.

@ War = temporary

No war + same alignment = permanent

No war + other alignment = very small permanent to avoid abuse

Xsyon

11-13-2010, 05:58 AM

There's been a bit of arguing here, but it really sounds like you're all on the same page to me.

The system will be revised after I patch out the tribe rank system and I think JCatano outlined it best. I'm convinced, there will be no respawn at your body. There will definitely be no forced 'ghost runs', but I'll let you stand and suffer a ghost for a minute while you watch your enemies loot you. :P

I like Jadzia's idea about being able to bind at ally tribes. I think solo players should be able to bind at friendly tribes. I'll consider the bind slots for a few items. I just need to think about how to implement and display that properly.

I agree with keeping it simple.

Thanks to everyone for all the input. This is exactly what I'm looking for with Xsyon, making the game you all want to play without compromising the game that I want to play.

Jadzia

11-13-2010, 08:20 AM

Xsyon wrote:

Just to make things clear:

Everyone mentioning Permanent Stat Loss, means stat loss that's not regained automatically and is regained through actions, leveling etc. Right?

Yes.

Shrimps

11-13-2010, 07:38 PM

REVKhA wrote:

Wah Wah Wah Wah Wah.....quote]

Didn't you say

REVKhA wrote:
[quote]Well that's it for me seriously , not playing a .....

....Adios culeros , i am never coming back here.

http://www.xsyon.com/forums/30-prelude-talk/33004-magic-but-no-guns?limit=10&start=10

like less than 2 weeks ago? And to think I got all excited.

back on topic, by permanent stat loss I believe we were all reffering to stat loss that is not regained automatically over time but has to be worked for.

Also I believe skill loss is a neccesity especially in a game where gear is reletively easy to get and losing it is not a big hit at all. If you've played any modern MMO's with full loot and open pvp where gear loss is supposed to be a deterrent for reckless pking and fear of death then you know that it means nothing to most people and the game is just a big KOS fest. People in general are incapable of policing themselves, they have a hard enough time in reality where there is actually death. In a game it's impossible. Hard coded penalties are needed.

Jadzia

11-13-2010, 08:06 PM

Shrimps wrote:

Also I believe skill loss is a neccesity especially in a game where gear is reletively easy to get and losing it is not a big hit at all. If you've played any modern MMO's with full loot and open pvp where gear loss is supposed to be a deterrent for reckless pking and fear of death then you know that it means nothing to most people and the game is just a big KOS fest. People in general are incapable of policing themselves, they have a hard enough time in reality where there is actually death. In a game it's impossible. Hard coded penalties are needed.
Exactly.

Gamefreak

11-13-2010, 08:51 PM

Permanent skill loss should only be for those who are flagged as red players. By that I mean, only known killers should receive stat loss on death. Those who are at war or died from someone attacking them should not receive this.

Also, if reds are at war with another tribe and they are killed by members of that tribe, they should not receive the mentioned stat loss. I agree that reds should have negative characteristics that are associated with their choice of play style, but to completely nerf them would make gameplay boring. This would be due to no one going red in the first place, as the style of the play is a lose/lose situation.

mrcalhou

11-13-2010, 09:02 PM

Gear shouldn't be that easy to get. Some low-quality stuff should be fairly easy to come by, but decent stuff and good stuff should be harder to create, requiring rare materials and high skills.

Crafters get shafted in a game where there isn't a decently high turn-over for equipment and then any economy stalls. Since this game doesn't have storyline questing or anything of that nature then there won't be much to the game.

Kinslayer

11-14-2010, 12:09 AM

Gamefreak wrote:

Permanent skill loss should only be for those who are flagged as red players. By that I mean, only known killers should receive stat loss on death. Those who are at war or died from someone attacking them should not receive this.I can honestly say, that I, as a good aligned player in most games, would be very disappointed to receive no penalty on stats and/or skills when Im killed. Anything other is carebear. If you want to have the best skills, best gear, and be the best, you should have to work at it, and keep working at it to stay the best. Otherwise, what would you do, get all your stats/skills maxed and what? There's nothing else to do but go around killing people. Boring! Fun in the overall picture, but boring as hell if thats all we got.

Plain and simple... fuck the carebears, make people work to keep their stats finely tuned, and give EVERYONE penalty for sucking at PvP and dying. If you dont like the stat loss, DONT DIE!! Its that easy. See, the point of the stat loss is already working, people are worried about it, so it'll make you think twice before getting into that fight wont it.

And it should most definitely apply to PvE too.

mrcalhou wrote:

Gear shouldn't be that easy to get. Some low-quality stuff should be fairly easy to come by, but decent stuff and good stuff should be harder to create, requiring rare materials and high skills.

Crafters get shafted in a game where there isn't a decently high turn-over for equipment and then any economy stalls. Since this game doesn't have storyline questing or anything of that nature then there won't be much to the game. I agree. Skills should be hard to train, and take quite some time and effort to master, and then the best stuff should be only craftable at the highest levels. Requirements of rare components would be a nice addition to for the uber stuff.

mrcalhou

11-14-2010, 01:10 AM

I know that this thread is about "PVP rules," but each of points relate to PVP in their own way.

What I would do is have it so that skills take a long time to increase (say, exponentially), but there would be many different skills and subsets of skills so things don't become too linear and people can mix and match.

Then, I would allow someone to pay offerings to their diety/totem/whatever (however it'd work for the lore) to protect them from loseing skills upon death, and this would have to be repaid each time they die. Which gives the players choices.

Then, I'd have it so that equipment degrades at a "reasonable" rate through normal use and also random (or based on hit boxes) armor pieces take massive hits to durability upon death. I would allow for a limited number of repairs, but each time it's repaired there are minor hits to the equipment's stats. This will make players think about whether or not it's worth wearing a piece of equipment and it will help to get items out of the game so that they can be replaced by crafters. I don't think anyone LIKES losing gear that they work hard to acquire, but it's a necessary evil in a game that has a player-driven economy.

I would also have it so that some common materials are found everywhere, but rarer materials are found only in certain areas. This encourages exploration, trade, and conquest.

And, I wouldn't place any arbitrary restrictions on how much land a tribe can hold. I would let their abilities guide that. Even with restrictions, tribes could forge official and unofficial alliances and claim land by making additional tribes and such. So instead of hard-coding something that says a tribe must be <n players large and can only have xkm^2 area, I'd set aside some basic land around starter zones that have common materials and common creatures and make it so that this land couldn't be possessed by players. This way the hardcore PVPers get what they want and the carebears can wade in the kiddy pool. If they don't want to venture out of this little bit of "safe zone" then they must rely on traveling merchants (PCs) to trade with.

Kinslayer

11-14-2010, 01:19 AM

mrcalhou wrote:

I know that this thread is about "PVP rules," but each of points relate to PVP in their own way.

What I would do is have it so that skills take a long time to increase (say, exponentially), but there would be many different skills and subsets of skills so things don't become too linear and people can mix and match.

Then, I would allow someone to pay offerings to their diety/totem/whatever (however it'd work for the lore) to protect them from loseing skills upon death, and this would have to be repaid each time they die. Which gives the players choices.

Then, I'd have it so that equipment degrades at a "reasonable" rate through normal use and also random (or based on hit boxes) armor pieces take massive hits to durability upon death. I would allow for a limited number of repairs, but each time it's repaired there are minor hits to the equipment's stats. This will make players think about whether or not it's worth wearing a piece of equipment and it will help to get items out of the game so that they can be replaced by crafters. I don't think anyone LIKES losing gear that they work hard to acquire, but it's a necessary evil in a game that has a player-driven economy.

I would have it so that some common materials are found everywhere, but rarer materials are found only in certain areas. This encourages exploration, trade, and conquest.Yeh, I like the way youre thinking.

Rarer resources should be able to be controlled by tribes. As an example, if a tribe finds an iron vein on their land, they would have to build a mine to mine it, but they control it. This opens up the need for trade, as the tribe with iron, as an example may need clay, or tar, or coal, etc. This also opens up some meaning to conquest and tribe wars.

Andro Bourne

11-14-2010, 02:08 AM

JCatano wrote:

Xsyon definitely pulled a Tasos. (That means you really messed up.)

Silly rule.

This is a joke right?

Darkfall alignment system was a total joke alignment good or bad did almost nothing for you other then having towers hit you or not in NPC towns...

Xsyon is trying to not do what Darkfall did and actually make alignment matter in this game... so what your saying doesn't make sense, I dont know what game you played but it wasn't Darkfall.

If you don't want alignment to matter go... play Darkfall most of us are here for a change... alignment should matter and reflect on gameplay.

Andro Bourne

11-14-2010, 02:22 AM

Shrimps wrote:

REVKhA wrote:
[quote]Wah Wah Wah Wah Wah.....quote]

Also I believe skill loss is a neccesity especially in a game where gear is reletively easy to get and losing it is not a big hit at all. If you've played any modern MMO's with full loot and open pvp where gear loss is supposed to be a deterrent for reckless pking and fear of death then you know that it means nothing to most people and the game is just a big KOS fest. People in general are incapable of policing themselves, they have a hard enough time in reality where there is actually death. In a game it's impossible. Hard coded penalties are needed.

I agree with this allowing players just to get to full stats well just create problems we have all seen in the past (Darkfall) is a good example of the problem.

Grind Grind Grind = OP = Gets Boring.

1. Skills in this game shouldn't matter to much as to reflect how easy/hard it is to kill another player, what we need is actual player skill on using the keyboard and mouse not in game skill grind.

2. Players shouldn't be rewarded for afk grinding... which will happen but death etc... gives less of a reason to afk grind and more of a reason to get out and just play the game.

I know I keep mentioning Darkfall as a referance but it is the only mmo that has full loot and free aim pvp that is worth mentioning, but as you can see the game is failing so maybe might be a good idea not to do what they did...

Just saying it's not the end of the world try something new if it doesn't work it can always be changed, why is it that so many people are against the idea of something new that has the potential to be better then something else.

If you don't want new there is always every other MMO that is based off 1 game... not going to say the name because it would be a disgrace to the gaming community.

JCatano

11-14-2010, 03:18 AM

Andro Bourne wrote:

JCatano wrote:

Xsyon definitely pulled a Tasos. (That means you really messed up.)

Silly rule.

This is a joke right?

Darkfall alignment system was a total joke alignment good or bad did almost nothing for you other then having towers hit you or not in NPC towns...

Xsyon is trying to not do what Darkfall did and actually make alignment matter in this game... so what your saying doesn't make sense, I dont know what game you played but it wasn't Darkfall.

If you don't want alignment to matter go... play Darkfall most of us are here for a change... alignment should matter and reflect on gameplay.

I think you need to go back and read the entire thread again. (If you read it entirely in the first place.)

Gamefreak

11-14-2010, 07:43 AM

I'm not totally against everyone having stat loss on death, the problem with it isn't how we are going to enjoy the game, it will probably be the impact on the game's marketability. The casual gamer won't want to play the game if every time they get killed hunting they loose some of their stats.

Now if we had a resurrection system like DF's after you were knocked down, I would agree with the stat loss. Then people really have no right to bitch, as stat loss would be related to stupidity and or unorganized tactics.

Jadzia

11-14-2010, 08:09 AM

The goal in the game to have like 20% evil, 80% good-neutral. Ganking-griefing won't be allowed. Thats why Jordi implements a harsher environment for evil alligment, otherwise everyone would just pick evil and the game would turn into a gankfest.

The goal is to create a fun environment for PvP and non-PvP players both, so that 'fuck the carebear' attitude won't work here.
If a good player gets stat loss penalty when he got attacked and killed in PvP then it turns the game into a griefer paradise, and noone will play good. If the good player was the attacker thats another question.

The goal is to have a 'badass' PvP, where only the ones pick evil who are really good at it, their name will be known and feared. Evil payers need to be very good, they need to know how to hide, must be hard to hunt them down and even much more harder to kill them. They will be the real monsters of the world. PvP means nothing if everyone, their mother and the cat do it.

Stat loss should be there in PvE death for sure.
Penalty during war can only discussed when we know the conditions of declaring wars IMO.

The goals of the game I said are not my ideas, they were posted earlier by Jordi, the threads are there but burried in the forum. If someone is interested I can try to find them, the players who joined in Febr-March probably remember them.

mrcalhou

11-14-2010, 08:18 AM

Does anyone read my posts?

I mean, it's not like there hasn't been a game that has successfully done PvP, player-driven economy, good, and evil correctly.

joexxxz

11-14-2010, 08:25 AM

I agree with Jadzia.
Good point. Its all about balance, balance, balance. :)

Gamefreak

11-14-2010, 08:27 AM

Meh.

Either way there is going to be crying. If stat loss is put in you will have people whining constantly about loosing there stats. If it isn't put in you will have people whining that it's not there.

You really can't win. Bottom line is, Jordi is going to put in what he wants.

mrcalhou

11-14-2010, 08:34 AM

Gamefreak wrote:

Meh.

Either way there is going to be crying. If stat loss is put in you will have people whining constantly about loosing there stats. If it isn't put in you will have people whining that it's not there.

You really can't win. Bottom line is, Jordi is going to put in what he wants.

I wrote:

Then, I would allow someone to pay offerings to their diety/totem/whatever (however it'd work for the lore) to protect them from loseing [some] skills upon death, and this would have to be repaid each time they die. Which gives the players choices.

I'm not a big fan of having arbitrary restrictions on evil players, but since this game isn't going to have any npc cities (wtf?), they could use my idea and then make the amount of skills that could be put off-limits be a function of a players alignment.

Jadzia

11-14-2010, 08:45 AM

joexxxz

11-14-2010, 09:34 AM

I like the way it is right now. Just need a little work on combat system :)

EVE is not land based game, its a space game. :)

mrcalhou

11-14-2010, 10:01 AM

joexxxz wrote:

EVE is not land based game, its a space game. :)

Would you mind elaborating on why this would affect certain mechanics that have been suggested? I've pondered this idea myself and I cannot think of any thing that can't be modified in such a way that would make it work for a terristrial based game. The only limitation that I can really think of is game world size, but even Eve has a finite playable area.

joexxxz

11-14-2010, 10:48 AM

Jadzia wrote:

... This is so true. Thats why I prefer the Eve type system, with high sec areas and Pvp zones with rare materials.
But oh well, Xsyon has open world PvP, and I guess that won't change.

Thats what i mean, EVE is a space game, which is ok for it to have zone system, but how can u implement this in Xsyon land game?
How can the zoning system can work here?

This answer is for mrcalhou :)

Kinslayer

11-14-2010, 11:38 AM

Jadzia wrote:

The goal is to create a fun environment for PvP and non-PvP players both, so that 'fuck the carebear' attitude won't work here.
If a good player gets stat loss penalty when he got attacked and killed in PvP then it turns the game into a griefer paradise, and noone will play good. If the good player was the attacker thats another question.Actually I think it works well here. Carebears are already taken care of in their immunity area (tribe zone). PvP is no place for people that are scared of risk. So what youre saying is, if a good player is hopeless at PvP/PvE, and dies all the time, they should have no penalty? I think that is ridiculous. If I was trying to craft something and repeatedly fucked it up, I would not expect to just keep using the same resources with no penalty of losing them, until I got it right. Its the same thing.

You also make it sound like evil players are just going to be a toy thing for good players to hunt after. I dont think you're getting the whole idea of what evil players are about. I dont think their going to run and hide in a corner waiting for you to come hunt them.

Jadzia

11-14-2010, 12:09 PM

Kinslayer wrote:

Jadzia wrote:

The goal is to create a fun environment for PvP and non-PvP players both, so that 'fuck the carebear' attitude won't work here.
If a good player gets stat loss penalty when he got attacked and killed in PvP then it turns the game into a griefer paradise, and noone will play good. If the good player was the attacker thats another question.Actually I think it works well here. Carebears are already taken care of in their immunity area (tribe zone). PvP is no place for people that are scared of risk. So what youre saying is, if a good player is hopeless at PvP/PvE, and dies all the time, they should have no penalty? I think that is ridiculous. If I was trying to craft something and repeatedly fucked it up, I would not expect to just keep using the same resources with no penalty of losing them, until I got it right. Its the same thing.

You also make it sound like evil players are just going to be a toy thing for good players to hunt after. I dont think you're getting the whole idea of what evil players are about. I dont think their going to run and hide in a corner waiting for you to come hunt them.
Seems you didn't understand my post. Evil players being the monsters of the game is not my idea, its Jordi's. He is the one who wants non-PvP players to enjoy the game as well, he gave promises to us that the game will never become a gankfest. There was a lot (and I mean a LOT) of arguing about PvP at the early phase of the game, and Jordi made it clear that he does care about the non-PvP playstyle, and he wants to make it possible for everyone to enjoy the game. You can try to convince him to 'fuck the carebears', but I seriously doubt you will succeed. Xsyon is not a PvP centric game, the ones who want to play in peace will get the opportunity for that. Random PKing will happen here and there, but to punish the victim even more than he already is by being killed, looted and teleported home is absurd.

The tribe areas are only safe zones for early Prelude. (early is not defined).
Edit: Oops I just saw you mentioned PvE too, I suggested that if a player dies in PvE he should get the stat loss penalty too.

mrcalhou

11-14-2010, 12:45 PM

joexxxz wrote:

Jadzia wrote:

... This is so true. Thats why I prefer the Eve type system, with high sec areas and Pvp zones with rare materials.
But oh well, Xsyon has open world PvP, and I guess that won't change.

Thats what i mean, EVE is a space game, which is ok for it to have zone system, but how can u implement this in Xsyon land game?
How can the zoning system can work here?

This answer is for mrcalhou :)

I can understand that, but the game world is divided up into zones as it is, so that shouldn't be a problem to work with.

It's not so clear when you are crossing zone-boundaries but there are ways to work with that. Possibly a system message saying "You are now entering a PvP area." Or have in-game warning signs, like with skull and crossbones or something in certain spots. I think that'd be pretty neat.

joexxxz

11-14-2010, 02:15 PM

People please dont forget that this is a "SAND BOX" game, we dont need any form of restrictions. PVP should be everywhere. This is a different game, please dont confuse this game with EVE/ETC ...

Only in prelude the tribe land is safe, after prelude it will NOT :laugh: ;)

mrcalhou

11-14-2010, 03:18 PM

joexxxz wrote:

People please dont forget that this is a "SAND BOX" game, we dont need any form of restrictions. PVP should be everywhere. This is a different game, please dont confuse this game with EVE/ETC ...

Only in prelude the tribe land is safe, after prelude it will NOT :laugh: ;)

If I ask 10 people what a sandbox is I'd probably get 11 different answers. In my opinion Eve is THE sandbox. But, in Eve, PvP CAN be EVERYWHERE. It's just that in some zones the attacker gets OMGWTFPWNED for it and losing all your really expensive equipment isn't usually worth it. That's not to say it doesn't happen though.

In fact, I think a progressive system of relative safe zones is less restrictive than no safe zones what-so-ever because in my opinion it gives the players MORE choices, not less. If you use Eve's system as an example then there are places, many places I might add, for the FFA PvP crowd to hang out in and wage their territory wars, while the players that don't want to be involved get their own little section of the game world. It's like two different games inside of one, with both being able to interact with the other, and in some cases rely on each other.

I would define a sandbox game as a game that gives the player choices. Lots and lots of choices. And sometimes, restrictions and relative restrictions can give the players more choices than not having those systems in place to begin with.

Kinslayer

11-14-2010, 03:43 PM

Jadzia wrote:

Kinslayer wrote:

Jadzia wrote:

The goal is to create a fun environment for PvP and non-PvP players both, so that 'fuck the carebear' attitude won't work here.
If a good player gets stat loss penalty when he got attacked and killed in PvP then it turns the game into a griefer paradise, and noone will play good. If the good player was the attacker thats another question.Actually I think it works well here. Carebears are already taken care of in their immunity area (tribe zone). PvP is no place for people that are scared of risk. So what youre saying is, if a good player is hopeless at PvP/PvE, and dies all the time, they should have no penalty? I think that is ridiculous. If I was trying to craft something and repeatedly fucked it up, I would not expect to just keep using the same resources with no penalty of losing them, until I got it right. Its the same thing.

You also make it sound like evil players are just going to be a toy thing for good players to hunt after. I dont think you're getting the whole idea of what evil players are about. I dont think their going to run and hide in a corner waiting for you to come hunt them.
Seems you didn't understand my post. Evil players being the monsters of the game is not my idea, its Jordi's. He is the one who wants non-PvP players to enjoy the game as well, he gave promises to us that the game will never become a gankfest. There was a lot (and I mean a LOT) of arguing about PvP at the early phase of the game, and Jordi made it clear that he does care about the non-PvP playstyle, and he wants to make it possible for everyone to enjoy the game. You can try to convince him to 'fuck the carebears', but I seriously doubt you will succeed. Xsyon is not a PvP centric game, the ones who want to play in peace will get the opportunity for that. Random PKing will happen here and there, but to punish the victim even more than he already is by being killed, looted and teleported home is absurd.

The tribe areas are only safe zones for early Prelude. (early is not defined).
Edit: Oops I just saw you mentioned PvE too, I suggested that if a player dies in PvE he should get the stat loss penalty too.By "fuck the carebears" I was referring to this topic, not the game as a whole. I don't want this game to be PvP centric, I want a game that has balance between PvP and crafting/building.

I dont like the idea of safe zones. I had forgotten that tribe areas are only safe in early Prelude. I imagine if you want a safe zone after that, you will have to fortify your tribe area. Hopefully we will get guard towers and stone walls before too long to really fortify our cities well.

Gamefreak

11-14-2010, 04:46 PM

I guess the ideal sandbox would be no restrictions.

PvP everywhere, we make the penalties for the murder of others. The question is should there be preset restrictions in game. In my opinion, no, there should not be. The penalty for going around killing random people is that when they respawn, they're going to want to rip your head off. This along with the fact that all of their allies and trading partners will want to as well.

It seems that since there is so many different opinions in this thread alone, that no resolution is going to be found on this topic. At least anytime soon, that is. If people want to run around and just gank, let them. What comes around goes around.

mrcalhou

11-14-2010, 05:00 PM

Gamefreak wrote:

I guess the ideal sandbox would be no restrictions.

PvP everywhere, we make the penalties for the murder of others. The question is should there be preset restrictions in game. In my opinion, no, there should not be. The penalty for going around killing random people is that when they respawn, they're going to want to rip your head off. This along with the fact that all of their allies and trading partners will want to as well.

It seems that since there is so many different opinions in this thread alone, that no resolution is going to be found on this topic. At least anytime soon, that is. If people want to run around and just gank, let them. What comes around goes around.

That sounds good in theory, but in practice it drives A LOT of potential customers away. And then people start thinking that the game is dead because they think that there are few people playing it so then they won't even bother to try the game since they think that no one else is playing.

Ever heard of the concept of the vocal minority? That's when a relatively few people talk A LOT. And they usually keep saying the same thing over and over again. Sort of like what I have been doing in this thread. If this game had FFA PVP then a few people would play it, hate it because someone killed them, then go on every mmo forum out there and keep telling people: "Don't play Xsyon! It's nothing but gankers and greifers that camp newbie areas! You'll NEVER be able to progress because the vets will keep killing you and taking your stuff!" Just look at forums for Darkfall.

I wouldn't count on the players policing it either unless there was some sort of reward for doing so.

There are enough games out there that work and games that don't work. No, none of them are perfect. And this game won't be perfect. But if the developers do some research into past games and how they work then they will be able to see what did work, what didn't work, and make improvements and adjustments based on that knowledge.

I really think that gamers get too caught up in semantics. Hardcore, carebear, themepark, sandbox, etcetera. Does it really matter what people call it? This thread has already demonstrated that everyone has a different opinion about what these words mean.

So instead of shoehorning a feature into the game "because it's sandbox," why not design a mechanic so that it actually works well? Instead of calling something a "restriction" why don't we call it a "Freedom of choice enhancer." A restriction is: "You can't PvP in this game." A 'freedom of choice enhancer' is: "Yes you can pvp in this game, but if you do so here then something bad might happen to you. You can do it, but is it worth it?" This gives the players choices.

joexxxz

11-14-2010, 05:09 PM

There is. You will be able to hire a player for your protection.
In reward u might give him some gold coins or so.
Tribe village will have quests to protect players and so on.
Dont worry there will be a balance.

Gamefreak

11-14-2010, 05:23 PM

Jordi also needs to consider the fact that games such as world of warcraft and lord of the rings are dominating the mmo market at the moment. He needs to take small steps away from gameplay like that in order to create a successful mmo.

In my opinion he has already took a large step. Where he goes from this step is up to him. I think that if he tries to make the game open as I would have suggested, that the game's marketability would plummet. In a perfect world, it wouldn't. You just can't expect everyone to be a hardcore gamer. If this game can't appeal to a casual gamer, it's not going to be successful. I think that's the bottom line.

Kinslayer

11-14-2010, 05:34 PM

I agree that it needs to appeal to casual gamers to be more successful, but that doesnt mean there shouldnt be penalties for dying.

Gamefreak

11-14-2010, 05:43 PM

Kinslayer wrote:

I agree that it needs to appeal to casual gamers to be more successful, but that doesnt mean there shouldnt be penalties for dying.

I never said there shouldn't be.

JCatano

11-14-2010, 06:44 PM

Gamefreak wrote:

Jordi also needs to consider the fact that games such as world of warcraft and lord of the rings are dominating the mmo market at the moment. He needs to take small steps away from gameplay like that in order to create a successful mmo.

In my opinion he has already took a large step. Where he goes from this step is up to him. I think that if he tries to make the game open as I would have suggested, that the game's marketability would plummet. In a perfect world, it wouldn't. You just can't expect everyone to be a hardcore gamer. If this game can't appeal to a casual gamer, it's not going to be successful. I think that's the bottom line.

Lineage I and II would disagree. 3.5 million and 1 million at peak, respectively. EVE sits around 250k, I think.

Lord of the Rings went F2P. They aren't dominating anything.

WoW went very commercial and used popular icons as their marketing tools, so the popularity isn't surprising. Marketing can do amazing things, especially when time is bought on national/international networks which exposes the product to people who never even gave it a thought beforehand.

Gamefreak

11-14-2010, 07:06 PM

Wait, what point are you actually trying to prove there?

Lineage I and II may not necessarily apply to the casual gamer, so to speak, but they do follow a very linear style of mmo gameplay. You buy power ups, you kill monsters, you level up. It's like a traditional korean grind fest. People who play mmos usually associate that sort of gameplay with them, not styles of gameplay found in EvE online, Darkfall, MO or Wurm to name a few.

What people need is assurance that the game they are preordering will be appealing. With no marketing, a different style of gameplay, no open beta and new types of gaming concepts, this assurance is going to be hard to come by.

EvE also has a more, how to put it, large development team? It also has many more things under its belt then xsyon can claim to have.

World of warcraft came off highly successful RTS games that made the series popular before it was even complete. So the assurance there was made before the game was already released. By assurance, I mean assurance in the sense people know it has a higher chance of being a successful game, rather than a failure.

Shrimps

11-14-2010, 08:52 PM

mrcalhou wrote:

Gamefreak wrote:
If this game had FFA PVP then a few people would play it, hate it because someone killed them, then go on every mmo forum out there and keep telling people: "Don't play Xsyon! It's nothing but gankers and greifers that camp newbie areas! You'll NEVER be able to progress because the vets will keep killing you and taking your stuff!" Just look at forums for Darkfall.

Have you played darkfall? That's exactly what it is, a few vets who macroed all their skills up and they camp the only decent monster spawns and it makes it hard to gain skill unless you already have them. None of my friends will even get past the 2nd day because they get killed by everyone all the time.

And that is because Darkfall is lacking 2 essential things. Soft caps for skills and penalties for randomly killing everyone all the time.

Honestly I think everyone on these forums should try the Darkfall free trial to see how badly that system works.

You NEED to have penalties for being Evil or everyone will be evil.

I don't think most people really think about the fact that the game is intended to have only about 10-20% Evil players and 80-90% Good/Neutral.

Basically the intended effect woul be that encountering ANY evil players at all will be a rare occassion unless your tribe is set up close to theirs. But to the majority of the community seeing an evil player wouldn't be common at all.

And if that is the intended effect for Evil players then that would mean that Tribe wars (Tribe vs Tribe) would be the MAJORITY of PvP encounters. So that would be fighting over land or rescources or over whos hat looks funnier etc. You can and will still have as much PvP as you wanted it would just be against enemy tribes and not killing random players.

Let's say there are about 15 people posting in this thread right? So if the game started and all of us in this thread were in game only 1 or 2 of the people posting in this thread are intended to be evil, that's it.

mrcalhou

11-14-2010, 09:47 PM

Personally, I wouldn't want to do buisness with an evil player. If the majority of people are good then that's one thing that evil players may have going against them. That is, I foresee them having difficulties trading.

I'm not a fan of stat loss if items and skills have minimum requirements for using them. Now, if items and skills became more effective as skills increase, then stat loss doesn't bother me.

If there is stat loss upon death, then I really think that they should implement a feature so that we can trade resources/money for protection. If anything it'd help prevent inflation and stuff.

I wouldn't mind having skill caps either so long as if I wanted to try a different role I could delegate a skill to lose points in so I could have those points available for something else. I think it would be even better if the skill tree was so complex that it would be extremely difficult to specialize in everything.

Kinslayer

11-15-2010, 12:16 AM

Shrimps wrote:

And if that is the intended effect for Evil players then that would mean that Tribe wars (Tribe vs Tribe) would be the MAJORITY of PvP encounters. So that would be fighting over land or rescources or over whos hat looks funnier etc. You can and will still have as much PvP as you wanted it would just be against enemy tribes and not killing random players.Thats all the more reason to be sure that good/neutral players are also penalised for death, if the majority of PvP is good/neutral tribe vs good/neutral tribe.

Shrimps

11-15-2010, 12:36 AM

Being successful as an MMO doesnt neccesarily mean having thousands of players. It's different for every game. WW2online is an indie MMO that has been running for over 10years and is a succefull MMO yet they've never had more than a few hundred to a couple thousand subscribers at a time. But they're not a huge team either so their need for subscribers and income is a lot less because of their low overhead, just like the Xsyon team.

Kinslayer wrote:

Shrimps wrote:

And if that is the intended effect for Evil players then that would mean that Tribe wars (Tribe vs Tribe) would be the MAJORITY of PvP encounters. So that would be fighting over land or rescources or over whos hat looks funnier etc. You can and will still have as much PvP as you wanted it would just be against enemy tribes and not killing random players.Thats all the more reason to be sure that good/neutral players are also penalised for death, if the majority of PvP is good/neutral tribe vs good/neutral tribe.

There should not be as big of a stat loss for neutal/good players.

The tradeoff for being Evil and being able to attack any player without your own tribe disowning you or however that works is that life is harder and the penalties are greater to balance the rewards.

Basically the fact that most of you don't like the idea of penalties for being evil means that the idea is already working, the 1 to 2 people in here who are ok with that and plan on being evil anyways are the target 10% that they want to be evil while the rest of us are neutral/good.

If everyone in here was ok with the penalties for being Evil then that would mean the penalties are not strong enough.

Kinslayer

11-15-2010, 12:47 AM

You're an idiot. Now you're just repeating what I have already said. Hell, you've pretty much quoted me word for word.

I am arguing that evil players should have 5x the effort to regain stats, if you check back in the thread, I was the first one to suggest it. Go read the thread, then come back.

JCatano

11-15-2010, 12:59 AM

Gamefreak wrote:

Wait, what point are you actually trying to prove there?

Lineage I and II may not necessarily apply to the casual gamer, so to speak, but they do follow a very linear style of mmo gameplay. You buy power ups, you kill monsters, you level up. It's like a traditional korean grind fest. People who play mmos usually associate that sort of gameplay with them, not styles of gameplay found in EvE online, Darkfall, MO or Wurm to name a few.

What people need is assurance that the game they are preordering will be appealing. With no marketing, a different style of gameplay, no open beta and new types of gaming concepts, this assurance is going to be hard to come by.

EvE also has a more, how to put it, large development team? It also has many more things under its belt then xsyon can claim to have.

World of warcraft came off highly successful RTS games that made the series popular before it was even complete. So the assurance there was made before the game was already released. By assurance, I mean assurance in the sense people know it has a higher chance of being a successful game, rather than a failure.

You said if a game doesn't appeal to the casual gamer, it won't succeed. I gave you examples of ones that have. Pretty simple. All three of those are pretty darn hardcore. PK, loot, and grindy (even with EVE's time-based skill system.)

Lineage being linear is irrelevant.

EVE started with a team no bigger than Darkfall (30'ish). Xsyon's page shows 19 developers. Less, but not a massive difference.

With regard to WoW, I am speaking in terms of it being an MMO. Mass commercial marketing driven by popular icons is a huge reason they have almost 12 million subscriptions. While it likely would have still had a lot of subs without that type of marketing, it certainly wouldn't have been 12 million. Many, many people state WoW as their first MMO and you can bet it's because of Blizzard's marketing strategy for it.

Shrimps

11-15-2010, 01:22 AM

In no way dd I quote you word for word I was merely using your statement to build a point, no need to rage out and turn the thread into a flamefest.

Chade

11-15-2010, 03:25 AM

What abouth this one:

Once you turn red, it memorizes what skills you have at that verry moment. When you get killed, you loose all the statts you gained when beeing red.

Jadzia

11-15-2010, 06:42 AM

Chade wrote:

What abouth this one:

Once you turn red, it memorizes what skills you have at that verry moment. When you get killed, you loose all the statts you gained when beeing red.
Being red (aka evil) is not a temporary status in this game. In other games if your name turns red that will disappear after 10 mins or an hour or a day. Playing evil is a lifestyle in Xsyon, so if an evil player died he would lose months of progress. I guess this is not what you wanted to suggest.

Chade

11-15-2010, 07:40 AM

Jadzia wrote:

Chade wrote:

What abouth this one:

Once you turn red, it memorizes what skills you have at that verry moment. When you get killed, you loose all the statts you gained when beeing red.
Being red (aka evil) is not a temporary status in this game. In other games if your name turns red that will disappear after 10 mins or an hour or a day. Playing evil is a lifestyle in Xsyon, so if an evil player died he would lose months of progress. I guess this is not what you wanted to suggest.

Yes It is what I was suggesting ;) nobody said it was not possible to become blue again right? Gives a player a reason to be blue. What happens if there is no reason to become/be blue?

Shrimps

11-15-2010, 11:03 AM

Chade wrote:

Jadzia wrote:

Chade wrote:

What abouth this one:

Once you turn red, it memorizes what skills you have at that verry moment. When you get killed, you loose all the statts you gained when beeing red.
Being red (aka evil) is not a temporary status in this game. In other games if your name turns red that will disappear after 10 mins or an hour or a day. Playing evil is a lifestyle in Xsyon, so if an evil player died he would lose months of progress. I guess this is not what you wanted to suggest.

Yes It is what I was suggesting ;) nobody said it was not possible to become blue again right? Gives a player a reason to be blue. What happens if there is no reason to become/be blue?

There is no "blue" and "red" though it's not going to be as easy or as simple as going from "red" to "blue".

You're either "Evil" , "Neutral" or "Good" and if it is even possible to become Neutral or Good again after becoming Evil then it will not be an easy task by any measure. Certainly not like some games where you just kill x amounts of enemies.

When you choose an lignment you are basically choosing a playstyle, each with it's own rewards and penalties.

Kinslayer

11-15-2010, 11:34 AM

Shrimps wrote:

In no way dd I quote you word for word I was merely using your statement to build a point, no need to rage out and turn the thread into a flamefest.

Kinslayer wrote:

See, the point of the stat loss is already working, people are worried about it, so it'll make you think twice before getting into that fight wont it.

Shrimps wrote:

Basically the fact that most of you don't like the idea of penalties for being evil means that the idea is already working

Hmm.

And by calling you an idiot, it simply means I think you're an idiot, how do you get rage out of that?

mrcalhou

11-15-2010, 12:53 PM

Shrimps wrote:

There is no "blue" and "red" though it's not going to be as easy or as simple as going from "red" to "blue".

You're either "Evil" , "Neutral" or "Good" and if it is even possible to become Neutral or Good again after becoming Evil then it will not be an easy task by any measure. Certainly not like some games where you just kill x amounts of enemies.

When you choose an lignment you are basically choosing a playstyle, each with it's own rewards and penalties.

Wait, where do we choose to be evil at character creation?

Shrimps

11-15-2010, 03:25 PM

Kinslayer wrote:

Shrimps wrote:

In no way dd I quote you word for word I was merely using your statement to build a point, no need to rage out and turn the thread into a flamefest.

Kinslayer wrote:

See, the point of the stat loss is already working, people are worried about it, so it'll make you think twice before getting into that fight wont it.

Shrimps wrote:

Basically the fact that most of you don't like the idea of penalties for being evil means that the idea is already working

Hmm.

And by calling you an idiot, it simply means I think you're an idiot, how do you get rage out of that?

Yes pick one sentence out of the entire post and butcher it to make your point, good job.

Moving on.

mrcalhou wrote:

There is no "blue" and "red" though it's not going to be as easy or as simple as going from "red" to "blue".

You're either "Evil" , "Neutral" or "Good" and if it is even possible to become Neutral or Good again after becoming Evil then it will not be an easy task by any measure. Certainly not like some games where you just kill x amounts of enemies.

When you choose an lignment you are basically choosing a playstyle, each with it's own rewards and penalties.[/quote]

Wait, where do we choose to be evil at character creation?[/quote]

I'm going to take that as sarcasm. You choose by your tribe choice, and also the actions you take in game.

However none of this is on topic anymore.

mrcalhou

11-15-2010, 05:30 PM

/facepalm

Kinslayer

11-15-2010, 07:04 PM

mrcalhou wrote:

/facepalmIm with you. I guess this topic has served its purpose anyway. We could go around in circles like this for weeks, but whats the point?

Gamefreak

11-17-2010, 04:53 PM

JCatano wrote:

Gamefreak wrote:

Wait, what point are you actually trying to prove there?

Lineage I and II may not necessarily apply to the casual gamer, so to speak, but they do follow a very linear style of mmo gameplay. You buy power ups, you kill monsters, you level up. It's like a traditional korean grind fest. People who play mmos usually associate that sort of gameplay with them, not styles of gameplay found in EvE online, Darkfall, MO or Wurm to name a few.

What people need is assurance that the game they are preordering will be appealing. With no marketing, a different style of gameplay, no open beta and new types of gaming concepts, this assurance is going to be hard to come by.

EvE also has a more, how to put it, large development team? It also has many more things under its belt then xsyon can claim to have.

World of warcraft came off highly successful RTS games that made the series popular before it was even complete. So the assurance there was made before the game was already released. By assurance, I mean assurance in the sense people know it has a higher chance of being a successful game, rather than a failure.

You said if a game doesn't appeal to the casual gamer, it won't succeed. I gave you examples of ones that have. Pretty simple. All three of those are pretty darn hardcore. PK, loot, and grindy (even with EVE's time-based skill system.)

Lineage being linear is irrelevant.

EVE started with a team no bigger than Darkfall (30'ish). Xsyon's page shows 19 developers. Less, but not a massive difference.

With regard to WoW, I am speaking in terms of it being an MMO. Mass commercial marketing driven by popular icons is a huge reason they have almost 12 million subscriptions. While it likely would have still had a lot of subs without that type of marketing, it certainly wouldn't have been 12 million. Many, many people state WoW as their first MMO and you can bet it's because of Blizzard's marketing strategy for it.

You highlighted one part of my entire argument and tried to prove me wrong. That was one sentence out of two paragraphs ...

I'm not going to spend days trying to explain to you what I mean. Not being applicable to the casual gamer is only one of the reasons I listed for its marketing being in jeopardy. People know games that follow linear gameplay in terms of the "normality" of mmos tend to succeed, ones that do not, tend to not succeed so much. Once again, usually.

You listed games that have succeeded that were not designed for the casual gamer. This is, however, a very small portion of successful games. Most games that succeed are applicable to the casual gamer. Lets say for every 100 games, three that are not applicable to the average gamer succeed. Lets also say that out of 100 games, 60 that are applicable to the average gamer succeed. Are you going to model your game after the idea that has a 3% chance to succeed, or the one that has a 60% chance to succeed. Logic would seem to tell us to choose the one with a 60% chance. Also, this is not like betting on the underdog in a boxing match, if your game is less applicable to the casual gamer, you will attain less money per month because you attract less people. Thus there is no benefit for choosing a game that has no application to the casual gamer. Note that I am not claiming that my percents are anywhere near being accurate, however, the success rate for games that are applicable to the casual gamer is higher than the ones that are not. This was the purpose of the percentiles. So in short, your argument is no more valid than it was when you made your fist comment. That is, not at all.

JCatano

11-18-2010, 03:07 AM

Gamefreak -

I addressed your entire post in my last reply, highlighting the part that was absolutely wrong. Anyway...

You started by saying games won't be successful unless casual. After I gave examples of successful "hardcore" games, you started talking about linear gameplay. Finally, you mixed those 2 words into one statement for some sort of point.

Your casual/linear mantra doesn't explain why Star Wars Galaxies actually lost subscriptions after they revamped it to a "normal" MMO. It doesn't explain UO or Asheron's Call. It doesn't explain the anti-casual, grindtastic asian MMOs which place 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 8th, and 9th on the Forbes MMO earning list. It will never explain EVE (#15 on Forbes). On that note, it does not relate to the fact that there are a number of sandbox, PvP-oriented MMOs in development. No reason to code one if it there isn't a perceived market.

Here's another fact: Per Raph Koster, most MMOs do not succeed regardless of type. He said it's something like 7% of MMOs developed make a profit. While WoW is #1 in revenue, the majority of the top list are very grindy games along with 3 "hardcore" ones in the top 15 (Lineage I/II and EVE). Sure doesn't sound like casual is the only way to go.

If a game is good... It's good. If it sucks... It won't ever come close to making that Forbes list.

mrcalhou

11-18-2010, 11:10 AM

It's pretty much what JCatano said. The reason some of those other "hardcore" MMOs (Darkfall, Mortal Online) "failed" in the eyes of gamers is because the design decisions were very limited or because the game didn't have everything that was promised and/or were buggy.

The reason Eve is consistently GAINING subscriptions is because there are enough different things for the players to do, there are places for everyone. The Hardcore PVPers get to keep to their low-sec space and the not-so-hardcore players can live in high sec in relative safety.

Having FFA-PVP is a very quick way to lose potential customers. So many wouldn't even touch Darkfall with a 10 foot pole because of the FFA nature of the game. Combine that with a skill system that encourges macroers, characters with higher skills and stats having a very significant advantage over newbies, and a one-way item progression system. And it's no wonder the game can't hold on to players. New players don't stick and the vets leave because there's nothing to do and no newbies to gank.

Shrimps

11-18-2010, 06:29 PM

Darkfall lacked a system that discouraged random griefing and zergs. That was it's main problem, this was of course compounded by the fact that Aventurine (the devs) take too long to do anything about problems.

Mortal online is just a buggy piece of shit.

I don't see how this game couldn't appeal to casual gamers though, I mean it doesn't hold your hand and play the game for you like other games (WOW) but I don't see it as a hardcore grindfest either.

Gamefreak

11-18-2010, 07:56 PM

To be honest, this game reminds me of wurm online, if any of you guys have heard of that. Of course we can't really be judging this game until it's complete I suppose. It's unfair to judge an unfinished product.

Also, I didn't say casual was the only way to go. I said non-casual was probably a way that will not succeed, and or would be less probable for success. IE casual is the smarter way to go for a business model. Or if that doesn't work for you, the easiest business model.

In general we should probably stop trying to give this game judgment right now. Not because it doesn't have flaws or because anyone is right or wrong, it's just not a great time to debate over it. The debate going on in this thread would probably be better done AFTER the game is released, as to not go in circles.

And yeah, mortal online is a buggy piece of shit. That much I agree with.

The game doesn't really apply to a casual gamer because of the time that will need to be spent making your character being anything relevant. The key word is "casual", which in most circumstances the game isn't being played to extreme extents, or even what we hardcore gamers would even consider normal.

mrcalhou

11-18-2010, 08:31 PM

Gamefreak wrote:

Also, I didn't say casual was the only way to go. I said it was probably a way that will not succeed, and or would be less probable for success. IE the smarter way to go for a business model. Or if that doesn't work for you, the easiest business model.

In general we should probably stop trying to give this game judgment right now. Not because it doesn't have flaws or because anyone is right or wrong, it's just not a great time to debate over it. The debate going on in this thread would probably be better done AFTER the game is released, as to not go in circles.

I think you unintentionally contridicted yourself in the first paragraph I quoted.

I disagree with your view in the second paragraph I quoted. The best time to debate about it is now, before the majority of gamers try it. Because of Mortal Online and Darkfall, A LOT of gamers refuse to preorder and wait for the game to release. An even larger amount wait until people pass judgement of the release. This means that debating about it now and getting the developers attention focused on things that should change is the best course of action because most of the potential customers aren't really giving this game any attention right now.

Gamefreak

11-19-2010, 06:18 PM

"It" should be "non casual" in that paragraph :)

Woops. Respectively edited :P.

I see your point there, though.

Xx1327

11-29-2010, 04:03 PM

Gamefreak wrote:

I think you unintentionally contridicted yourself in the first paragraph I quoted.

I disagree with your view in the second paragraph I quoted. The best time to debate about it is now, before the majority of gamers try it. Because of Mortal Online and Darkfall, A LOT of gamers refuse to preorder and wait for the game to release. An even larger amount wait until people pass judgement of the release. This means that debating about it now and getting the developers attention focused on things that should change is the best course of action because most of the potential customers aren't really giving this game any attention right now.

this guy

Foreseer

12-10-2010, 01:42 PM

After Life: Players should be given a 2-5 min timer after death allowing possible resurrection via allied player. Else they can choose to walk to nearest Church/Totem for resurrection. After timer is through they may choose to teleport to nearest Aligned church.

This will presumably prevent exploiting death for extra long distance travel while creating a fair environment.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Onto Penalties: Evil vrs Good. This of course takes my course of thinking back to Ultima-Onlines Faction & Penalty system. Obviously the idea behind Good and Evil is to create a factional war between players. In Ultima Online this was done by creating Chaos and Order ( Lord Britania vrs Lord Blackthorn ) Both wherein defended individual rights but had different ideals. Thus to become true Evil you grief other players losing karma the choice being individual based and not representative of a faction or guild in-whole. Should one of your guild/faction-mate chose Evil you were then required to choose whether you wanted to defend him or consequently make him fend for himself. If you chose to defend him; you may then need to take a few lives lowering your own karma. If he did not initiate the fight with the enemy and they "Flagged grey" on him he will not further karma himself however.

After an Evil player dies they are penalized skill points by a small % to ea skill.
After an Innocent player died they lose fame and held goods while having to walk the walk of shame.

The benefit to being Evil having be able to take the spoils of an easy kill. To become Evil you were required to kill 5 or more innocent players the more you've killed the greater the penalty.

This system worked the most part for Ultima Online until UOA came out, and bounty hunters were far too difficult to elude while skill loss was overly dramatic, so in conclusion stat loss was removed.

Next Ultima Online came out with additional factions! 4 in total, and each faction battle for NPC town sigils to control markets yada yada. They added temporary stat loss to keep players from being repeatedly supportive during battles which lasted roughly 5 minutes and each additional death further degraded stats while increasing the cooldown timer.

While Xsyon has no faction based war we simply rely on Good vrs Evil. Neutral being between the two. Evil is expected to kill to gain some sort of tribe reputation while good and neutral are expected to do something else and not kill random players. What I don't like is being at a complete disadvantage if I want conflict!

~~~~~~~ Thusly I propose this ~~~~~~~
Order: Belief in Absolute Justice, Order, & Rule.

Chaos: Belief in Individual Expression, Chaos, and Freedom.

Neutral: Takes no sides.

Evil: Individual Alignment Change from Killing Innocent Players.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This will allow Care-bears a safe haven in neutrality while Giving a balanced war on beliefs between two factions. Evil players may / may-not receive a penalty, and be kill-able by any player less they work off their sins by waiting xx hours for ea kill to work-off.

Anyways Um hrm um.... What were we Talking about?

kiwibird

12-20-2010, 05:35 AM

My two cents

Good:
Random number of skills and random point loss from those skills. 50% easier to regain lost skills till the points equal with what was lost; then normal skill gain beyond that point.
Good players don't lose items and loss 50% less skills when death results on Tribal Land. 25% health and stamina is rewarded on respawn with a time.
Spawn to on death: Tribe Totem or the starting location for that character, with 25% Health, zero Stamina.
Must first give an enforced notification of war to all Good/Netural tribes before entering into war with them. Automatically entered into War with Evil tribes.

Netural:
Random number of skills and random point loss from those skills. 25% easier to regain lost skills till the points equal with what was lost; then normal skill gain beyond that point.
Netrual players don't lose items and 25% less skills when death results on Tribal Land. 13% health and stamina is rewarded on respawn with a time.
Spawn to on death: Tribe Totem or the starting location for that chracter, with 13% Health and Stamina.
Must first give an enforced notification of war to all Good/Netural tribes before entering into war with them. Can decide if they wish to war with Evil tribes.

Evil:
Random number of skills and random point loss from those skills. Regaining those skills requires 100% work to equal the points lost.
Evil players don't suffer any skill loss when death results on Tribal Land. On first respawn, evil players get 25% Health and Stamina and is reduced by half on each death after that. (See note)
Spawn to on death: Tribe Totem or starting location for that character, with 13% Health, 0% Stamina.
Can war with any tribe without notice.

Any player killing an evil player more than four times on tribal lands will suffer "kama" reduction, therefore it may be a good idea to die more than four times to force good players to reduce their "Good" ratings.

mrcalhou

12-20-2010, 03:28 PM

So you want good and neutral players to be unlootable? Why on earth would anyone want to play an evil character if this is the system that's in place?

Basically, to summarize your post, you want good and neutral tribes on permanent easy mode and evil tribes to be on perpetual permagrind for lost stats. Am I right?

I'm with you on this. What Kiwibird wrote is terrible. What's the point of even being evil if there are no benefits to it. Good, evil, neutral should all have tradeoffs. Everyone should also have the same level of item loss and decay. If items just keep sticking around then this game is going to become so saturated with items that there would be no point to being a crafter.

I would much prefer if the alignment system gave benefits AND penalties no matter how you were aligned. Just giving benefits for being good and penalties for being evil, seems like a huge balance oversight. I would agree that being evil should be a harder way to play, so not everyone and their grandmother decides that ganking the newbies all day is the best way to play, but the potential benefits for doing so should be equal to the difficulty.

MrDDT

12-20-2010, 04:35 PM

I was going to read the whole thread really I was. But can someone sum up whats going on? I would like to put my ideas in here, but I really dont want to have to read 11 pages.

MrDDT

12-20-2010, 10:16 PM

Kiwibird,

Geez NO! Why would you want to be anything other than good? Plus you cant get your stuff taken if you die? No no no.

JCatano has good idea (Ive read a lot of them on the DF forums and still he has good ones here).

I disagree a little with the stats loss (When I say stat loss Im talking about both skills and stats, plus I dont mean you cant get them back, but you would have to retrain them). I think MINOR stats loss is not a big deal. Losing 25% is HUGE and really going to force people to not want evil no matter what, heck you can give them 10% more damage and if they get 25% stat/skill loss they have to grind back it will be crazy.

I like more of the AC2 vitae loss. How that works is you are killed (for any reason) you lose vitae for a small amount of time. I think the more good you are, the lower it should be for a short amount of time.

Vitae is pretty much your total skills and stats (Life Force). If you die say as a good person you lose 1% for 45mins. Next death would be another 1% for 45mins, So you would then have 2% total skill loss for 45mins total (assuming you died insta after you came back to life, if you had 5mins between there you would have 40mins to get back 1% and 45mins to get back another 1%). Also you can make it harder to gain NEW skills while in vitae (based on your % vitae loss). It should also cap out at like 50%.

You can adjust these % and times how you see fit. Giving neutral and evil players worse and worse vitae and times.

Now how I see it is that ALL players of a tribe should be forced to follow tribe rules or be kicked out. Evil tribes have no rules. Neutral tribes have rules, as do Good tribes. Kicked out is insta. Getting back into a of the same type tribe after being kicked should be a 7 day min, getting into a tribe 1 tier off should be 2 day min, and getting evil tribe should be 1 day (so if you are in a neutral tribe it will be 2 days to get into evil). Reason for this is so people cant break the rules to get loot, and just start trading it back.

What are the rules for being Good?
To be a good tribe you cant START a fight with good people, nor neutral people, you cant loot any KO/kill other than your own (human or animal), and you cant trade with evil players. You cant KILL people other than evil players. (Must Knock out). Must not linger near people knocked out. (Im not sure how to do this yet, but reason for this is to prevent camping).

What are the rules for being Neutral?
You cant start a fight with good people. You cant loot good or neutral players (You can loot neutral players that attacked you first). Can not KILL good or neutral players, that didnt attack you first. (Good players CANT attack you first). Must not linger near people knocked out. (Im not sure how to do this yet, but reason for this is to prevent camping).

What this does, is allow evil players to do what they want. They can start fights, attack people, they can loot other kills etc. But prevent good people from doing it. A good player running down the road and see a body on the ground they cant go over and loot it. Sorry its just not good, and sucks to be it. But if they do die, they dont suffer for it as much or for long.

Knock out vs Death. Well its pretty clear, but still Knock Out should have 1/2 the effects of death. So if you are evil and knocked out. You will still be worse off than a good player that died.
How Knock out should work is that if you put someone at 0 life (or less with over hit) they drop to the ground and cant do anything for 2mins. After 2mins they will get back up with 10% life and 50% energy (and 10% mana if it comes in).
To KILL someone you need to "gank" or go over to them and do some action that takes a small amount of time (2 to 10 seconds). This will prevent good or neutral players from having to get kicked when they just wanted to knock out. Also forcing tactics on the battle field a little more.
Anytime while KO'd you can tap out and respawn with full death loss at no cost to the person that knocked you out.

Good players should have an option to turn off damage to other good or neutral players.
Neutral players should have the option to turn off damage to other other players (4 options really, Good only, Good and Neutral, Neutral only, Neutral and Evil).
Evil players should have the option to turn off to other players also. (Good only, Good and Neutral, Neutral only, Neutral and Evil, ALL other players).
This option is able to be toggled on and off, with a 5min delay.
So going from no protection to not doing damage to Good players, will go into effect 5 mins after you toggle it on. Then 5 mins after you toggle it off, it will allow you to attack and damage good players.

This effects PVP, and AOEs.

This does NOT effect duels, which should also be an option. Both parties flag for duel mode to each other, and they can knock each other out. Duels also have no effects on vitae after being knocked out.

Knocked out bodies CAN be looted.

mrcalhou

12-20-2010, 10:31 PM

MrDDT

12-20-2010, 10:34 PM

I'm not a fan of being able to turn off damage to certain alignments. I also don't think the game should tell me that I can't attack another good player just because I'm good. I'd prefer to make my own decisions and suffer the consequences of my actions.

Personally, I'm not a fan of good and evil alignments anyway. But I tend to see things more grey than black and white.

My system doesnt say you cant attack good players, it says if you DO you are kicked from a good tribe.

Any system that has AOE or open damage, will then cause griefing if there is any kinda punishment for attacking the wrong type of players.

mrcalhou

12-20-2010, 10:42 PM

Well, that's sort of the point isn't it?

Anyway, I still think that you shouldn't be able to turn off AoE damage to friendlies. Maybe skills or something that negates some of the damage or whatever, but not just turn it off. With regards to consequences, the player that takes the damage should have the option of whether or not they want the player to lose alignment for it. I'm sure your buddies and/or tribemates would be forgiving about it and not make you lose any alignment, while someone you don't know might. It'd be one of the tradeoffs of using an AoE. It SHOULD be a tactical decision, not just something you can do because you can do it.

MrDDT

12-20-2010, 10:44 PM

mrcalhou

12-20-2010, 11:03 PM

MrDDT

12-20-2010, 11:10 PM

Ok, here is the problem with that.

Im good player, and you are fighting a bear. I jump in front of you while you attacking a bear. BAM you hit me. Guess what? You are now going to be punished for hitting me. So I kill you, then the bear, and take all your goods. Thanks have a nice day.

Notice a problem there?

mrcalhou

12-20-2010, 11:47 PM

Gamefreak

12-20-2010, 11:47 PM

If we're going to have alignments, they all have to be balanced. None of this bull shit with evil players getting shafted in terms of skill grind and skill loss on death.

That will not work, because who the hell would want to play evil in that case? It's like having an option to use a gun or a knife in a fight ...

My tribe isn't going to be an evil tribe, nor am I going to have an evil play style, but for god's sake, is it that hard to see there is a problem with nerfing one alignment?

It's not going to work, period.

MrDDT

12-21-2010, 12:10 AM

Yep. Someone needs to learn the effective implementation of situational awareness.

But okay, how about this? You get a free hit every few minutes. Or, you can't get a penalty unless that player dies and you did over 50% of the damage or something. The "shit happens" fudge factor. Though, honestly, if a player is running between you and a bear I don't know why you wouldn't use his ass as a freaking shield.

So if someone jumps in your AOE and dies, what then? I mean I can get myself low on life and jump in peoples AOE and die. Now you are screwed.

Gamefreak, I agree but the bonus to being Evil is you can loot whomever you choose. Plus you can skill them (causing them skill loss for a while 2x more than a KO).
There is a bonus to being Evil. If you cant take the punishment then dont be evil.

Shrimps

12-21-2010, 12:12 AM

Ok, here is the problem with that.

A little idea for this.

Im good player, and you are fighting a bear. I jump in front of you while you attacking a bear. BAM you hit me. Guess what? You are now going to be punished for hitting me. So I kill you, then the bear, and take all your goods. Thanks have a nice day.

Notice a problem there?

The player who gets hit would receive the option to forgive the agressor. If they accept everyone gets on with life. If they do not forgive them then both players can fight it out or whatever. Whenever they do not forgive the leader of both tribes are alerted to the situation and are also alerted as to who got hit first and who died. kind of like an AAR (After Action Report).

The tribe leaders can either decide it was an accident, forgive the aggressor and be happy happy bestest buddies forever. They can decide not to forgive the agressor and exile him and still be happy happy bestest buddies forevererererer. Or they can disagree on who was at fault and one tribe forgive the agressor and the other doesn't and they go to war also affecting the tribes alignment. This would increase the need for politics which I think is a good thing.

If a player is exiled from a good or neutral tribe they cannot rejoin another one for a certain amount of time. And they can never rejoin a tribe they were exiled from.
They are dropped one alignment level for every 3 incidents (being exiled, performing a "kill" move on an unconscious opponent.)

A player can regain an alignment level by doing a "spirit trek" (keeping with the lore). Spirit treks would be very difficult and very long and should be a tremendous undertaking.

Tribes are affected by attacking other tribes without declaring war first moreso for tribes of the same or higher alignment eg. good-> good or neutral -> neutral.(example above)
Tribes aignment can also be affected by having a number of other tribes of the same alignment declare embargos on them for doing things such as jumping in front of attacks or hassment.

Evil tribes should sustain a much larger penalty than good tribes but a minor amount more compared to neutral tribes.

people not in a tribe are essentially a nonfactor and can be treated as neutral.
But heres a sugestion anyways.
You would need to kill 5 or more solo players before your tribe drops an alignment level. Total acummulative per 2 months. So if you killed 4 the first day of the first month you would have to wait 59 days to kill any more. You can also mark individual players for death if they have done any damage at all to any of your players within the last week. If a week goes by where no damage is done to your members then the mark is removed.

Individual players can also be marked as a troublemaker if multiple tribes mark him as such which would effectively turn him evil untill the tribes removed their mark.

Honestly there are no npc cities. there are not wilderness buildings for you to use. So how would you do anything except pick your nose and run in circles outside of a tribe? I suppose you could use a tribes city but then you might as well just join a tribe.

I'm not entirely sure people understand that penalties for evil are supposed to be so bad that only 10% of players will want to be evil. There are around 1500 pre orders so 10% of that would be 150. Not everyone is intended to be evil unless of course you want darkfail 2.0

mrcalhou

12-21-2010, 12:15 AM

So if someone jumps in your AOE and dies, what then? I mean I can get myself low on life and jump in peoples AOE and die. Now you are screwed.

Or, you can't get a penalty unless that player dies and you did over 50% of the damage or something

^

Gamefreak, I agree but the bonus to being Evil is you can loot whomever you choose. Plus you can skill them (causing them skill loss for a while 2x more than a KO).
There is a bonus to being Evil. If you cant take the punishment then dont be evil.

That's something, sure, but I'd still like to see other benefits and trade-offs too. Like possibly some buffs and debuffs (If you're evil you get a damage buff, but an HP debuff...or something just throwing out ideas), and possibly even different skill lines, like in Infamous.

mrcalhou

12-21-2010, 12:25 AM

A player can regain an alignment level by doing a "spirit trek" (keeping with the lore). Spirit treks would be very difficult and very long and should be a tremendous undertaking.

Heh, I like this.

The stuff before this, however, I'm not exactly a fan of because it fails to take into account players that aren't in a tribe.

With regards to 10% of players being evil because of penalties, that's fine and dandy, but there should definitely be a reason for them to want to be evil. Regardless of the intent, there should be pro's and con's to anything in this game. Make the penalties for being evil really terrible, but make the benefits good to compensate. Trust me, a lot more people will still choose the easy way. Darkfall failed in this regard becuase there were practically no penalties. It didn't balance out. If the Devs want it to actually work, then it has got to be balanced.

Shrimps

12-21-2010, 12:39 AM

people not in a tribe are essentially a nonfactor and can be treated as neutral.
But heres a sugestion anyways.
You would need to kill 5 or more solo players before your tribe drops an alignment level. Total acummulative per 2 months. So if you killed 4 the first day of the first month you would have to wait 59 days to kill any more. You can also mark individual players for death if they have done any damage at all to any of your players within the last week. If a week goes by where no damage is done to your members then the mark is removed.

Individual players can also be marked as a troublemaker if multiple tribes mark him as such which would effectively turn him evil untill the tribes removed their mark.

Honestly there are no npc cities. there are not wilderness buildings for you to use. So how would you do anything except pick your nose and run in circles outside of a tribe? I suppose you could use a tribes city but then you might as well just join a tribe.

Also edited this into original post.

MrDDT

12-21-2010, 12:51 AM

The tribe leaders can either decide it was an accident, forgive the aggressor and be happy happy bestest buddies forever. They can decide not to forgive the agressor and exile him and still be happy happy bestest buddies forevererererer. Or they can disagree on who was at fault and one tribe forgive the agressor and the other doesn't and they go to war also affecting the tribes alignment. This would increase the need for politics which I think is a good thing.

So Im a good tribe, but I let all my people kill anyone I want? Only problem with that is that maybe a tribe will war me? Haha How is that a punishment? and some Tribe faction loss? Cant tribes war other tribes anyways?

"Ok guys, we killed 10 random people this week, need to cut it out for a week til we get back to being good. Haha."

"Oh look that guy has a ton of good costly items on him, We still have 10 kills left this week"

Exploit it pretty easy like that.

Quote Originally Posted by mrcalhou View Post
Or, you can't get a penalty unless that player dies and you did over 50% of the damage or something

So 3 people can kill 1 guy without punishment? Cool. That sounds fair. As long as I have 2 friends I can kill any person I want and still we are all good. But if I do it man to man, no no no I will be evil for that. Hahaha

MrDDT

12-21-2010, 12:54 AM

Shrimps

12-21-2010, 01:13 AM

So Im a good tribe, but I let all my people kill anyone I want? Only problem with that is that maybe a tribe will war me? Haha How is that a punishment? and some Tribe faction loss? Cant tribes war other tribes anyways?

"Ok guys, we killed 10 random people this week, need to cut it out for a week til we get back to being good. Haha."

"Oh look that guy has a ton of good costly items on him, We still have 10 kills left this week"

Exploit it pretty easy like that.

Quote Originally Posted by mrcalhou View Post
Or, you can't get a penalty unless that player dies and you did over 50% of the damage or something

So 3 people can kill 1 guy without punishment? Cool. That sounds fair. As long as I have 2 friends I can kill any person I want and still we are all good. But if I do it man to man, no no no I will be evil for that. Hahaha

Why 5?
Also, I make 3 tribes and mark you troublemaker. Ok now you branded for life as a troublemaker. That sounds cool and fair.

So I jump in front of you, and you hit me once. Now I can brand you for ANYONE to attack and kill you without punishment? Haha fun.

This is a cool game, keep them coming.

If you have constructive critiscism anywere in there please let me know. But to adress the points you are unable to comprehend.

The faction loss for a tribe would be caused by attacking other tribes without declaring war first and it would be accummulative so if you ambushed a group of 5 guys from the same tribe you would get 5x the amount of alignment loss for being dicks and not declaring war like a good tribe should.

Having the ability to kill ->5<- people every 2 MONTHS is just a measure to keep tribes from getting harrassed by solos before they're able to mark them as complete assholes who are kill on sight.

Yes if you get 3 seperate tribes that all hate you enough to mark you as a troublemaker ("asshole") then yeah yoi probably deserve it and it'd save alot of greifing for our tribes. If somebody feels like being a dick and making a bunch of tribes to mark you then they would have to stay in those tribes because if they left them and the tribe disbanded then you'd be unmarked. If they did stay in them then you could contact a GM, it'd be simple for them to see that its a fake tribe and fix the situation.

You wouldn't be killable by everyone, only by that tribe and only if you damaged one of their members within a week. So if you stopped harrassing them and moved away from their location then you wouldn't have an issue.

Most of these are measures to prevent solos from greifing tribes which can be an issue since they have nothing to lose, unlike a tribe which has buildings and such.

If you have any suggestiond at all please share them instead of just crying about how everyone elses ideas suck and not contributing to the discussion.

mrcalhou

12-21-2010, 09:45 AM

Or, you can't get a penalty unless that player dies and you did over 50% of the damage or something

So 3 people can kill 1 guy without punishment? Cool. That sounds fair. As long as I have 2 friends I can kill any person I want and still we are all good. But if I do it man to man, no no no I will be evil for that. Hahaha

Well, my answer was in regards to a person jumping in front of you while you were fighting a bear. But since you decided that you want to take this into a different route. It wouldn't be so difficult to think that if one player is taking damage only from other player sources, and then dies, that they should be able to flag all three of them as having been aggressive towards them.

If you want to grief me, then don't jump in front of me while I'm attacking a bear, wait until I'm in a giant orgy, then grief all of us.

MrDDT

12-21-2010, 09:51 AM

If you have constructive critiscism anywere in there please let me know. But to adress the points you are unable to comprehend.

The faction loss for a tribe would be caused by attacking other tribes without declaring war first and it would be accummulative so if you ambushed a group of 5 guys from the same tribe you would get 5x the amount of alignment loss for being dicks and not declaring war like a good tribe should.

Having the ability to kill ->5<- people every 2 MONTHS is just a measure to keep tribes from getting harrassed by solos before they're able to mark them as complete assholes who are kill on sight.

Yes if you get 3 seperate tribes that all hate you enough to mark you as a troublemaker ("asshole") then yeah yoi probably deserve it and it'd save alot of greifing for our tribes. If somebody feels like being a dick and making a bunch of tribes to mark you then they would have to stay in those tribes because if they left them and the tribe disbanded then you'd be unmarked. If they did stay in them then you could contact a GM, it'd be simple for them to see that its a fake tribe and fix the situation.

You wouldn't be killable by everyone, only by that tribe and only if you damaged one of their members within a week. So if you stopped harrassing them and moved away from their location then you wouldn't have an issue.

Most of these are measures to prevent solos from greifing tribes which can be an issue since they have nothing to lose, unlike a tribe which has buildings and such.

If you have any suggestiond at all please share them instead of just crying about how everyone elses ideas suck and not contributing to the discussion.

Love the personal attacks.
But lets move on.
First I will like to comment that I already posted a detailed plan for what I would to see. Im trying to show you that there are holes in your theroy about how people can get around it. I dont see why it shouldnt hold up to people trying to show you exploits to your system.

1)Problem with your system of tribes able to lable you as a troublemaker is this.
I get 3 friends all have a tribe. You keep jumping in front of you while you are in any kinda combat. Now we can gank you take all your stuff because you are "troublemaker". Notice a problem with this?

So now you are saying a GM is going to be able to tell who is or isnt a troublemaker? Great I love that. Going to have GMs able to change how wars of tribes are done. Sounds really great.

Next is the faction loss for tribes attacking without waring first.

You are in a tribe, lets call it Shrimps. Im in DDT tribe. I follow you around while you are attacking animals and jump in the AOE. Next thing you know, you attacked without waring you have faction loss. I do this all the time like 100 times. You are now an Evil tribe.

Im not trying to be a jerk, Ive played many OPEN pvp games. UO, Shadowbane, Darkfall, tons more. I know that people will exploit the system. Darkfall is one of the worst how it has open damage attacks.

MrDDT

12-21-2010, 09:53 AM

Well, my answer was in regards to a person jumping in front of you while you were fighting a bear. But since you decided that you want to take this into a different route. It wouldn't be so difficult to think that if one player is taking damage only from other player sources, and then dies, that they should be able to flag all three of them as having been aggressive towards them.

If you want to grief me, then don't jump in front of me while I'm attacking a bear, wait until I'm in a giant orgy, then grief all of us.

Im confused here? So now whats the rule? If 3 people attack you and you die then all become bad?
What if you are fighting a bear? and you are at 20% life and they attack you?

What if you are fighting an Evil, and then they help?

Please tell me the rules so I can tell you how to exploit them with open damage and punishment for attacking goods/neutrals. Thats the whole point of it, that there is a way around those rules. Again if you can figure out rules for it. Im happy to put it in my idea I listed.

mrcalhou

12-21-2010, 11:04 AM

Okay, fine, since no matter what everything will be abused with regards to an alignment system (I'm looking at you every game that has one that isn't Eve-Online). I give up.

MrDDT

12-21-2010, 11:28 AM

Okay, fine, since no matter what everything will be abused with regards to an alignment system (I'm looking at you every game that has one that isn't Eve-Online). I give up.

Yep, thats why the system has to have no loop holes or it will be exploited. UO was exploited, Darkfall is exploited, EVE's are exploited, Shadowbanes are exploited, L2's are exploited. List goes on and on. They all are.

Sucks that people are out there, but they will exploit these. When its a full loot PVP game they will be exploited to the max too. I played games like UO where they would get you blocked in flag grey on you to para you while mobs killed you. Then loot you. Nothing more than going grey and never getting a murder count.

Im not saying that UO's system isnt good just saying people exploit the systems.

mrcalhou

12-21-2010, 11:33 AM

MrDDT

12-21-2010, 01:27 PM

I haven't played UO. But I have played Eve, I think that their system is pretty great. Attack someone in high security space and the great spaceship gods will come and smite you... which is why people don't use smartbombs there.

First off Ive played EVE and last I checked you could kill people in high sec if the cargo was worth it, and with planning.

Second is that EVE system works if you are ok with NPCs that are able to kill and protect you. Which I think limits a sandbox game big time. I really didnt like that Big brother feel of high sec in EVE.

I think the big reason why EVE's system works well is because high sec space has like nothing really to offer other than few low priced items and markets. The good rare stuff is in low sec.

Shrimps

12-21-2010, 02:01 PM

Love the personal attacks.
But lets move on.
First I will like to comment that I already posted a detailed plan for what I would to see. Im trying to show you that there are holes in your theroy about how people can get around it. I dont see why it shouldnt hold up to people trying to show you exploits to your system.

1)Problem with your system of tribes able to lable you as a troublemaker is this.
I get 3 friends all have a tribe. You keep jumping in front of you while you are in any kinda combat. Now we can gank you take all your stuff because you are "troublemaker". Notice a problem with this?

So now you are saying a GM is going to be able to tell who is or isnt a troublemaker? Great I love that. Going to have GMs able to change how wars of tribes are done. Sounds really great.

Next is the faction loss for tribes attacking without waring first.

You are in a tribe, lets call it Shrimps. Im in DDT tribe. I follow you around while you are attacking animals and jump in the AOE. Next thing you know, you attacked without waring you have faction loss. I do this all the time like 100 times. You are now an Evil tribe.

Im not trying to be a jerk, Ive played many OPEN pvp games. UO, Shadowbane, Darkfall, tons more. I know that people will exploit the system. Darkfall is one of the worst how it has open damage attacks.

I have no problem with people pointing out problems in a system as long as they attempt to submit a solution or at least do it in a mature manner. You did neither.

If 3 people all make ->ONE MAN <-tribes to label someone as a troublemaker just because they are all jackasses and feel like greifing then they can contact a GM and the GM can quickly see that all the tribes labeling you are ONE MAN tribes and are FAKES. and can change it. He wouldn't be changing wars or anything, it'd merely be stopping greifers.

If you are in a tribe and you jump in front of me to cause me to attack you then I would contact your tribe leader, explain the situation and you would either be booted from your tribe as per the agreement from our respective leaders or our tribes wouldn't agree and we'd go to war. You wouldn't be doing it 100 times before I would either use these systems to freely kill you for being a troublemaker or fraps it and call a GM for harrassment.

The point of the forums is not for the players to come to agreement but for our petty aguments to give the devs ideas. The players will never agree on anything by themselves.

MrDDT

12-21-2010, 02:12 PM

Ok, well I will leave it there.

I dont like GMs having the choice on who is greifing or not. Nor do I want them the "Cops" of the server.

Play Darkfall or other games like that and you will find out how bad people will go out of their way to do things.

Plus whats wrong with 1 man tribes? Plus who to say its going to be 1 man tribes? Why cant you get groups of people to make tribes and exploit the system? There were guilds in Darkfall that all they did was put a guy into another guild, to get him ranked up to have access to the guild bank. Then take all the items from the guild bank and kick everyone from the guild.
I mean people really do bad stuff in games and having GM's able to choose who is good or bad is a very very bad idea.

Now you start having people saying "SO AND SO GM is greifing me" now its a company thing. Very bad rep coming out from that. Its just as bad as having a Private WOW server or something. GMs going to give people items too now? They going to start being able to flag people as good or evil? I mean really what kinda powers are we talking about here in the hands of a GM?

One thing is different to being able to do something, another is doing it. GMs should be able to do a lot of stuff, but rarely should they be doing it. You look at WOW GM's and the hoops they have to go through to do something. Why is that? Its to protect the game, the econ, and its players.

mrcalhou

12-21-2010, 02:16 PM

First off Ive played EVE and last I checked you could kill people in high sec if the cargo was worth it, and with planning.

Second is that EVE system works if you are ok with NPCs that are able to kill and protect you. Which I think limits a sandbox game big time. I really didnt like that Big brother feel of high sec in EVE.

I think the big reason why EVE's system works well is because high sec space has like nothing really to offer other than few low priced items and markets. The good rare stuff is in low sec.

Yeah. You pretty much nailed why I love it so much. It's all about the trade-offs.

If you really want to go after someone in high sec. then by all means do so, just be ready to have your ship(s) destroyed. If the price of the cargo is worth more than what you'll lose then I say go for it. It's just a trade-off. Though I must say that in months of playing in High sec I've never once been attacked. As a mostly high sec player, I appreciate that I'm not going to be able to profit as much, but that's offset by the fact that it's not as risky. That's the trade-off: Low-risk, low-reward. The other thing I like about the high sec/low sec system is just like you said, some people don't like the big brother feeling of high sec, so they can go play in low-sec where big brother doesn't watch. This gives players more choices in how they want to play and it seems to be working really, really well for Eve. If combat and/or mining in Eve wasn't so boring I probably would still be playing it.

mrcalhou

12-21-2010, 02:21 PM

Shrimps

12-21-2010, 02:51 PM

MrDDT

12-21-2010, 03:32 PM

Pandamin

12-22-2010, 03:05 AM

I strongly disagree. I don't see the point in having GM's at all unless they're able to do things like stop greifers and exploiters.

I would hate to have a system where there is no way for tribes to stop greifing without incurring penalties. Honestly that's why I'm tempted to just say treat all solos as evil. Because you can war a tribe but unless you can basically "war" a solo then theres nothing stopping them from greifing except for GM's.

The same thing happened in Darkfall, solos can greif all day long and unless you want to take a penalty for it you cannot stop them and the GM's were useless.

Yes and no.
Having GM's with no direct power is a waste of resources.
However the term griefing is so immensly broad that allowing GM's to interpret the word is bound to end in trouble.
I'm sure even we can not agree on an absolute definition for griefing. Lets not forget that anything that works against the progression of my game is some form of grief.

The only real solution is hard coded limitations and a good community who can self police itself.
I prefer hard coded limitations because then it becomes part of the universe laws.
Something that just is.
Even then people will always find a way to play the system. Its human nature.
As such the only real solution is community based in combination with universe laws.

On the note of GM's, it is not the power that makes people corrupt.
Its that power attracts corruptable people.
We do not need to cite examples where GM's have abused their powers in previous games.
(Though that does not mean I'm accusing any current GM's. These are abstracts.)
-------------------------
I personally prefer the system of safe zones vs high risk zones, just because it is a game.
I prefer it when players know exactly what they are doing. I do not wish to feel guilty when I catch a poor sap on a road. If its a high risk area all parties involved know what the deal is, it has to do with consent.
Anything that happens in a high risk area would be concidered legal. Excluding obvious exploits.

For me a player should definatly not be concidered evil because he is solo.
A player should be concidered "evil" by his actions. Surely the game will have some form of counting system.
If a tribe can not secure its existence then that tribe should not exist. Thats the whole point of the game.

So when a tribe has a problem with a certain player, that tribe should go out and deal with it, hands on. KoS lists are as old as the genre itself. They work just fine.

The act of declaring war on a tribe or individual should be nothing more then a message informing both parties.
Declaring war on itself should not carry any game affecting atributes. War shouldn't be a tool to play the system.
But those are just my opinions, in the end its up to the wisdom of the developers.

Gamefreak

12-22-2010, 08:36 AM

The moment GMs act as a policing squad, is the moment I quit this game at take down my subscription. Why? The current GMs are TRIBE LEADERS. Oh GEE guys, I can't see any problems with THAT ...

Brutix

12-23-2010, 04:32 PM

mrcalhou

12-23-2010, 06:17 PM

it could be kinda cool if their was a game mechanic that actually prevented players from attacking other players if it was against the pvp rules. For example a good player tries to attack another good player but instead of the attack action would be replaced with a emote.

I don't think that that is a good idea. I'd rather there be safe areas instead of safe players. At least then it'll be "fair" for everyone. I'd also make sure that safe areas would have common material/animal spawns, but the non-safe areas would have the good/rare stuff that's needed for the great majority of items.

Brutix

12-24-2010, 12:36 PM

I don't like the idea of safe areas beyond tutorial purposes. I do think tribes should be able to make highly fortified settlements that is able to deter all but the most determined effort. I don't like the idea of punishing players with stat/skill or alignment loss, its been done by other games and I don't think was ever effective or fun. I think forcing players to play their chosen alignment style is a better way to go. Also skills unique to certain alignments would add some flavor as well. I know players don't like having invisible barriers but honestly I think its the only way to make a mmo. If you want gamers to play by the rules then they must be herded and forced to do so, they can't be trusted to do it themselves.

mrcalhou

12-24-2010, 12:46 PM

I don't like the idea of forcing players into any role or alignment. There's already a game on the market that has the elements of what I believe is a great sandbox that caters to different play-styles. A FFA PvP game is not the way to go, but neither is forcing players into alignments that have different rule-sets. Give everyone the same rules and let them make their own choices how they want to play. If they want FFA PvP, then they can go play in the PvP areas, if they don't, then they can stick to the safer areas. I don't see how having this will hurt the game. Only the vocal carebears that get their jollies off by ganking newbies and defenseless players will whine about it. It doesn't limit player choices by making some areas safe, but rather increases choices because it allows players to choose how they want to spend their time. If they put common resources and weaker critters in the safe areas, and have the rarer and more needed stuff in the PvP areas then it encourages players to play in the PvP zones, but it does NOT force anyone to do anything they don't want to. Which is how I define a Sandbox.

Shrimps

12-24-2010, 03:10 PM

mrcalhou

12-24-2010, 03:42 PM

having safe zones will result in a lot of zone humping. And by that I mean people will run into the pvp zone and start fights then run out when they start to lose. EVE gets around this by having heavily restricted area travel, forcing you to use gates to switch zones which wouldn't work in a single area map like Xsyon has.

Yeah, I thought about that, but it still seems to me that it's one of the better options. If they used a system like that, then they can have it so that if you do enter a pvp flagged area and attack someone (or just enter it) then you can still be damaged and killed for x amount of time after reentering a safe area.

Any type of forced limit to only being able to target people of the other alignment is just weird. you might as well just break the game into two factions and evenly divide the players. Not to mention that it would take all the thinking out of combat. You wouldn't have to try to avoid friendly fire or anything like that.

Agreed.

If the alignment system and the penalties for going evil are tough and balanced enough then it will work itself out. I think death penalties in which you lose skill and stat points and have to earn them back are the best systems to really work with the alignment system. Because systems where you just get them back over time don't work. If it's just like 45 minutes after you die untill you get them back then you can just organize your items or logout and make a sandwhich and it'll be over and you'll be fine again. You won't really feel it.

But this has been said so many times already in several different threads over several pages.

I think that that is an okay penalty in some regards, but I think it'll encourage newbie camping. That's not an issue in and of itself since this game is a tribe based game, except as it stands you spawn tribeless and there aren't even any NPCs to help get you started. Yes, yes. I know that that is the way the game is designed, but recent studies (Darkfall, Eve, Mortal, my own experiences (not very scientific)) have shown that the new player experience is incrediably important to player retention.