|Thane9 Goblin Squad Member|
|2 people marked this as a favorite.|
I wasn't too worried early last year, the punishment systems seemed fine. You kill someone in 'protected' territory, you could get major consequences. I want the game to have a heavy PvP focus, but the PvP punishments seem to be going to far.
I feel it is important to have a healthy population of 'bad' players, it keeps things interesting. The rewards for being bad or good, should carry the same magnitude, but be different things. If someone wants to go around killing people, they make easy money, but they have to pay more for things, but not so much that it is preferable to be one side or the other.
I would like to see alignments evenly spaced out, and each side should have a disadvantage for every advantage. LG and CE should be able to become equally powerful with similar effort, through different means. While a LG organization may thrive on exploration and discovery, a CE organization will thrive on banditry and raiding, each advancing at a similar rate.
A game of cops and robbers is no good if everyone wants to be cops, or even if 70% of people want to be cops, because the robbers won't have fun and will just give up because they are constantly getting teamed up on.
It is my informed opinion (based on over 20 years of experience in large scale multi player computer games---back to MUDs) that there will ALWAYS be more than enough people willing and desiring to be "bad".
In fact, the entire industry is filled with stories of when the de-incentives to being bad are not strong enough that gameplay is essentially ruined for a large % of the playerbase.
If things were "even" for evil and good then there'd be a huge incentive to being evil. That incentive? Being able to grief others.
I would suggest that no matter HOW unfair you think it is looking to be evil that you're not crediting that freedom with enough weight.
A game where evil and good are balanced would be a miserable game for anyone choosing to be good. Note: I very clearly state evil and good, not red and blue. If the game had equal freedoms for both sides it wouldn't be evil and good it'd just be team 1 and team 2. But that isn't the suggestion with this game. This game is suggesting that evil has choices that good does not, and with those choices comes consequences.
Frankly, I don't think the consequences seem big enough...and I predict a rash of really nasty behaviour in the game UNTIL the societal structures are strong and evolved enough to counter them. Hopefully they'll develop fast enough to prevent the demise of the game.