vjek's page

... Plus at some point anything that successfully evades the intended cost for a behavior becomes exploiting a bug.

In the past, prior to 1999, I could see this being a deterrent.

Today? The motto of every MMO player I know is: "Exploit Early, Exploit Often" because there are zero consequences. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Thinking that players aren't going to do something while you have the mechanics in game, but tell them not to because "it's exploiting" is a bit like expecting criminals not to commit crimes while still in prison because "it's wrong". Unlikely to happen in reality.

@avari3/Jiminy: Yes, yes I am concerned. Why? Because if they don't have solutions to the problems that have plagued Shadowbane, UO, Mortal Online, Darkfall, and any other MMO that features "PvP as content" , then on what basis is there confidence their solution will be different?

If "they're just starting to look at this NOW", and they've already burned how many hundreds of thousands of dollars, they may not EVER find the solution ... and still have burned hundreds of thousands of dollars. Seeing the reason for concern, now?

@Jameow: I doubt you can drop things on the ground to be picked up. Otherwise people could unintentionally get faction hits from picking up CE-dropped items, and/or it would be a trivial reputation bypass exploit

Jameow wrote:

I would like to know what disadvantages they would get from training first THEN going chaotic evil.

I'm speculating because we're way off the blank sheet of paper here and this is stuff Lee and Stephen have just begun to think about.

Access to some character abilities could be linked to Settlement features. If your Settlement loses that feature, or you lose access to a Settlement with the necessary feature, you could find that your character can't "do that thing" anymore.

Some keywords could have alignment restrictions so they don't work if you're CE, even if you have the right training and abilities.

Some character abilities could have alignment restrictions so they don't work, or don't work as well if you're CE.

The upkeep costs for certain aspects of a Settlement could be much higher if it's CE, so there's effectively a "tax" for living in one.

Just some spitballing.

How is this information not already in your global/overarching/master design document!?

Holy buckets, batman! Red flag! Pull the e-brake, there's no bridge!

This is... well it's... just... astonishing you haven't worked this all out already. If I were an investor, I would be VERY VERY concerned. Not exaggerating at all, my jaw dropped when I read your post. I was speechless.

Although, in retrospect, that does explain why you have been so reticent to discuss these incredibly important mechanics in detail. :(

RE: throwaway-alt-zerg means they delete the character and start again as soon as it's inconvenient. They don't do it as CE. They roam the countryside in groups of 5-10 preying on groups of 1 or 2.

I see no public information released so far that prevents this "for lulz" playstyle from being perfectly viable, forever. As described, getting crap/good/uber gear is not a problem for anyone with two accounts, so I'm not seeing how this isn't going to be a constant problem.

That's in a pretty distant future. Get there when you get there. Who knows maybe those villains will be a welcome thing at that time. 2.5 years is a long time buddy, this isn't a game where people are capping in a month.

Unfortunately, given zerging has been confirmed as a viable strategy, it will be happening on launch day. Just like every other MMO that has this "feature".

What I mean by that is, the 2.5 years is meaningless if you lose all your customers the first month due to roving bands of zerging gankers who just delete the characters and start again as soon as they hit CE alignment.

Similarly, as described, if necessary, there will be a threshold that players will reach, and then do the same thing. That is, if skill xx/yy is required to kill _ANY_ player with a roving gang of 5 to 10 friends, then they will all have exactly that skill, reached in the minimum amount of time. Throwaway zerg mules.

They will also all have exactly the minimum/useless equipment required, to ensure none of it will be lost and/or there is no value in killing them for loot.

Robb ain't wrong, and it's a darn shame to see him go. That last post had nothing but salient points in it, none of which have been addressed so far.

I'm not liking this whole "6 months to get sort-kinda-almost details" about these fundamental mechanics. Work them out logically either in private or public, and post them in an official FAQ. Having to do this dance-with-the-sugarplum-devs was old in 1998. It hasn't gotten any better with age. :|

So, to be powerful/better, this boils down to using a second or third account/character to insulate the rep hits/market purchases and/or finding a location that permits them, and getting to max skill before you start your murdering career.

That appears right from the information so far.

I _can_ trade with a CE and take a reputation hit. If I use a second account, I can create new chars all the time, go to the transfer point where CE's are not killed by guards. Use that char to either sell all the goods, give the gold back, and delete him, or buy them from my third account via the market.

Ok, so I use a/the market as my item-laundering mechanism.

Kill with char 1, use mule char2 to buy items from market, trade booty from char 1 to char 2, give new items as necessary to char2 that I just bought. Delete mule char. Repeat as necessary.

Worst case, given money from char3 to char2.

From your response regarding CE settlements, as you weren't entirely clear, I'm presuming CE settlements will NOT have max skill trainers. So that's the one (possible) tangible downside, which is moot if you're already at max skill.

Unless there are permanent skill hits on death for CE chars, that require they visit a trainer to recover from?

... Your second account will have a low reputation, because of all of the trades with your main. His settlement, seeing the low reputation and the effect that rep is having on the settlement rep, kicks him out.

No matter where you are in the world, the server tracks who you trade with, and regardless of location, you take a reputation hit with every Good/Lawful aligned settlement, world-wide, even if no-one witnesses the trade?

Really?

EDIT: changed Good to Good/Lawful

Ok, Ryan, so.

First question, small scale issue:

With my CE account/char I do whatever I want, kill anyone I want, and hand every piece of gear, every resource, and every single coin, item of value, everything acquired, over to my second account, who proceeds to make anything I want, and hand it back.

My second account, of course, lives in the best settlement in the world, with access to everything/anything I need or want, because they've never done anything "wrong".

My CE char or group of CE chars then have the absolute best equipment money can buy.

Plan to handle this case?

Also, second question, large scale issue:

What stops an extremely devoted group of individuals from making the best possible settlement entirely for CE characters? Thus nullifying any downside to being CE, and allowing them the ability to do anything they want, anytime they want, to anyone they want?

Are the answers...?

1) The player cannot reach the highest levels of training, EVER, as chaotic evil, period? No matter what, that alignment cannot reach max skill/whatever, EVER? That will not be well received with those players desiring to play CE for any reason, but I'm curious all the same.

2) CE players cannot construct settlement?. Again, that too would not be well received by players currently planning 100% CE settlements of the highest quality.

Again, I'm one of those guys Robb is alluding to when he says "dozens of scar-brothers who are silently nodding and thinking "Amen, brother. Preach it." I'm one of them. We've never met, but from the sounds of it, we've had similar experiences. Having played MMO's since they've been available to play, and seeing all of these creative PvP experiments in action, I'll add my opinion to what has already been eloquently expressed in this thread.

In my experience with Non-Consensual PvP MMO mechanics, the following is generally true:

Customers, paying or not, will not play victims, indefinitely.
Or put another way;
Customers will not indefinitely pay to be victims, not even half of the time.
Regardless of whether or not "pay" means time or money or both.

It is illogical to presume that victims will stay around being victims forever. It's a negative experience. No-one likes it. Presuming a steady stream of loss, at whatever rate you want to use, means you're designing to fail, just over whatever time period the victim loss becomes catastrophic.

As such, regardless of how innovative you as a supporter of GoblinWorks might think these systems are, despite some very smart people over the past 15 years trying all sorts of variations on the same theme, something new is required. Everything that has been discussed so far has already been tried in other MMO's or theorycrafted to death. Flagging, item loss on death, reputation, varying degrees of "safe areas", bounties, all of it.
Obviously, I can't say with any degree of certainty that what has been described to date, put together under a new context of PFO's "world" will 100% fail.
I will say, though, that I have seen EACH of these mechanics fail spectacularly on their own, either in theory or in practice, given the deplorable state of human nature. I've seen flagging abused until pointless. I've seen item loss on death abused until the devs recant and remove it or the game dies. I've seen Reputation systems laughably trivialized even with 1 integer change per death/kill on a scale of 1000 or 10000 per rank.

Penalties for killing those with high reputation just encourages mule rep grinding, as has been pointed out and demonstrated in all the games that have it.

Safe areas are mapped and used by the very people they're meant to stop, to attack other players and have those players killed by guards. How? The griefer stands on the non-guarded side, 1 pixel away from the guarded side. They attack the noob on the guarded side. The noob retaliates, and the guards kill the noob. Never happen? Has happened.

Item loss on death also just ends up encouraging naked zerging. All professional murderers will simply never carry anything they aren't holding. Thusly, killing them nets you nothing. The only people with something to lose are the victims, not the criminals. If the system is changed so that criminals lose anything, criminals will attack naked with their fists, in zergs of 50-80 players, with multiple accounts all slaved to a small group of sociopaths. If the "justice" system is further modified to include stat/skill/badge loss, that's the tipping point at which you'll lose all those customers, but by then it's too late, because all the customers you WANTED are long gone due to taking so long to address these concerns.

Why? Because the fanatical zealots all drinking the cool-aid now, two years before this game has the slightest chance of ever hitting the public? Those folks? They WANT those features. They WANT the PvP features you are going to have to remove due to player outcry. If you take them away, you lose your core of fans/customers. Now what? You're left with a half baked cake, just like every other attempt in the genre at "getting this right".

And don't think it won't happy to you, GoblinWorks employees. History is a great teacher. Many other development teams have said the same thing you have said. Hell, they just said it in GW2 and now look at the game? All the changes they should have made during the first HOURS after launch (not days, not weeks, not months) were not done, and the game is permanently screwed because of it. That's a so-called AAA MMO failing in 2012, but I'm sure they said "We will fix these big problems immediately when we see them, never fear, our loyal fans!". Riiiiight.

On the current hot topic of item loss on death for non-criminal victims. When I first read about this system, I had the same reaction. Why would any company desiring financial success penalize customers for being victims, and AT THE SAME TIME, reward aggressors for victimizing their customers? It made no sense months ago, and it stll makes no sense.

IMHO: "Meaningful Player Interaction" does not require direct PvP combat, at all, in any form. (just like PnP PF) I'll put my tiny stick in the sand with that opinion expressed.

Lastly, it's nice to see that there is some flexibility alluded to on some of these mechanics. Up until this past week or so, the way in which these mechanics have been described and defended was the very definition of "set in stone". The recent change is good to see, but I, like Robb, will never play a game where victimization is rewarded.

Sorry Lee, I'm with Robb on this one.

Every aspect of the PvP system (as described) currently involving flagging, revenge, retribution, bounty, reward, shift, alignment, etc, etc? (whatever you want to call it up to this point)

All those mechanics? Moot when you have one player who can have more than one account.

Modern MMO's have the following "customers":

Players that play more than 12 hours a day. Every Day. With 6-8 concurrent online characters at their disposal. That's the "monster" you're either not considering, or are ignoring.

It doesn't matter what convoluted hand waving you want to put in front of it, there is no PvP-consequence system, which has real life flesh and blood humans involved, that cannot be gamed by a player with 6-8 characters online.

Honestly, it surprised me greatly that you would be willing to post such naive mechanics publicly, given the lessons learned during Meridian 59, UO, Darkfall, Mortal Online, and Shadowbane.

I mean... really...

"
a) The attacker gets a flag, labeling him a criminal. Anyone can kill him now without suffering Reputation or Alignment penalties, and killing him actually makes your Alignment more Lawful.
"

That's a license to become fully lawful any time I wish, as long as I have more than one account at my disposal. Alignment shifts are now meaningless to me, because I can become anything I want by grinding alignment with multiple accounts.

Reputation? Not being able to enter settlements? Again, means nothing to someone with multiple accounts, unless you can't transfer items from one account/player to another, ever.

Rebuke/Reward? Instantly abuse-able with multiple accounts.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but your boss has different ideas than this:
"
There will always be people in MMOs who kill just for the sake of killing and to vent their sociopathic desires that they can't fulfill in the real world, and who's goal is to ruin other's play experiences. And I'll be completely honest, my tolerance for playing a game with or having to deal with people like this has drastically decreased at the same rate as my available hours to play these sorts of games."
"

The last time this subject was discussed, Ryan confirmed it is (as currently described) possible for ANYONE to attack ANYONE, ANYWHERE in PFO. There is no 100% safe area.
How is that not sociopathic enablement?

I agree with your intent and desire. IMHO: Experience tells me it's not going to be that way if you continue down the PvP/Death mechanic path you're on.

... How are we going to stop griefers if they can effectively grief newbs with NOTHING riding on the line? How are we going to demoralize our enemies if every time they raid our outlying farms and we manage to catch them, they lose squat?

That is the point I am making.

You're not going to stop them. The current public information regarding these gameplay mechanics specifies "griefing" in this fashion is going to fundamentally be part of PFO.

Your options, given this situation, are to play or not play.

Just like being attacked anywhere at any time. Again, given the public information available to date, your options are: play or not play.

You can play and live with the mechanic or not play. /shrug

The only disappointing thing from my perspective is that the death/pvp mechanics were set in stone long before any public discussion about the game commenced, and that they are now (apparently) unchangeable. That seems to be a huge loss of potential innovation, but it's not my money to burn. :)

... Pathfinder Online will be an Open World game with Limited PvP and Limited Loot.

The PvP restrictions will be that there may be some places where you cannot attack or be attacked, there are some places where attacking without the right to do so will trigger a response that will kill you (maybe before you are able to kill your target).

The Loot restrictions will be that you will retain the weapon and armor you were wearing when you died, and if someone other than you attempts to loot your corpse, some or all of the rest of your inventory will be destroyed, but if you can reach your corpse first you can recover everything you had when you died.

We think that these limitations will address the majority of the dysfunctional griefing activities that plague games with Open World Full PvP Full Loot. If they don't we'll keep working on the system until we find a good balance of restrictions and freedom that keeps such antisocial activity to a minimum.

RyanD

Just checking in again after a few months...

<IMHO>
IMHO:

Your two "limitations" have the following logical failure points:

Any place that a player can be attacked, they will be attacked, 100% of the time, 24x7. There is no "may" or "maybe" in MMO's. Players either can or cannot. And if they can, they will. And if they can, and it negatively affects the gameplay experience of another player, they will especially do it as often as they can, regardless of any punitive mechanisms in place. This has been demonstrated very clearly in any MMO that supports such mechanics since Meridian 59.

Regarding the loot restrictions you outline, 100% of the time, someone will loot your corpse when you die. There will be no "if someone other than you attempts to loot your corpse". It will be, 100% of the time, WHEN someone other than you DOES loot your corpse "some or all of the rest of your inventory will be destroyed".
Additionally, there is also no "if you can reach your corpse first" because if travel time to your corpse is 1 second or greater, that means whoever just killed you is going to loot your corpse first. Full stop. There is no "IF" here. It's a "WHEN" and it's guaranteed.

Given the above, your mechanics as outlined do nothing but promote griefing and are quite frankly, extraordinarily naive given what has been demonstrated in the past via similar MMO mechanics.

As has been pointed out frequently on these forums, if your goal is 5k-10k subscribers, then you're on the right path. That is, you're building a niche game for a niche audience with a niche lifespan. Again, why anyone would do such a thing when they could do better/more is a cause for serious concern from a financial investment perspective.

Power, space, lighting, wages, benefits, server hosting, and internet transit are not free. Fundamentally and previously proven-to-be broken mechanics such as these, coupled with no clear business case regarding how you're going to pay for all those "unfree" things hasn't changed my mind in the slightest regarding PFO. (And it really is tremendously misleading to continue calling it that, given it has almost nothing in common, mechanically, with Pathfinder the RPG)

</IMHO>

... I support the idea of NPCs being mixed into the PVP combat to some extent, but replacing the PVP content with AI's... eliminates the greatest draw of PVP, tactical inteligent battles. AI's have flaws, predictability etc... Players do as well, but they are different for each player, and change even on that player as he becomes aware of them. ...

Yep, covered in the possession system (which allows players to directly control NPCs), but it's extremely apparent no-one is interested in discussion at this point for viable systems that would attract a larger crowd and still reach the same design goals. Evidently the time for brainstorming this system has passed, the drawbridge is up, and the community is in pure defensive mode.

I've read all of these arguments, and Ryans identical PvP related comments several times now in dozens of threads and posts on these forums. Repetition for emphasis, I guess? Unnecessary, but a good segue.

Fair enough. I'm out for now. Have a good game, folks. I hope you get enough players willing to play with a deterrent vs. a restriction, Goblinworks.

If there are significant changes to the PvP & death mechanics, I'll be back. Until then, adios! (You'll note this type of 'goodbye' post has been a recurring theme on these forums for the past 6 months. You may want to ponder why that is the case, if anyone cares to think past the first 4500 milestone)

vjek wrote:

There are MUCH better ways. My surprise is why Goblinworks hasn't decided to use any of the better ways, given it's 2012 and they're available.

What are these better ways? I'm curious.

Aha! You fell into my cunning trap. I was hoping someone would ask this question.

The answer is..

Insulated Interaction

The "Shamwow-style" version of the explanation:
Think of any 1v1 PvP combat in any MMO you've ever played, or ever imagined.
What is the positive aspect to a 1v1 PvP encounter? The winner wins. Huzzah for winning!
What is the negative aspect to a 1v1 PvP encounter? The loser loses. Booo for losing!
Now why don't many PvE players participate in PvP? They sometimes lose! Right!?
But wait! PvE players always lose. They lose while leveling up, they lose to instance bosses, they lose to raid bosses.
So... it's not the losing. It's the losing to a PERSON.
So, eliminate the person. Remove ego from the equation.
But how? (see how this is so much like a Shamwow presentation?)
All you have to do is insulate the interaction so it's not directly person to person.

I'm going to stop right there and tell you, if the ONLY reason you like 1v1 PvP is to crush the ego of your enemy, ruin their day, make them logout, corpse camp them, harass them, and eventually make them ragequit? Is that your FUN? You won't understand this, so stop reading and go punch a mailbox or whatever you folks do for kicks in the real world.
However, if your goal in PvP is tactical combat, territory control, teamwork, co-ordination of defense, strategy, and contributing to a cause larger than yourself? Read on.

How do you insulate the interaction? Involve NPCs in every PvP activity. Every. Activity. Read it slowly and again. Every. PvP. Activity. They are the buffer. They remove ego from the equation.
Nobody cares if they die to an NPC. It's expected. EVERYONE, in EVERY MMO has died to an NPC.

An example, for those having a hard time visualizing what I'm talking about:
Bob is out exploring in a dangerous area. He fights a nearby wandering monster while harvesting. A few minutes go by, and two local fauna attack him. It's a tough fight, but he dispatches them. Shortly thereafter, he's attacked by a single strong humanoid. Now he's getting concerned, so he calls for reinforcements from his friends to help with the harvesting.

One minute before the reinforcements arrive, Bob is engaged by 3 humanoids. He flees towards his friends, who help him kill the humanoids. They return to the harvesting site, and Bob is now guarded by his friends to complete his harvesting.

This example was 100% pure PvP. What you say? How is such a thing possible? Well, for only $9.95.. no, I kid. No shamwow for you. All of the attacks on Bob were caused by another player, Joe.
Initially, Joe had possessed the wandering creature, and was guarding the harvesting node. After a brief respite to recover from the failed possessing, Joe summoned/called/tamed two local fauna and instructed them to attack Bob. Then Joe called in reinforcements, possessed/called/summoned/created/teleported-in a humanoid and attacked again. He was defeated, but his friends each did the same, and Bob was routed, although temporarily.

Bob has no idea who Joe is. They've never met. Bob has never seen Joe throughout this encounter. Joe's name (nor Joe's friends names) is not associated with any of the attackers. As far as Bob knows, they're all just NPCs. Waves and waves of attackers could appear this way, and it's all just more NPC's as far as Bob is concerned. To him, they could be scripted NPC's, a dynamic local event, or player hired/tamed/controlled NPCs, or player possessed NPCs. From Bob's perspective, he is fighting PvE content. No ego bruising, no trash talking, no teabagging. Even if Bob loses, he just loses to an NPC.

So, now, consider the many features that have already been announced for PFO. Contracts, assassinations, territory control, guards, commoners/workers. Perhaps there will be organizations to support Rogues, Wizards, and Barbarians? Perhaps you could say... approach these organizations or individuals, and hire them for jobs. Those jobs could involve theft, assault, ambush, outright attack, curses. You pay/provide, you get results. The target? Just part of their PvE experience, but in reality? Entirely player interaction.

That's the combative side to the equation, but what about non combat effects? Blessings? Gifts? Deliveries? If you have the means, you should be able to pay, bribe, coerce, entice, persuade, charm, or otherwise encourage any NPC in the game to do just about anything. Even animals. Even monsters.

Another simple example.
I am Joe. I hate Bob. I hire an NPC rogue to rob Bob. The next time Bob steps out of a safe area, my hired thief stalks him, stuns him, and if Bob doesn't react in time, steals something directly from Bob's inventory. Maybe Bob reacts in time, maybe he doesn't. Maybe I paid for a VERY expensive thief, to guarantee the deed is done "properly".
Again, as far as Bob is concerned, an NPC thief just attacked him. He doesn't know Joe was behind it. Just another PvE experience.

Of course, there are a huge number of possible twists to these examples. What if your standing is very high with the organization, because you've accumulated a dozen merit badges with the thieves guild? Instead of performing the attack, they give you the option to reciprocate, or outright cancel the job. Maybe, though, Joe is VERY rich, and you don't get that option. Maybe Joe donated 100 vials of roc talon poison to the thieves guild because he knows a harvester that can get it, and that was enough for them to look the other way, this time.

Expand this to the realm of politics. You hire an NPC to bring the local drunk married nobility by the den of ill repute. This gives you some leverage with said noble. Now you extort said noble into relaxing their patrols that might be out looking for orcs. Then you go to the orcs, casually mention there won't be any more patrols out looking for them and offer to outfit them with weapons and armor, if they'll do a job for you. What's the job? Attack the settlement being constructed by your rivals. If you outfit them with the best weapons and armor your craftsmen can make? Unopposed, they will level that settlement in a day. Give them crap gear and maybe they fail?

You want to talk money sink? This is the mother of all money sinks. From paying the local street urchins to kick the leader of your chartered company on sight to bribing a recluse sorcerer to summon a demon and attack your rivals hideout. Maybe they want gold? Maybe they want virgins riding unicorns? Maybe they want candied orc livers? Maybe they really like the feel of gazer eyeball jelly in their bath? All possible, all 100% pvp, all insulated interaction. And best of all, everyone would do it.

Crafting/resources: Pay a blacksmith or lumberjack NPC to work for you at 10 times the cost of materials, or get a friend to do it for free labour.

Scouting players? They give the names of the rival players nearby. Now the rest of your guild? They bring the pain. But not in person, by creating (via whatever means) a dimensional door to the realm of badness that opens up directly in front of your rivals and dumps 14 acid oozes on them.

Any positive or negative social, combat, political or strategic interaction you can think of. Just insulate it ONE STEP through NPCs, and that's all there is to it. Success without griefing. Player interaction without ego bruising.

And yes, to prevent griefing, all you have to do is put sanity checks on the frequency of these events, per target/area/time. Very easy for developers to implement, very easy to modify on the fly.

There is more, but dinner calls! If you made it to the end, thanks for reading. :)

I remain convinced that most people's strong objections to PvP are based on their experience being griefed when PvP was allowed. PvP and griefing are not necessarily so strongly associated, and I truly hope PFO finds a solid way to discourage griefing while at the same time encouraging PvP.

This will require the players to embrace the attitude that being killed by someone when you didn't want to even be attacked is not automatically griefing.

I fully embrace that attitude, and I try to choose my words carefully when I post. In the proper context, murder, unsolicited combat, and a wide variety of so-called "negative events" can have a positive effect on the community, subscriber retention and immersion.

However...
No griefing (for me) in PvP in Meridian 59, Everquest, Everquest2, DAOC, AC2, SWG, WAR, Vanguard, or RIFT.
Now compare that to the PvP in UO, Shadowbane, Darkfall, and Mortal Online.

The difference? Consensual (no griefing) vs. non-consensual (griefing) PvP combat. I choose to participate or I choose not to participate. That's it.

All I see in the current system, as described in the blogs is a non-consensual system that will permit griefing.

It doesn't have to be that way. There are MUCH better ways. My surprise is why Goblinworks hasn't decided to use any of the better ways, given it's 2012 and they're available. I want there to be player interaction, and I agree with almost all of the design decisions enumerated to date. This one, nope. 17 years of playing MMO's and four similar MMO PvP "failures" tells me they are reading chapter and verse out of the book of fail. Note: for this one design decision ONLY.

Murder as an in-game mechanic is great, in the proper context.

Being murdered in a high security zone does not appear to be the proper context. Otherwise, why have a high security zone mechanic? Is it safe or not? As described, it is not safe. There is no security. Why is it called "high security" if security isn't high?

Regarding "... and if it gets obnoxious, I'll rely on the moderators to put an end to it. ... "

That would appear to be at odds with your previous statement of:
" ... The anti-social griefers can't be stopped by systems anyway - they must be dealt with by human beings. ... "

Unless you meant "human beings" other than yourself?

Why not have a method in-game to deal with it automatically, rather than placing the burden upon overworked moderators and front line support staff? I certainly wouldn't want to be dealing with grievances between bickering players if I was in that job. Why foist the problem on them?

It seems like now is the time to get the PFO design document modified to deal with these fundamental problems that have failed in UO, Darkfall, Shadowbane, and Mortal Online. They have tried them, they have failed.

As well, regarding the statement that "PVP is central to the design of PFO", where is that design coming from? Pathfinder, the RPG? Or Eve? Is PFO going to be a fantasy setting for Eve 2.0, or is it going to embody the spirit of Pathfinder the RPG, where murdering your fellow players is unthinkable to the vast majority of participants?
I'd like to read a transcript of the conversation between Ryan and Lisa that reconciled that philosophical schism.

Sintaqx, you've highlighted some excellent points, both logically sound and legitimate concerns. I too, share those concerns. I agree IF there is enough content to satisfy both playstyles, PFO has made a good decision regarding high level content & areas. Unfortunately, no info on that.

I would put a few questions to you, though, regarding this hypothetical situation: Let's say there are 4 types of metal in PFO, and the fourth (most difficult to acquire) is required for settlements and above construction. There are two hexes where one can obtain Metal4. One hex is flagged 'murder-yes' while the other is not.
In your opinion, should the amount of Metal4 extractable from either in a given time frame be the same?
Should the amount of Metal4 extractable from either in a given time frame be higher for the 'murder-yes' hex, or higher for the hex NOT flagged 'murder-yes' ?
Finally, should Metal4 be obtainable in ANY hex not flagged 'murder-yes' ?

I think the answer to those questions would be very telling, both from Goblinworks officially, and the outspoken community supporters of the currently describe PvP & death mechanics. In particular, overall, what desirable behavior is being encouraged that will build a strong community, encourage subscriber retention, and be fun?

AvenaOats, I hope it turns out as you've described, but in practice, what I've observed in the titles I mentioned is not that pvp-topia. It's more like pvp-gang-thuggery, and that's where it stops. Now, if ffa PvP was limited to those involved in kingdom level politics, or declared wars only, that has some potential.

It also seems strange to me that 'murder-yes' areas exist at all. When was the last time a player murdered a fellow adventurer while playing Pathfinder, the RPG, or in all the DnD games that have ever been played? I would bet a nickel it's a very low number, and yet PFO has this feature. Very odd. Maybe it should be renamed Pathfinder-PvP-Online, so people can make the distinction between that intellectual property and this one? >:) Ok ok, that was a low blow, but it does make the point.

Nihimon, I would point to all the successful PvE-focused MMO's ever made that stopped anti-social griefing jerks with in-game systems. Where PvP is consensual, in those titles, I have never been griefed. I admit, it may be possible, but it has never happened to me.

On the other hand, every title, including UO, Shadowbane, Darkfall, and Mortal Online? Griefed by jerks in every one, using PvP either legitimately or PvP exploits.

I disagree with your assertion that systems can't stop anti-social griefers, as I've seen it with my own eyes, and paid money to companies that have done it, for years.

It is confusing to me that Goblinworks has publicly committed to "use whatever means are necessary to avoid letting PFO degenerate into rampant anti-social behavior" and yet this blog describes a system which allow players to be murdered ~~anywhere, at any time.

At the edges of the security zone, it may be possible for a swift assault to destroy a target and still give the attackers time to flee before the marshals arrive.

...

All the handwringing about PvP strikes me as reflex to how its been done in the past. ...

Speaking for myself only, there's no handwringing, but rather a logical deconstruction of ideas presented that have been tried in the past, and failed in the past.

That is what has me worried, not a reflex.

I've seen these types of optimistic systems attempted, and they don't work. Players abuse every system in every possible way. All player interaction, either direct or indirect, combat or not, has to be considered from the perspective of the most anti social griefing jerk ever to grace the human race.

From what I've seen, so far, the details that will add consequence to negative action have not been enumerated. Until they are, I consider the system as described to be a work of pending failure.

To be specific:

When your character dies, your corpse will turn into a soulless husk on the spot. At the moment of death, a timer will begin to count down giving you a minute or two before anything else happens.

...
If you are alone, or have no companions capable of resurrecting you, you'll have to deal with the fallout.
...
However, until you return to your husk, you are in danger of losing the rest of your inventory. If you get to your husk before anyone else, you'll be able to get all your stuff back. However, if another player finds your husk before you do, they'll be able to loot it.
...
There is some incentive to strike down other players within this system, but it doesn't reward attackers with the full value of the defender's inventory.

In the current system as described, murderers are rewarded and victims are punished. Taking that concept to a logic conclusion over time will net fewer paying customers. This is illogical, and as a result, confusing.

Your character will re-enter play at the soulbinding point holding and wearing whatever gear they had equipped when they died, so you won't have to start without your armor, or the weapons, wands, or staves you were using.

In the current system as described, the mechanics of the PvP death system create an emergent gameplay tactic that causes players to never carry any items in their inventory. Again, illogical in 2012 when there are so many other more elegant solutions to the problem.

At the edges of the security zone, it may be possible for a swift assault to destroy a target and still give the attackers time to flee before the marshals arrive.

...
After the timer expires, the marshals will not respond to the reappearance of the target in their patrolled lands.

In the current system as described, it is possible for players to be attacked and possibly killed within high security areas. Given the nature of the stated purpose of a high security area, this is also illogical, and is again, confusing.

Killing an opponent as a part of a declared war, or in an area that does not have laws against murder, will not trigger the bounty system.

In the current system as described, there are areas of the game where murders can be committed with no consequences. These areas are also described as being the most desirable, from a challenge, risk, and reward perspective. Driving your paying customers, by design, into the areas of the game specifically where murders have no consequence is again, illogical, given the victimization nature of PvP, as described so far.

I have every hope Goblinworks comes up with innovative, fun, and rewarding solutions to the victimization that comes with 1v1 ffa/open world pvp. So far, what is described, to me, falls short.

I feel it's important to note, I feel EVERY OTHER ASPECT of the game, as described, is well done and shows great potential and promise. This single aspect has me extremely concerned as a long time MMO player. UO, Shadowbane, Darkfall, Mortal Online, and other PvP-centric titles have all had to deal with this problem. They have all fallen short of their potential, in my opinion, given the solutions demonstrated to date. I hope PFO doesn't make the same mistakes.

There are very few changes required to these mechanics to make them extremely attractive to a customer not interested in paying to be a victim. However, as described in this blog entry, without further clarification, the PvP mechanics in PFO require paying customers to be victims. This, in my experience playing MMO's since 1995, is not a sustainable long term business model.

just say no to PC monsters, and even the planar PCs

breaks immersion IMO

now an idea could be to allow customers to play NPC monsters in a non-griefing situation

...

I've seen this idea (player controlled combative NPCs) considered at length in the past, and it has some merit, from what I've seen discussed.

It comes down to what aspects or parameters you want to give the player to control, and the capabilities of the entity they're controlling. Sadly, you have to plan for the worst, given the potential for abuse.

It's not all bad news, though. Here's a brief set of guidelines/points to ponder that might work or be worth considering:

-when the player is controlling an npc, their character is removed from the world, temporarily. As soon as they're "killed", they are returned to their original body, wherever it was prior to the possession.

-the npc can only be common. no bosses, no lieutenants, no bottleneck guards, no lore entities. No entities with server side scripting dependencies (as in, you kill it, and a door appears to advance the content progression).

-the possessor can only act within certain personality parameters of the creature they possess. In other words, if the goblin would normally attack a player, the possessed goblin would attack the player. If they tried to run away immediately to leapfrog content, the possession would break and the npc would act normally without interruption or reset.

-in a very strict implementation, you may only wish to grant players the ability to use the same abilities the npc would have normally. Basically you remove the scripted ability precedence from the npc, and let the human possessor decide when to use whatever they have in their arsenal, including inventory, spells, feats, abilities, attacks, flavor taunts, etc. This has the least potential for abuse, but also the least freedom.

-if you grant the possessor the ability to move the npc, you need to give them a visual feedback mechanism to denote this range of movement. Something like a fog of war for perception, so they can only see within a very small radius, or an overlay on the ground that is basically a "step outside this and you're gone" type of arrangement.

-a possessor should incur a debilitating effect of some kind after a failed possession (in which the target npc died/failed). It should either prevent an immediate repossession of the same target, or that shouldn't be possible in general.

-a player with two+ accounts could theoretically be the player and the npc at the same time. To avoid this (if you want to avoid it) you'll have to either prevent specific targets from being selected, which again is less fun/freedom, or place some other limits on when and where this possession can be used. It may ultimately be necessary to only permit a player to face a possessed foe so often in a given time frame, or a given geographical area. It may also be necessary to only permit possessors to select a general area in which to attempt a possession. Any ip-address or account-geographical limits can be circumvented with vpn's, so aren't a viable deterrent. They may also be unnecessary depending on the choices made for the implementation.

-possessed npcs may either be stronger, have a larger "help me" radius for their allies, have a shorter leash, a longer leash, more abilities, less abilities, or a wide variety of variables. What they should NOT have is more loot, or any other benefit modifier that would encourage abuse/exploit. In practice, if the transition between possessed and released is not seamless, it will be exploited until it is made seamless, or it's removed.

-any connection difficulties in the real world (high latency, packet loss, etc) should immediately terminate the possession and return the npc to their default behavior without interruption.

-if you reset the npc after a possession interruption, so they return to their original spawn point/patrol route, it will be exploited (or frustrating, or both).

-the average non-malicious player will simply use the ability, possess an npc, fight the player, and either win or lose. But what if they win? If they kill the player, now what? Do you grant them a personal bonus of some kind for this? Do you introduce a ladder system? Consider the behavior you're encouraging before you encourage it. There's nothing wrong with encouraging players to possess npcs and kill players purely for the reward, but make sure that's a design goal before you start.

-possession would ideally take place with an npc that has a player near enough for interaction, or at least within line of sight, so the possessor isn't waiting around for too long doing nothing.

-if done right, an implementation of this type provides insulation for the player-to-player experience. It allows for indirect competition, and eliminates much (if not all) of the social ills typically associated with such interaction. If the npc acts like a typical npc with perhaps some additional flavor or slight challenge, there is no ego involved, no immersion breaking. Either the player killed another npc (as expected) or they died to another npc (also expected, with varying frequency). Insulated conflict and competition has massive potential, in particular with a new implementation like Pathfinder Online.

-it doesn't have to be all about combat. It is often more difficult to justify npc control in non-combat situations. Consider, though, that if the script that controls "flavor" npcs in towns and cities has movement restrictions, speaking frequencies, and emote limitations, what would be the harm in permitting a player to control an npc that wanders through a marketplace? Obviously, you want to hold them to the same topic and frequency limits (within reason) as the script, but it certainly wouldn't do any harm.

-similarly, for animals that wander in other domestic settings, it would add immense flavor for cats to rub themselves against random strangers. But allowing a player to possess the cat and do the same to their friends or enemies, has enormous humor potential. How about a wandering milk cow lightly head butting a player? Again, restrictions for abuse are required, but there are great options with these systems. You don't want a player to feel mobbed by a horde of felines or bovines all emoting them non-stop, but the technical ability to limit these abuses is there, and should be used.

-another idea is things like ravens, seagulls, sparrows, grackles, magpies, etc that all have "mini-games" associated with them. You possess a seagull, and all the shoulders in the immediate vicinity become targets! >:) Magpies and crows could steal jewelry, food off stalls, eggs, other shiny objects, either as a server side script, or controlled by possessor players. Two possessed sparrows could engage in a flying "racing game" through a city. Completely in-character (real sparrows fly like crazed maniacs), does not break immersion, is fun, and is a great flavor feature.

Anyway, probably already tl;dr, but that should stimulate some further discussion.