Conflict, Death, Consequences and Decisions

[Stncold]

cliff wrote:

Yeah... and I then thought like a griefer, took one look at the consequences, and realized the average griefer's response would be "So?"

Sorry, the consequences I see... aren't.

What isn't mentioned in that post is that when you first see somebody, they won't have a name over their head until you officially "meet" them(however that works), then they will have a name over their head afterwards.

Evil players however will have a red name over their head that everybody sees, even people they haven't met.
It's no doubt that this will make future gankings be harder cause most people will run as soon as they see you. They'll also probably call out your position to everybody they know so you can be zerged down without consequence.

Granted this isn't completely a bad thing, it's always fun to watch people scatter upon seeing you.

[cliff]

Unfortunately, it doesn't change the fact that the average carebear is irrationally afraid of PvP and will reject a game outright just for the fact that they theoretically could be attacked by other players at any time.

Time will tell, but without the carebears, it's hard to achieve a population level to support the kind of economy the developer wants this game to have.

[Virtus]

Indeed time will tell, and i suppose if things aren't going properly then changes will be made accordingly...but that is just an assumption.

[Shatter]

I have always been turned off by FFA PvP games due to the fact that they invariably turn into gankfests. The wolves hunt the sheep mercilessly until the sheep all abandon the game and all that's left is wolves. It's just no fun, and not at all realistic.

The system that you've outlined sounds like it would work wonders for this. I'd even go so far as to say it's not really FFA. Yes, anyone can kill anyone else. But the penalties for this will be so severe that most people will not go that route. Unlike the real world, there's no getting away with murder because if you do a bad, bad thing you're going to be flagged as evil. Period.

The only way I can see it failing is if all the clans decide to be evil. I just don't foresee that happening. Most clans would choose to be good or at least neutral. If an evil clan ever became too much of a problem, the good ones could band together to make their lives a living hell.

I like it.

[Belated]

Carebears Fear me! If you see me start running. My pack of tigers,and wolves are coming for ya.

[cliff]

Shatter wrote:

The only way I can see it failing is if all the clans decide to be evil. I just don't foresee that happening. Most clans would choose to be good or at least neutral. If an evil clan ever became too much of a problem, the good ones could band together to make their lives a living hell.

I disagree. I think the evil clans will far outnumber the good clans. We've had FFA PvP games before, and the usual result is that most of the power ends up with people that are either evil, or at the very least draconian. It might be in keeping with the genre, but you can't support a userbase this way.

Even the clans that aren't evil are going to have a "shoot first and ask questions later" policy.

The problem is, these "severe penalties" are wholly dependent on the murderer caring about the penalty. Past history has shown us that this has never been the case before, so I think it purest fantasy to believe that it will be any different now.

What I see here is an MMO with a lot of great ideas being developed by a company that dearly misses Ultima Online before the world was torn asunder, but there's a really big difference between UO in the old days and the realities of MMOs today - the carebears have other choices available to them. In the old days of Ultima Online, your choice was deal with the gankers or don't play an MMO. UO's pro-PvP stance didn't last very long once the users had an alternative.

I've been involved with the development of a few MMOs, and I say what I say from experience... a game with FFA PvP can make a living for a small, indie development team but it can't attract enough subscribers for as complex an economy as the developers have described for this one.

I really hope I'm wrong, this game sounds awesome (and very ambitious), but this is one design decision that could very well kill the game before it has had a chance to mature.

Best of luck, cheers!

[Belated]

/agree

I think there is wisdom in your words, maybe some way to make the good/evil clans even? Although there are flaws in that. Even having 1 evil clan with no tribe cap limit it can be 500 strong. A clan that is even 300 strong, is going to find itself almost impenitrable to attack.

I say this because the others would have to organize an attack. When the evil side is already together as one.

Evil will also be able to have its own economy without the fear of consequences I think. I have been good in most all games I have played, also always played a tank or healer as raids pve need them. Not this time though. This time gank like a mofo and taking everything I need for my evil clan to use.

I hope there are not a huge amount of evil or good, I pray for max 1.5 to 1 odds. That line of thinking however is wishful thinking. Only time will tell.

In the end though I agree with Cliff. Be very careful on what you decide please. Anything one sided is going to be disaster for this game.

[aurickle]

I agree that it has to be managed very, very carefully. I like a game that gives you the option of being a douche... so long as the penalties for that truly are so severe that most people wouldn't want to be a sociopath.

Unfortunately, history also shows that when severe penalties for this kind of behavior are implemented, the most vocal people are the jackasses. They yell, scream and throw tantrums but in the end if the devs stick to their guns the result is a game that draws more than just the niche crowd that Cliff refers to.

AoC is a good example of this. There were a lot of penalties talked about prior to launch that never made it into the game. The wolves made life so miserable that a huge number of people who'd rolled on a PvP server (because they expected those advertised penalties) high-tailed it over to re-roll on a PvE server. About half of my guild in the first month was refugees from the PvP servers. Then Funcom announced their plans to implement the penalties system, and the wolves screamed so loud that very little of the original design ever made it into the game. Ironically, because the game had such a lack of working PvE content at the higher levels, the PvP aspect was the thing that had the best chance of keeping the game strong. But because so many people had fled to the PvE servers, they grew bored and left the game altogether before the penalties that might have kept them around could finally be implemented.

Harsh penalties ultimately will not deter the most hardcore of the player killers. In fact, the most hardcore will actually thrive on the harshest of penalties because surviving them becomes a badge of honor. But a lack of those penalties will most certainly drive away the majority of the potential player base. I suspect it would be better to err on the side of harshness. Penalties can always be relaxed if they prove too harsh, and most players will accept this. But if penalties are too soft then the player base will never grow enough for the changes to make a difference.

[lildeath16]

Would you say you have a skill based combat system/rock paper scissors/or mix

[Virtus]

lildeath16 wrote:

Would you say you have a skill based combat system/rock paper scissors/or mix

Not to get to far off topic but the combat list under Features should be able to give you insight into this question.