PVP rules

[mrcalhou]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[MrDDT]

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]

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]

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.

Tell me a system where open damage will work, if the punishment for attacking good players, where the good player attacking him loses 5% stats.

How do you stop griefers when you have a punishment?

[mrcalhou]

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.

Replace all instances of "alignment" with whatever penalties you like.

[MrDDT]

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]

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.