Non Violent forms of PVP

[Soulwanderer]

OK last time I will try and get you to understand, if you don't then big yourself up for winning at forum pvp....

I am in my village, you attack. (offensive action)
I capture you and put you into my jail. (defensive action)

You choose to attack and either
capture my village (reward)
or
get captured (risk)

If you decide to attack me I have a deterent against you, but you have the ultimate defence by not attacking. YOU have the choice to attack my village but have to balance that attack with the chance I put you in jail which is MY choice.

If I were to attack you we would simply use the same mechanics.

Balance here is risk vs reward. You risk jail by attacking me but could be rewarded by gaining my village. I have the same risk/reward choice in reverse.

Does that help you?

It's not that I don't understand what you're saying, it's just that what you're saying is either not going in depth enough for the mechanic your envisioning or, if it's pretty much covered by what you're saying, then it is... bluntly, stupid. It'd be the equivalent of permadeath with the side hassle of either not being able to or needing to recreate your character at the whim of another player. I'm not much for complaining about griefing, but a mechanic like that would be the epitome of it. At least a PvP fight results in either a brisk escape or a quick death and a bit of a run before it's over. You either want to permanently be able to stop another player from playing or you haven't bothered to think through/post the rest of your thoughts on this kind of mechanic. Then you try to make out that those who don't agree don't understand? Way to keep it classy.

[maelwydd]

It's not that I don't understand what you're saying, it's just that what you're saying is either not going in depth enough for the mechanic your envisioning or, if it's pretty much covered by what you're saying, then it is... bluntly, stupid. It'd be the equivalent of permadeath with the side hassle of either not being able to or needing to recreate your character at the whim of another player. I'm not much for complaining about griefing, but a mechanic like that would be the epitome of it. At least a PvP fight results in either a brisk escape or a quick death and a bit of a run before it's over. You either want to permanently be able to stop another player from playing or you haven't bothered to think through/post the rest of your thoughts on this kind of mechanic. Then you try to make out that those who don't agree don't understand? Way to keep it classy.

A few points then: -

1 - If cant be griefing as you took the offensive and know the risk (Just as attacking another player in open pvp and losing is not griefing).
2 - Sandbox game. Use politics, diplomacy, peace negotiations, a rescue attempt...freedom to chose a resolution.
3 - I have thought it though. I have been thinking it through for the last 6 years and the last year in actual game design.

Sorry but this isn't about disagreeing as the point is what you propose is unbalanced. That is ALWAYS the complaint. The complaint against griefing (legitimate complaints that is) is always that it is an unbalanced scenario where risk/reward are not equal.

[Soulwanderer]

A few points then: -

1 - If cant be griefing as you took the offensive and know the risk (Just as attacking another player in open pvp and losing is not griefing).
2 - Sandbox game. Use politics, diplomacy, peace negotiations, a rescue attempt...freedom to chose a resolution.
3 - I have thought it though. I have been thinking it through for the last 6 years and the last year in actual game design.

Sorry but this isn't about disagreeing as the point is what you propose is unbalanced. That is ALWAYS the complaint. The complaint against griefing (legitimate complaints that is) is always that it is an unbalanced scenario where risk/reward are not equal.

So your request is that you be able to permanently put another player's character in jail. It is understood, and it is horrible. If I have 50 players and you have 15 and I decide I don't like you and throw you in jail, what then? My city fortifications are going to keep your players out unless they siege. If they siege, we will kill them and defeat the siege. We're not going to play a nice game of politics, we're going to keep you locked in our jail until you either delete your character or quit the game.

But that's fair and good gameplay because you knew the risks? I know the risks of a lot of things. Once they get to a certain point I don't do them. Your vision of a jail has got to be one of the worst things for player retention I've heard in over a decade. Nothing would happen unless victory was ensured which would promote zergs and penalize solo or small scale players, and it would drive players caught to quit on top of it.

If you're going to suggest an idea that you want to be taken seriously, try to see the big picture rather than just what would be cool to you.

[maelwydd]

So your request is that you be able to permanently put another player's character in jail. It is understood, and it is horrible.

So are you now saying if there was a hard coded mechanic for eventual automatic release enforced by the devs you would be ok with it. That would mean taking away the actual sandox part of it wouldn't it?

And effectively isn't tha was someone can do in open PVP if they so choose. To grief someone else so remoresely that they can't take it and quit?

You grief me through constantly attacking till I quit.

I grief you by putting you in jail till you quit.

They are the same.

You see you are happy having YOUR freedom to do what YOU want but when I propose something that give ME the freedom to do what I want you object. Can you not see the problem here?

If I have 50 players and you have 15 and I decide I don't like you and throw you in jail, what then?

How would you do that? How can you FORCE me to enter into YOUR tribal lands so you can put me in jail if I don't want to? If I was foolish enough to enter your land then I am just that. Foolish. You couldn't throw me in YOUR jail because I wuldn't step a foot on YOUR land.

You see this just tells me again you are just NOT getting it.

My city fortifications are going to keep your players out unless they siege. If they siege, we will kill them and defeat the siege. We're not going to play a nice game of politics, we're going to keep you locked in our jail until you either delete your character or quit the game. But that's fair and good gameplay because you knew the risks?

That is the RISK of attacking. NO RISK no REWARD!!!! But in this example, being the carebear who only wants to protect themselves from potential griefing they wouldn't attack you. If you wanted to FORCE PvP onto them you will have to either take them on open land or RISK being put into jail if you attack their village and lose.

I know the risks of a lot of things. Once they get to a certain point I don't do them. Your vision of a jail has got to be one of the worst things for player retention I've heard in over a decade. Nothing would happen unless victory was ensured which would promote zergs and penalize solo or small scale players, and it would drive players caught to quit on top of it.

Do YOU WANT a sandbox game or not? Do you want the freedom for anyone to be able to do what youwant when you want it? If so then you can't stop me and defend your position. Either accept there has to be a balance or accept sandbox does not mean 'free from rules or mechanics to promote open and freee play'.

If you're going to suggest an idea that you want to be taken seriously, try to see the big picture rather than just what would be cool to you.

You see you are so blinkered here you are only seeing YOUR point of view. Think about it.

[Soulwanderer]

So are you now saying if there was a hard coded mechanic for eventual automatic release enforced by the devs you would be ok with it. That would mean taking away the actual sandox part of it wouldn't it?

And effectively isn't tha was someone can do in open PVP if they so choose. To grief someone else so remoresely that they can't take it and quit?

You see you are happy having YOUR freedom to do what YOU want but when I propose something that give ME the freedom to do what I want you object. Can you not see the problem here?



How would you do that? How can you FORCE me to enter into YOUR tribal lands so you can put me in jail if I don't want to? If I was foolish enough to enter your land then I am just that. Foolish. You couldn't throw me in YOUR jail because I wuldn't step a foot on YOUR land.

You see this just tells me again you are just NOT getting it.



That is the RISK of attacking. NO RISK no REWARD!!!! But in this example, being the carebear who only wants to protect themselves from potential griefing they wouldn't attack you. If you wanted to FORCE PvP onto them you will have to either take them on open land or RISK being put into jail if you attack their village and lose.





Do YOU WANT a sandbox game or not? Do you want the freedom for anyone to be able to do what youwant when you want it? If so then you can't stop me and defend your position. Either accept there has to be a balance or accept sandbox does not mean 'free from rules or mechanics to promote open and freee play'.



You see you are so blinkered here you are only seeing YOUR point of view. Think about it.

You replying with more detailed descriptions of how you think you should be able to imprison people forever and why you think you should be able to wasn't really necessary. I get that you think you that's the way it should be, and it's no less a horrible idea for you repeating it over and over again. Fortunately you're on a lonely little island waving that flag, so you're inconsequential enough that I don't really need to be bothered with it anymore.

[Dubanka]

So are you now saying if there was a hard coded mechanic for eventual automatic release enforced by the devs you would be ok with it. That would mean taking away the actual sandox part of it wouldn't it?

And effectively isn't tha was someone can do in open PVP if they so choose. To grief someone else so remoresely that they can't take it and quit?

You grief me through constantly attacking till I quit.

I grief you by putting you in jail till you quit.

They are the same.

You see you are happy having YOUR freedom to do what YOU want but when I propose something that give ME the freedom to do what I want you object. Can you not see the problem here?



How would you do that? How can you FORCE me to enter into YOUR tribal lands so you can put me in jail if I don't want to? If I was foolish enough to enter your land then I am just that. Foolish. You couldn't throw me in YOUR jail because I wuldn't step a foot on YOUR land.

You see this just tells me again you are just NOT getting it.



That is the RISK of attacking. NO RISK no REWARD!!!! But in this example, being the carebear who only wants to protect themselves from potential griefing they wouldn't attack you. If you wanted to FORCE PvP onto them you will have to either take them on open land or RISK being put into jail if you attack their village and lose.





Do YOU WANT a sandbox game or not? Do you want the freedom for anyone to be able to do what youwant when you want it? If so then you can't stop me and defend your position. Either accept there has to be a balance or accept sandbox does not mean 'free from rules or mechanics to promote open and freee play'.



You see you are so blinkered here you are only seeing YOUR point of view. Think about it.

Again the assumption that any non-consensual pvp is griefing.

let me say it slow.

WE DONT WANT ANYONE TO QUIT.

OUr goal is to have the players set up the world in any state they choose.

concepts like prison and assassinations are really cool mechanics that could be implemented in really unique and interesting ways to enhance gameplay...not 'grief' someone into abandoning a playstyle

and balance we desire is the ability of players determining the course of action.
Code that autoimprisons a char for 'murder' for an indeterminate amount of time...that is not player action.
A player get his tribe to go burn down the house of the person that killed him...that is player action.

I don't think this conversation is going to meet in the middle tho, so at this point, it's just a post count exercise.

[maelwydd]

Again the assumption that any non-consensual pvp is griefing.

Let me throw out a quote here...."simply by joining a FFA PvP server you are consenting to PvP". I hear that often quoted. And I DO agree with your statement above is invalid. However, please bear in mind that it is the DEVELOPERS descision what constitutes griefing. If they say you are griefing...you are.

let me say it slow.

WE DONT WANT ANYONE TO QUIT.

OUr goal is to have the players set up the world in any state they choose.

concepts like prison and assassinations are really cool mechanics that could be implemented in really unique and interesting ways to enhance gameplay...not 'grief' someone into abandoning a playstyle

Well to be honest, I highly doubt a jail idea would be used as a means for someone to force another person to quit unless they acted like dicks (and the same rules about griefing apply so it would mean a ban potentally if abused). And as I mentioned earlier, there are ways within the confimes of SANDBOX to deal with this and entirely withing the control of the players. [/QUOTE]

and balance we desire is the ability of players determining the course of action.
Code that autoimprisons a char for 'murder' for an indeterminate amount of time...that is not player action.

I agree and that was entirely my point about the fact that introducing hard coded release mechanisms remove the SANDBOX element involved in the idea. But it stands that if you allow a mechanism such as being able to permanently camp another player though legitimate means to quit (i.e. open unrestricted PvP) then you have to also accept that being a player could also, through those same freedoms, use a mechanism to permanently jail another player. Both have ways that out of the predicament - in open PvP it is "get some friends and fight" or "run away" and in a jail system it is "get some friends and break them out or "negotiate a deal".

A player get his tribe to go burn down the house of the person that killed him...that is player action.

A player gets his tribe to break the jailed tribe member out of jail of the person that jailed him....that is player action

I don't think this conversation is going to meet in the middle tho, so at this point, it's just a post count exercise.

Well only because people are either ignoring my side of the argument or just don't get it. But either way it is pointless....guess i will have to wait till I get my game out

[ifireallymust]

Bounties on any players are just another game mechanic. If it's done right, it'll work well. If not, it won't. If you just target tribal leaders and penalties are too harsh though you'll only end up with decent guilds creating separate accounts and only logging in the place holder tribe leader when only that toon can do something.

That one is easy to get around, when the highest ranking tribe member is offline, the responsibility, power, and potential penalties falls to the second highest, and everything else moves down the ranks with it. I suppose if all tribal leaders wanted to log out, then it would fall to the senior tribe members. Bonuses of some kind to every tribe member based on the character age and stats of the chiefs and penalties for putting a new, low skilled character in charge of an established tribe could also encourage the real leadership to stay in game. 'Retired' tribe leaders would also face the same stat loss from assassination as they would have when they were 'active' for some time after they 'retire'.

The assassin should also suffer the same stat loss as the target would have if the assassin is killed while carrying out the assassination or while making her escape, whether the actual assassination is successful or not.

[Sirius]

Lol @ the guy tossing around the words "permanently jail a character" also complaining that his idea is being rejected only because it's so misunderstood.

[maelwydd]

Lol @ the guy tossing around the words "permanently jail a character" also complaining that his idea is being rejected only because it's so misunderstood.

Well if you understood is so completely why use the word permanently?