PvP vs. PK and some general impressions

[Jhael]

Well, a ranking system would be pretty simple to do and it wouldn't/shouldn't be forced on any other game mechanics. People are vain enough for just that to work...

Just make players who are new or have not killed anyone not be worth anything in this ranking system. The more experienced fighter you kill the more it's worth in terms of points in the ranking system.

That way there will be more fighting among the fighters. Although it wouldn't necessarily decrease the killing of the weak. It merely suggests other targets and only suggests more glorious paths. No forcing (so we don't spit on the sandbox theme) and no prizes or something that would make the choice not a choice.

[HamsterofDoom]

My problem with rankings and achievements as a form of social engineering are...

1.It doesn't work. People will find a way to exploit it, or go nuts to max it out, then they will have nothing left to do... except grief newbies. Not to mention it has ABSOLUTELY no effect on me at all as a murderer. Consider this... given the choice of "behaving" and grinding out points to get some achievement or title that people will have to dig for.. OR making a name for myself in the game world through my actions.... I'd rather bathe in the blood of newbies and jump rope with their entrails just to be the most hated by PEOPLE... not a game mechanic.

2. It is a horrible mechanic. MMO's are designed to hide the grind... ranking/achievements just spits it in your face. Instead of implementing a system that has no real value.. why not make consensual pvp intrinsically desirable? I could gank newbies for 10 logs all day OR fight with my brethren to raze and pillage a town.....


Instead of funneling game play in a rather boring and non creative direction you COULD implement something like....

New skills for a NON-combat character... (I'll use UO as my example). Introduce skills like tracking, Forensics, recon...etc etc. So when you get murdered you call a PLAYER.. (see it's creating game play!) This PLAYER checks out your corpse and finds out who did it. From that point there is a limited amount of time for the PLAYER to find the murderer... perhaps the golden 48 hours would work. Then he/she uses his skills or recon and tracking to figure out where the criminal is hiding. From there, he/she could call on a group of anti-pk's to clean up. The bounty board could be used in conjunction with a system such as mine, especially for murderers that escaped justice.

If the criminal chooses not to log in that character for the duration the trail is lost.

If a system like mine were implemented it would do a few things...

1. Create a whole new marketable skill and style of game play in the "detective".

2.Give murderers a very real danger other than having a group of anti-pk's accidentally find you.

3.Allow victims to have some potential personal retribution, maybe even recover some lost goods.

4.Provide the devs with a non arbitrary method of social engineering to provide a balance of risk vs. reward for victims and criminals alike.



The problem with ALL of the PVP vs PVE arguments is that they all DETRACT from emergent game play. Whether it's creation of safe zones, immune status, or conversely... heavy handed punishments that prohibit a murderer from playing in a fun a meanful manner. ie. Having to regrind stats, afk macroing death counts off, or jailing them preventing ANY play. This problem not exclusive to Xsyon... it's existed for over a decade. Until developer spends time to create "meaningful" mechanics that are FUN for EVERYONE. We will all continue to walk this proverbial Moebius strip of "carebear" vs. "hardcore".\\


Edit- TLDR...... Give us tools to make a murderer's life miserable... make the hunter the hunted.

[sisler86]

HamsterofDoom wrote:

My problem with rankings and achievements as a form of social engineering are...

1.It doesn't work. People will find a way to exploit it, or go nuts to max it out, then they will have nothing left to do... except grief newbies. Not to mention it has ABSOLUTELY no effect on me at all as a murderer. Consider this... given the choice of "behaving" and grinding out points to get some achievement or title that people will have to dig for.. OR making a name for myself in the game world through my actions.... I'd rather bathe in the blood of newbies and jump rope with their entrails just to be the most hated by PEOPLE... not a game mechanic.

2. It is a horrible mechanic. MMO's are designed to hide the grind... ranking/achievements just spits it in your face. Instead of implementing a system that has no real value.. why not make consensual pvp intrinsically desirable? I could gank newbies for 10 logs all day OR fight with my brethren to raze and pillage a town.....


Instead of funneling game play in a rather boring and non creative direction you COULD implement something like....

New skills for a NON-combat character... (I'll use UO as my example). Introduce skills like tracking, Forensics, recon...etc etc. So when you get murdered you call a PLAYER.. (see it's creating game play!) This PLAYER checks out your corpse and finds out who did it. From that point there is a limited amount of time for the PLAYER to find the murderer... perhaps the golden 48 hours would work. Then he/she uses his skills or recon and tracking to figure out where the criminal is hiding. From there, he/she could call on a group of anti-pk's to clean up. The bounty board could be used in conjunction with a system such as mine, especially for murderers that escaped justice.

If the criminal chooses not to log in that character for the duration the trail is lost.

If a system like mine were implemented it would do a few things...

1. Create a whole new marketable skill and style of game play in the "detective".

2.Give murderers a very real danger other than having a group of anti-pk's accidentally find you.

3.Allow victims to have some potential personal retribution, maybe even recover some lost goods.

4.Provide the devs with a non arbitrary method of social engineering to provide a balance of risk vs. reward for victims and criminals alike.



The problem with ALL of the PVP vs PVE arguments is that they all DETRACT from emergent game play. Whether it's creation of safe zones, immune status, or conversely... heavy handed punishments that prohibit a murderer from playing in a fun a meanful manner. ie. Having to regrind stats, afk macroing death counts off, or jailing them preventing ANY play. This problem not exclusive to Xsyon... it's existed for over a decade. Until developer spends time to create "meaningful" mechanics that are FUN for EVERYONE. We will all continue to walk this proverbial Moebius strip of "carebear" vs. "hardcore".\\


Edit- TLDR...... Give us tools to make a murderer's life miserable... make the hunter the hunted.

The word "hardcore" is a hardly appropriate stereotype for PvPers. I've met plenty of PvE players and RP's that I would consider hardcore as well.

[Bruise187]

He had that huge thread and all you got out of it was pvpers are hardcore and pveers aren't lol.

I liked the his thoughts on how to handle pvp. Was a first that I have seen that idea come up.

[Seizon]

Jadzia wrote:

Seizon wrote:

Excuse my newbishness;
In my own opinion,
Open PvP encourages teamwork and evokes a sense of danger. For instance; crafters will obviously be targets because of the relationship between the two; the pvper produces nothing but requires something, and has developed a means to obtain it, while the crafter produces things but (usually) lacks the means to properly defend it. Because of this, warriors aligned to an organization will find they have an important job; protect the crafters.
Town guard KoS list (Karma system featured in the game could also help accomplish town security should a PvPer's karma drop too low, causing NPCs to attack.) and/or other mechanicisms would of course be welcome in aiding the defense against PvPers, and ways to protect items, such as locked containers and/or 'bound' important items, so to speak, which could last for one or two deaths before requiring a new 'bind'.

Restricting a sandbox game reduces player enjoyment, imo, and while dying may be frustrating, a game without death is hard to pull off, especially in such a player oriented game. (ATITD is an obvious exception.) Even restricted PK/only animal deaths could be less preferable compare to open PvP.
on another note;
Automatic game punishment of pvpers would also make the mechanic a much less enjoyable one, whereas player-imposed punishments assisted by game mechanics can be quite satisfying and add an element of danger to the pvper as well.

Hope I could at least make one point there.

I think your ideas could work well in a combat oriented game, but not in Xsyon. In this game we are after an apocalypse, the word is destroyed and we have to rebuild it...now imagine how much resource is needed for that Noone can expect players to stand beside their gathering-crafting tribemate for hours to bodyguard him, they would be bored out of their head.
So the risk of being Pked does encourage teamwork, but not in a very good way...it can be encouraged in much better way, where all of the players can take part in the current activity (like building a huge thing which requires more players).

The are no NPCs in Xsyon right now, and as far as I know there won't be any during the Prelude, so no town guards.

Binding items won't help crafters too much, when they gather-craft-build they don't use armor or weapon, and resources cannot be binded. Apart of that, binding system in a sandbox game...I'm not sure, but it doesn't sound like a sandbox type of feature

Fighters could easily leave when there are no dangers in the vicinity to hunt animals or somesuch should they all agree it's a good idea. (or not,it IS a sandbox game!)

[VowOfSilence]

HamsterofDoom wrote:

The problem with ALL of the PVP vs PVE arguments is that they all DETRACT from emergent game play ... heavy handed punishments that prohibit a murderer from playing in a fun a meanful manner ... Until developer spends time to create "meaningful" mechanics that are FUN for EVERYONE.

Edit- TLDR...... Give us tools to make a murderer's life miserable... make the hunter the hunted.

Your suggested features are nice, but they're not a solution to the problem. How is your average griefed newbie going to make a high-level griefer's life miserable? What can he possibly offer to other high-level players to help him out?

Quite frankly, i don't think a game can be fun for everyone. A game cannot cater to newbies and newbie-killers alike...

[HamsterofDoom]

How is your average griefed newbie going to make a high-level griefer's life miserable?

By giving the murderer 48 hours of being hunted...

What can he possibly offer to other high-level players to help him out?

It's pretty likely that murderers will have more than one person with a bounty on them. And even if that is not the case.. there are people that like to hunt murderers for fun and sport. Kind of like there are people that like to hunt newbies for fun. And with a system such as the one I have proposed, the anti-pks would have a tool to actually locate murderers who have killed recently. In other games you kind of just patrol around trying to find someone.

Also... given how easy it is to escape currently a system like this would allow for the anti-pks to set up a strategy to capture and/or kill the murderer.

And yes.. maybe I placed too much emphasis on EVERYONE, you can never truly make everyone happy. But is that an excuse not to try? Does it justify either making a game with split servers, safe zones, pointless rankings, and developer implemented rewards/punishments? In current and past open pvp games, the mechanics that have been used to encourage certain behaviors and discourage others all have a few things in common... they alienate one side or the other, and add no FUN to the game for anyone(WoW's High Warlord Grind anyone?).

In MMO's it seems to be a common theme to use subtractive measures(nerfs) to balance everything out rather than additive measures(buffs and player driven mechanics).

[Wingnut]

Can't imagine why a murderer would only be such (a murderer) for 48 hours. There is no statute of limitation on murder. (time limit for punishment) People will hunt you until the end of your life. That is the way it should be. Gee, that might not be fun for the murderer. Well gosh, murdering is not a good thing. Folks who decide to do bad things should expect life to change for them. And not in a good way. Granted, its their game (the devs) and they can make it any way they want to. Personally I vote with my money. Bad game, no money.
So far I'm looking at an interesting game. Good ideas and some pretty well thought out limits. Looking forward to see how it all comes out.

[sisler86]

prokop15 wrote:

VowOfSilence wrote:

Your suggested features are nice, but they're not a solution to the problem. How is your average griefed newbie going to make a high-level griefer's life miserable? What can he possibly offer to other high-level players to help him out?

Quite frankly, I don't think a game can be fun for everyone. A game cannot cater to newbies and newbie-killers alike...

Now this is about newbies being griefed? Y'all are grasping at straws. This argument that people are solo players is nuts too,

I'd honestly be willing to bet that the solo community in the MMORPG world outnumber the PvP's and group players.

[Blue Pig]

I've been reading some of the posts here on PvP/PK. Here's my recollection of a very fun text based MUD I played called The Eternal City. It's still around, but Scott, the owner, sold it to... you can google it and find out. It's pretty much a mess now with open PvP but there are problems with changed mechanics as well. The game was much better when it had.. open PvP. Well now how can that be?

The original game had roleplaying as the Prime Directive. You could kill anyone you wanted but there was... permadeath (you could come back if you had luck points and those were not that hard to get, but they were hard enough to get that you had to be careful when engaging in activity that could get you killed. If you didn't have a luck point, you had to wait, or risk death, permanently. And if you hunted NPCs and they killed you... permadeath (unless you had a luck point).

Now, if you had a very good in game reason to kill a PC (player character), then you could do so. However, that reason would always be looked at by Scott, the developer. And if you did not have a very good in game roleplaying reason for killing someone then you were led out to the chop block and were beheaded (permadeath and no luck points to save you from Scott). As a note, playing a crazy maniac who was a murderer was not a good roleplaying reason to kill someone. People who did that were banned from the game. True, Scott only had about 200-300 people to monitor, but he did so. And the game was better for it.

Playing the game was great. There was always the threat that someone could kill you so you were always on your toes. The threat of permanent death was enough to get your adrenaline going--though I only heard of several (maybe 3 or 4) legal killings happening in a year or two. And the game let you focus on medicine (Healer), being a fighter, a politician and so forth.

Remember that there was permadeath (you took a year to build a character?--too bad, he's dead--if you had no semi-hard to come by luck points--and you might get one or two luck points a month). Got killed by a NPC? Too bad. Start over. So reading how some players here label themselves as hardcore is at times amusing to me. Any game that doesn't have permadeath is not hardcore to me.

That game was fun because of the roleplaying, the politics, the events (where you could wind up dead forever) and it really kept you on your toes. I obviously can't explain the whole thing, you had to play the game to feel it. It was a good game, but then he sold it and it went to hell.



Now, I'm not suggesting that permadeath be implemented here, and I know that roleplaying to many people draws a huh?

I'm saying that a game can have permadeath (I died once but was lucky enough to have three whole luck points), roleplaying as the Prime Directive, and active developer moderation and events and be fun.

The DAoC RvR model was great too. That's the best model (outside of The Eternal City's strict developer moderation) that I've ever seen. And DAoC was very popular.

Essentially the developers make the game fun, or they make the game not fun (and that's subjective as well). And here, I sense a that the developers might have more involvement than in other games--given the somewhat limited (projected) participation.

Whatever they do, if the game isn't fun for people, those people will leave.

I think people shouldn't say, "Oh, this game sounds so great to me, I just have to play it." That's a bit too rabid for me. I'm a Star Trek fan and pretty much knew Cryptic was going to botch STO beyond belief as soon as I heard they bought out Perpetual. I played the closed and open beta and I saw it was a horrible game (the space based PvP was very interesting and fairly good though--I played the Kingon faction). And I'll be damned but I actually bought the game. Foolish. I quit three weeks later. No content for Klingons, idiotic content for Feds, and space was a shoebox, not a galaxy. Space, the final shoebox. No thanks.

So I ask this of the developers. Meaningful PvP, please. PvP that's somewhat cerebral. No dumb PvP, please. Let PvP have meaningful consequences and make it so people have to consider well before they attempt it. Otherwise it's just another open PvP game and Darkfall is a good example of a game that failed. There are many other examples. Let's put it this way: I can play a crazed maniac who kills people. I'd rather not. I mean, if I kill a person, I expect them to stay dead, or expend something hard to get to come back to life. Otherwise, what's the point?

And content. People will leave quickly without content