The Case For WURM-like PK Protection

[Cunk]

icarus39 wrote:

I'd like to see the PK system set up like Meridian 59.

All players had a white name, meaning they were innocents. If an innocent attacked another innocent without killing them, their name turned to orange, and they were labelled an outlaw. The consequence was simple, one you died one time as an outlaw, you were returned to innocent status.

However, if you ever outright killed an innocent player, you were considered a murderer, and your name turned to red. A murder could be killed on site with no consequence to the attacker, and the murder would not return to innocent status, unless a Justicar pardonned him/her.

I left a lot up to the community, while being a PKer was still entertaining, it was dangerous and carried heavier consquences than just flat out griefing.

Even though I never played Ultima Online what you describe sounds pretty much like how I've heard it's done in that game. And in nearly every game that takes inspiration from it (like Mortal Online). Even EVE has an outlaw system where players with a low enough security rating are fair game in what is normally safe space.

[Blue Pig]

Cunk wrote:

That's alotta words but I generally agree with what you're saying (except the part about EVE fizzling out in 2 years).

But your subject says "wurm-like PK protection". Are you talking about Wurm's non-PVP server where players can't attack each other at all? I assume you must be because there is no PK protection on Wild. I have a feeling Xsyon will be more like Wild server on Wurm.

There are a lot more words in a book

I meant the Wild Servers. Well built core towns are difficult to attack without good coordination. I was just using their towers and guards as an example.

[Ciik]

Me too. I want to play the game I want to play to. Many of us have expectations. And if this is the demanding or outreach thread, I'll make a case for a reasonable model.

Controlled progressive open PvP like EvE. Not only has it progressed to one of the most successful indie games in the market over 7 years, it holds as large if not large and more consistent player-base than many "A" mature studio mmorpgs. So it isn't dying in the next 2-years, and its studio is able to use its success to branch into other development avenues.

Sure, EvE is exponentially more successful than A Tale in the Desert, Roma Victor and Wurm in the indie universe; way more successful. EvE is by far a better template than Wurm when it comes to player interactivity and player vs player mechanics; the market tells us it's so. And to suggest EvE is going to die out after 2 years is silly.

So yet with a bare-bones game, CCP managed to eventually grow and Prosper. Why? It wasn't a matter of pure random luck. EVE as it was released was a mostly-empty sandbox, where the focus of the endgame was on player conflicts not presided over by the devs.

As an Indie fan, I'm glad to see more games like the aforementioned, and the more sandboxy the better. The more well-implemented sandboxy for an Indie, the more attractive it is to a more loyal and larger fan-base, imho.

Dark Age of Camelot is a very restrictive RvR game, and so is WAR. WAR, another controlled, pigeon-holed PvP experience that failed to sustain an initial audience due to the shallow nature of its shoe-box RvR, not to mention its been sheer lack of anything appealing, leading to it's hemorrhaging subscriptions ever since it launched. So a tightly controlled RvR design like WAR is a bad example to use against pvp imho since its endgame has shown to crash and burn shortly after launch.

So, yes, a sandboxy game doesnt have to be all about PvP and we've seen that, and it doesnt have to be ffa no consequence pvp, but a better Indie game does have progressively unrestricted open PvP and areas of calm; with the areas of calm and safety that doesn't demean the progressive games sandboxy player-centric value, but accentuates it without over-running it.

So I call for the Case For an Icelandic Model. A successful model proven to lead to a process of iterative organic growth within the game; incrementally.

Rather than take the tired design route of another PvE-centric or DAoC RvR platform, CCP's goal was rather to find a niche and expand it slowly; they win and their Icelandic Business Model wins.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/featur...el_of_mmo_.php

If the developers intend to make this an overly restricted and confining PvE or RvR themepark I'd like them to let me know now so I don't waste my time either.

[Cunk]

Blue Pig wrote:

Cunk wrote:

That's alotta words but I generally agree with what you're saying (except the part about EVE fizzling out in 2 years).

But your subject says "wurm-like PK protection". Are you talking about Wurm's non-PVP server where players can't attack each other at all? I assume you must be because there is no PK protection on Wild. I have a feeling Xsyon will be more like Wild server on Wurm.

There are a lot more words in a book

Yeah well you're not writing a book.

I meant the Wild Servers. Well built core towns are difficult to attack without good coordination. I was just using their towers and guards as an example.

Wurm also has an advantage in that the map is much harder to navigate than Xsyon. Not only is the map (currently) larger in Wurm but the terrain pretty much governs how players travel. So if you want to isolate yourself from the PVP you can do that fairly by choosing your spot wisely.

Likewise with EVE. EVE is thrown up as an example of how to properly do a mostly unrestricted PVP game but EVE has a number of design features unique to its setting that are key to its ability to do that. You simply can't expect to achieve what EVE has done in a game world where players are free to tread anywhere they like.

Anyone who's played in 0.0 space in EVE knows what it's like to navigate up the "pipe" to Empire space. You know the gates that hostiles like to camp. You know to set up safe spots that you can warp to if you get into trouble and scanning locations close to but out of sight of gates. You know how to look at the star map and look for red blobs on the "ships destroyed in the last hour" view. You know how to find alternative routes to get around hot spots.

I don't see a ground-based game, at least one that doesn't place heavy restrictions on where you can go, being able to replicate all that.

[Veldern]

Starting out your post with how you're testing for free and you want it your way or you're out doesn't sit well with me. For one, you don't have to be a tester unless you "want" to be a "free" tester. I for one enjoy it. Secondly, we've talked about this a hundred times in the past. Just use search and try and find anything posted by the user Kunra :P

[BLinDDeniaL]

Ciik wrote:

Me too. I want to play the game I want to play to. Many of us have expectations. And if this is the demanding or outreach thread, I'll make a case for a reasonable model.

Controlled progressive open PvP like EvE. Not only has it progressed to one of the most successful indie games in the market over 7 years, it holds as large if not large and more consistent player-base than many "A" mature studio mmorpgs. So it isn't dying in the next 2-years, and its studio is able to use its success to branch into other development avenues.

Sure, EvE is exponentially more successful than A Tale in the Desert, Roma Victor and Wurm in the indie universe; way more successful. EvE is by far a better template than Wurm when it comes to player interactivity and player vs player mechanics; the market tells us it's so. And to suggest EvE is going to die out after 2 years is silly.

So yet with a bare-bones game, CCP managed to eventually grow and Prosper. Why? It wasn't a matter of pure random luck. EVE as it was released was a mostly-empty sandbox, where the focus of the endgame was on player conflicts not presided over by the devs.

As an Indie fan, I'm glad to see more games like the aforementioned, and the more sandboxy the better. The more well-implemented sandboxy for an Indie, the more attractive it is to a more loyal and larger fan-base, imho.

Dark Age of Camelot is a very restrictive RvR game, and so is WAR. WAR, another controlled, pigeon-holed PvP experience that failed to sustain an initial audience due to the shallow nature of its shoe-box RvR, not to mention its been sheer lack of anything appealing, leading to it's hemorrhaging subscriptions ever since it launched. So a tightly controlled RvR design like WAR is a bad example to use against pvp imho since its endgame has shown to crash and burn shortly after launch.

So, yes, a sandboxy game doesnt have to be all about PvP and we've seen that, and it doesnt have to be ffa no consequence pvp, but a better Indie game does have progressively unrestricted open PvP and areas of calm; with the areas of calm and safety that doesn't demean the progressive games sandboxy player-centric value, but accentuates it without over-running it.

So I call for the Case For an Icelandic Model. A successful model proven to lead to a process of iterative organic growth within the game; incrementally.

Rather than take the tired design route of another PvE-centric or DAoC RvR platform, CCP's goal was rather to find a niche and expand it slowly; they win and their Icelandic Business Model wins.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/featur...el_of_mmo_.php

If the developers intend to make this an overly restricted and confining PvE or RvR themepark I'd like them to let me know now so I don't waste my time either.

This...

Imo this is a more logical post than the OP's one - however the OP has a point though.

I just don't agree with the way he made it

[Jadzia]

All the OP was asking for was information. I agree with him. The situation has changed, the launch got delayed, and early access became a closed beta test. I have no problem with that, but I can understand if someone doesn't want to waste his time on testing a game that at the end could turn out something he doesn't like.

It would be nice to get some official information about the future plans...otherwise its impossible to avoid the disappointment of a part of the playerbase. In my opinion its not a good idea to hide basic features from the players, and I don't see the reason why can't we know how the game will work after Prelude, especially town attacks and tribe wars.

For the OP:
Jordi stated several times that the game won't allow ganking-griefing, and killing a good or neutral player will have severe consequences.
It would be nice to get more details about these consequences.

[Boondox]

so what about a game that had open pvp then changed to restricted pvp and became a failure like UO(Ultima Online). when trammel was added in everyone flocked to trammel where it was safe and pvp basicly died out.

[sicarius]

pid73 wrote:

I don't remember the post but Virtus stated that Jordi definitely will not allow this game to be a gankfest. Many DF fanbois came over here when it was clear that MO was about to fail. They QQ long and hard but to no avail, there will be PvP but not meaningless (most probably it will be for resources) and not mindless (there will be consequences).

Lol, I guess you could sort of consider me a DF fan boy though I quit some time ago. I though wanted df to have a system something more akin to this however, where PVP was for a purpose and had rewards and deterrents, however this didnt happen. SO hopefully the Dev team will make pvp more of a only in necessity, instead of a, im doing this because I don't want to grind.

[Veldern]

sicarius wrote:

Lol, I guess you could sort of consider me a DF fan boy though I quit some time ago. I though wanted df to have a system something more akin to this however, where PVP was for a purpose and had rewards and deterrents, however this didnt happen. SO hopefully the Dev team will make pvp more of a only in necessity, instead of a, im doing this because I don't want to grind.

This very closely represents my own pvp ideals... and what I was hoping for in DF as well lol.