Ideas for mechanics in an open PvP system that discourage griefing.

[A Man In Black]

Elth wrote:

Please enlighten us how you would deal with things? If you cannot offer anything then I will be satisfied that you are nothing but a troll. I may be coming across as singling you out, and in all honesty I am because I have read nothing but negative criticism in your posts with absolutely nothing constructive.

So please, enlighten us.

You can only make a system that prevents griefing in the context of a working system that has some sort of gameplay you actually want to encourage. Once you some sort of scratch goals of gameplay you actually want to encourage, you can figure out (from experience, consideration, and testing) what sort of griefplay is possible or likely in that system, and whether such-and-such measures are possible to prevent that griefplay.

What I can tell you is that systems that rely on players tolerating griefplay in order to get some sort of catharsis from punishing griefers are doomed. Most players will not bother to try and figure out what the tools are to punish the griefers; they will simply just quit the game and go play some other game that isn't filled with rabid dogs. You just can't rely on players to punish griefers, because whether the punishment is PKing or negrepping, most players can't be bothered. In fact, those tools will be put to other uses, as often as not by griefers. World of Warcraft has a system where griefers are punished by being banned from the game after enough violations and all people have to do is fill out a cursory form and people can't even be bothered to do that!

What do I think the solution to griefing is? I know that a start is to abandon all this nonsense about rep systems and exacting justice through PVP. If an option exists only or primarily to cause other players misery (like pickpocketing and corpse looting), don't put it in the game. Don't expect "player justice" to prevent scamming, confidence games, protection rackets, and other such nonsense. Set out from the start that the game is not a Randian zero-sum rabid-dog-eat-rabid-dog dystopia. That'd be a refreshing change of pace from every other sandbox MMO to date.

Quote:

Please don't as I'm sure he and I agree [...] I HATE PvP, and see it as a detractor from any game.

Christ almighty. No. You're wrong. 100%.

I EFFING LOVE PLAYER VERSUS PLAYER COMBAT.

I'm not terribly fond of ganking, but, you know, it's life. Now, if the structure of the game is set up that PVP is going to almost always be inherently imbalanced from the POV of a single player (rather than the POV of the leader of one of the mega-gangs), then PVP isn't much fun. But that only happens in sandbox PVP MMOs like EVE Online and Shadowbane and Darkf...

Oh.

[Doggan]

A Man In Black wrote:

I'm not terribly fond of ganking, but, you know, it's life. Now, if the structure of the game is set up that PVP is going to almost always be inherently imbalanced from the POV of a single player (rather than the POV of the leader of one of the mega-gangs), then PVP isn't much fun. But that only happens in sandbox PVP MMOs like EVE Online and Shadowbane and Darkf...

Any game that has PvP that takes place outside of specific arenas or battlegrounds is going to have that same single vs group imbalance. It's just the way PvP is. More usually beats less. So you're not really making a point against sandbox PvP. You're making a point against any game that has any form of open PvP.

[KitNyx]

A Man In Black wrote:

Elth wrote:

Please enlighten us how you would deal with things? If you cannot offer anything then I will be satisfied that you are nothing but a troll. I may be coming across as singling you out, and in all honesty I am because I have read nothing but negative criticism in your posts with absolutely nothing constructive.

So please, enlighten us.

You can only make a system that prevents griefing in the context of a working system that has some sort of gameplay you actually want to encourage. Once you some sort of scratch goals of gameplay you actually want to encourage, you can figure out (from experience, consideration, and testing) what sort of griefplay is possible or likely in that system, and whether such-and-such measures are possible to prevent that griefplay.

What I can tell you is that systems that rely on players tolerating griefplay in order to get some sort of catharsis from punishing griefers are doomed. Most players will not bother to try and figure out what the tools are to punish the griefers; they will simply just quit the game and go play some other game that isn't filled with rabid dogs. You just can't rely on players to punish griefers, because whether the punishment is PKing or negrepping, most players can't be bothered. In fact, those tools will be put to other uses, as often as not by griefers. World of Warcraft has a system where griefers are punished by being banned from the game after enough violations and all people have to do is fill out a cursory form and people can't even be bothered to do that!

What do I think the solution to griefing is? I know that a start is to abandon all this nonsense about rep systems and exacting justice through PVP. If an option exists only or primarily to cause other players misery (like pickpocketing and corpse looting), don't put it in the game. Don't expect "player justice" to prevent scamming, confidence games, protection rackets, and other such nonsense. Set out from the start that the game is not a Randian...

First, I just want to inform you that there are sandbox MMOs that are not "Randian zero-sum rabid-dog-eat-rabid-dog dystopias". Saga of Ryzom is one in particular and its one claim to fame is the high quality of its community it has maintained for the 8 or so years it has been active.

Second, my reputation idea was not only a tool for dissuading griefers. It was also and more importantly a tool for...as you suggested, simulating the structuring of a society, the good, bad, and ugly. This is why your ad hominem attack about it being used in a society simulator, did not really bother me as much as I assume you intended to cause.

But, thank you for sharing your thoughts. I actually think your first paragraph has some valid pearls of wisdom we can consider.

[Diego Rossi]

KitNyx wrote:

So far I have seen outlines of:

- Reputation/karma systems which affect social interactions.
- More severe penalties upon death for those who are flagged as a griefer.

KitNyx wrote:

For instance, the previously discussed reputations system had a feature which "bled" bad reputation upon those who interacted (including trading) with players who had a bad reputation. The rationale is that you are seen as associating with a known criminal. Many NPCs would outright refuse to trade with criminals and PC can if they are willing to take the rep hit...Being unable to interact with society would suck in an MMO.

You are doing a honest attempt so I will try to respect your rules. Sometime I can be carried away so warn me if I am exceeding the limits.

* reputation and bleeding it:

Trading is one of the aspect of the game and apparently it will be possible to dedicate yourself only to do that. If you use this kind of approach, with the bleeding of reputation we get 2 possible problems:

1) My shop can be open only when I am on line, I must approve every trade after checking the buyer for his reputation.
Tons of server call for the reputation, Plenty of lost time for each transaction. Boring and annoying. I can't do almost anything while the shop is open as I need to be available "on call" to approve every transaction.
It can be somewhat mitigated by having every character display his local reputation, but if I am a trader that like to move a lot to buy my wares in distant market I will like to know if the guy at which I am selling in Pitax is a wanted man in Razmir and trading with him will bar me from entering Razmir.

2) My shop will be open even when I am off line. So I need a mechanic to say "don't sell to guys with less than X reputation in Pitax" or in "Razmir" or in ....
How many call to the server for each transaction?

Coming from EVE I know that several times the Developer have modified mechanics to reduce that kind of calls. What seem unconsequential to us pile up very fast server side.

* More severe penalties upon death for those who are flagged as a griefer.

- if the system is automated you risk a lot. It depend on the game mechanics, but there are possible mechanics to grief without getting aggro and even worse, there are way to force other players to attack you unwillingly (moving into the AoE of spells, putting yourself in front of a fighting guy).
I have seen people do that kind of play, often taking advantage of bugs of the game.
(In EVE, for example, there was a bug that was patched only after years of exploitation: if you had a container where you you were putting your stuff, another character coming and taking the content away was flagged as a thief and freely attacked. But, if the character did only "grab" the items without actually removing them from the containers nothing happened BUT the items were flagged as in his possession. So the second you did withdraw something from the container you were flagged as a thief and a fair target. That way the guy minding his business was flagged as a thief and attacked on sight. Nasty.)

[KitNyx]

Thanks Diego. I had not considered automated shops. I was envisioning the player as the shop. I will have to think about it further and listen to any ideas others might have.

And I had only assumed fame was local. It is more suppose to simulate the way others perceive you, so if someone you know is wanted elsewhere comes to your store, if he is not wanted locally, there is no reason for anyone to mark you as behaving poorly. But that is a good point.

Although the fame will only come from the server as a number, no more or less complex than say the person name or their charisma used in bartering. So I do not see server calls for the fame system as a deterrent.

[Elth]

A Man In Black wrote:

Elth wrote:

Please enlighten us how you would deal with things? If you cannot offer anything then I will be satisfied that you are nothing but a troll. I may be coming across as singling you out, and in all honesty I am because I have read nothing but negative criticism in your posts with absolutely nothing constructive.

So please, enlighten us.

You can only make a system that prevents griefing in the context of a working system that has some sort of gameplay you actually want to encourage. Once you some sort of scratch goals of gameplay you actually want to encourage, you can figure out (from experience, consideration, and testing) what sort of griefplay is possible or likely in that system, and whether such-and-such measures are possible to prevent that griefplay.

What I can tell you is that systems that rely on players tolerating griefplay in order to get some sort of catharsis from punishing griefers are doomed. Most players will not bother to try and figure out what the tools are to punish the griefers; they will simply just quit the game and go play some other game that isn't filled with rabid dogs. You just can't rely on players to punish griefers, because whether the punishment is PKing or negrepping, most players can't be bothered. In fact, those tools will be put to other uses, as often as not by griefers. World of Warcraft has a system where griefers are punished by being banned from the game after enough violations and all people have to do is fill out a cursory form and people can't even be bothered to do that!

What do I think the solution to griefing is? I know that a start is to abandon all this nonsense about rep systems and exacting justice through PVP. If an option exists only or primarily to cause other players misery (like pickpocketing and corpse looting), don't put it in the game. Don't expect "player justice" to prevent scamming, confidence games, protection rackets, and other such nonsense. Set out from the start that the game is not a Randian...

Thank you. Now that I can understand the context in which you are replying I can see where you are coming from. I apologize for being abrupt but it is more a misinterpretation of text than a personal disagrement.

I do not see corpse looting or pick pocketing as a terrible issue, but it is all relative in context of how much power your gear provides in the game. While I enjoy PvP and the occasional gank, I don't want to see another Darkfall Online where we are forced to run around naked (or grind goblins for cheese). If there is some possible way that a happy medium can be accomplished then I would be very interested in a game that can pull it off.

Also, the nonsense ideas that you speak of were more just a couple of pen and paper players throwing things around that might link to the table top game. Your lack of tact in responding to these threads is why I became offended.

In any case, if Pathfinder Online decides against their sandbox idea and just vomits up another world of warcraft clone, they will not have my money.

[A Man In Black]

Doggan wrote:

Any game that has PvP that takes place outside of specific arenas or battlegrounds is going to have that same single vs group imbalance. It's just the way PvP is. More usually beats less. So you're not really making a point against sandbox PvP. You're making a point against any game that has any form of open PvP.

No, every game that has PVP outside of specific arenas is not going to be as hopelessly imbalanced as raiders picking on mining ships in EVE.

If the game seriously expects someone to play a noncombatant against a dragonslaying warrior, that's not PVP combat in any sense. That is being offered the lovely opportunity to "roleplay" lambs in Rabid Dogs Online. Yay.

Now, if the "open-world" doesn't mean "yeah, go ahead and attack greycons if you want" and "noncombatants are expected to somehow deal with PVP and not just be helpless meat", suddenly we have a game. It's actually fun if you have the advantage and I'm scrambling not to win the fight but just to escape while you're trying to press the advantage. That's a game. That's Player Versus Player.

Instead of Player Versus Victim.

[KitNyx]

@ Elth Agreed about not wanting to see another Darkfall.

I also do not think pickpocketing or player looting should be removed in a game based upon a system that has whole societies based on thievery.

@ MIB I agree with everything you just said and have not read anyone comments which support otherwise.

[Elth]

KitNyx wrote:

Agreed about not wanting to see another Darkfall.

I also do not think pickpocketing or player looting should be removed in a game based upon a system that has whole societies based on thievery.

On the topic of pickpocketing, I'm yet to see it done well in any computer RPG, MMO or otherwise. I would be happy if pickpocketing yielded something like 5-25 coins or other items that of about the size of an apple at most.

Burglary on the other hand... this is where risk vs reward for criminal activity might be useful. There is only so much a lightweight rogue can carry without a huge risk of being caught.

[KitNyx]

Elth wrote:

KitNyx wrote:

Agreed about not wanting to see another Darkfall.

I also do not think pickpocketing or player looting should be removed in a game based upon a system that has whole societies based on thievery.

On the topic of pickpocketing, I'm yet to see it done well in any computer RPG, MMO or otherwise. I would be happy if pickpocketing yielded something like 5-25 coins or other items that of about the size of an apple at most.

Burglary on the other hand... this is where risk vs reward for criminal activity might be useful. There is only so much a lightweight rogue can carry without a huge risk of being caught.

Well, either way there is going to be a big backlash about players having the ability to take what you have worked hard to get, whether it be locked in your house or on your person, especially if they can do so when you are not logged in. But, I think it is a necessary evil to include such a big part of any D&D world.

[Doggan]

A Man In Black wrote:

Doggan wrote:

Any game that has PvP that takes place outside of specific arenas or battlegrounds is going to have that same single vs group imbalance. It's just the way PvP is. More usually beats less. So you're not really making a point against sandbox PvP. You're making a point against any game that has any form of open PvP.

No, every game that has PVP outside of specific arenas is not going to be as hopelessly imbalanced as raiders picking on mining ships in EVE.

If the game seriously expects someone to play a noncombatant against a dragonslaying warrior, that's not PVP combat in any sense. That is being offered the lovely opportunity to "roleplay" lambs in Rabid Dogs Online. Yay.

Now, if the "open-world" doesn't mean "yeah, go ahead and attack greycons if you want" and "noncombatants are expected to somehow deal with PVP and not just be helpless meat", suddenly we have a game. It's actually fun if you have the advantage and I'm scrambling not to win the fight but just to escape while you're trying to press the advantage. That's a game. That's Player Versus Player.

Instead of Player Versus Victim.

Mmm. I wrote a big reply to this but I don't want to derail the thread anymore. We'll have to agree to disagree. Probably on almost everything. Paizo, your damn forums really need private messaging.

[A Man In Black]

Elth wrote:

I do not see corpse looting or pick pocketing as a terrible issue, but it is all relative in context of how much power your gear provides in the game.

I wasn't thinking of gear. I was just thinking of money and goods. There's little point in preventing or discouraging financial scams if there is a Steal That Jerk's Money button.

Agreed with the rest, save in that I really don't have anything against WOW-style theme parks.

KitNyx wrote:

I also do not think pickpocketing or player looting should be removed in a game based upon a system that has whole societies based on thievery.

They encourage the worst kind of player, exist only to enable absolute zero-sum gameplay, and will never, ever be received in even the "gg" sense by someone on the losing end.

If they're going to do something, it's going to have to be something other than depriving people of their possessions or else it's a trainwreck causing a traffic pileup that ignited a housefire.

[KitNyx]

A Man In Black wrote:

Elth wrote:

I do not see corpse looting or pick pocketing as a terrible issue, but it is all relative in context of how much power your gear provides in the game.

I wasn't thinking of gear. I was just thinking of money and goods. There's little point in preventing or discouraging financial scams if there is a Steal That Jerk's Money button.

Agreed with the rest, save in that I really don't have anything against WOW-style theme parks.

KitNyx wrote:

I also do not think pickpocketing or player looting should be removed in a game based upon a system that has whole societies based on thievery.

They encourage the worst kind of player, exist only to enable absolute zero-sum gameplay, and will never, ever be received in even the "gg" sense by someone on the losing end.

If they're going to do something, it's going to have to be something other than depriving people of their possessions or else it's a trainwreck causing a traffic pileup that ignited a housefire.

Yeah, while I think they should allow people of all alignments, I really do not know how that will work constructively.

[Elth]

A Man In Black wrote:

They encourage the worst kind of player, exist only to enable absolute zero-sum gameplay, and will never, ever be received in even the "gg" sense by someone on the losing end.

If they're going to do something, it's going to have to be something other than depriving people of their possessions or else it's a trainwreck causing a traffic pileup that ignited a housefire.

Indeed. While it is a novel idea for me to imagine playing a thief in a sandbox world, when you expand that individual to 10 or 15% of the servers population it could get quite out of hand.

That being said, some players might have a desire to build an empire. My dream has always been to see a player driven thieves guild in a sandbox MMO. I was raised on Conan, Lankhmar and Gord the Rogue, they were always my favorite of all fantasy.

Again, I am more interested to see a game that can support a huge player driven economy of merchants, craftspeople, hunters and gatherers.

While I may come across as very vocal toward banditry, thieves and the policing of them, I am just as much an advocate of non-combat professions. I want to see a persistent world where players can log in and become part of a virtual world for adventurers, warmongers and non-combatants alike.

[A Man In Black]

KitNyx wrote:

Yeah, while I think they should allow people of all alignments, I really do not know how that will work constructively.

How many threads have you seen on Paizo's forums that start with "One of my players wants to play an evil character in my game, what do?" and end with "Oh! That was excellent advice. It turns out after doing that, everything went perfectly smoothly"?

Unfortunately, there isn't much practical difference between someone who is a sociopath and someone who wants to roleplay a sociopath.

[KitNyx]

A Man In Black wrote:

KitNyx wrote:

Yeah, while I think they should allow people of all alignments, I really do not know how that will work constructively.

How many threads have you seen on Paizo's forums that start with "One of my players wants to play an evil character in my game, what do?" and end with "Oh! That was excellent advice. It turns out after doing that, everything went perfectly smoothly"?

Unfortunately, there isn't much practical difference between someone who is a sociopath and someone who wants to roleplay a sociopath.

Right, and all of my past experiences in campaigns with players who wanted to be evil...were horrid.

[Tarondor]

I simply don't allow evil PCs in my games. Not once, ever. And neither should Goblinworks.

What's wrong with handling things like they do in LOTRO? No evil PCs, no PVP, no griefing of this sort (though there are still gold sellers and the like).

[Elth]

KitNyx wrote:

A Man In Black wrote:

KitNyx wrote:

Yeah, while I think they should allow people of all alignments, I really do not know how that will work constructively.

How many threads have you seen on Paizo's forums that start with "One of my players wants to play an evil character in my game, what do?" and end with "Oh! That was excellent advice. It turns out after doing that, everything went perfectly smoothly"?

Unfortunately, there isn't much practical difference between someone who is a sociopath and someone who wants to roleplay a sociopath.

Right, and all of my past experiences in campaigns with players who wanted to be evil...were horrid.

I've only seen maybe two people in my time of both playing and GMing that could pull off an evil player without disturbing the group or campaign.

The rest were just bad at it. Playing a psychopathic munchkin is not fun for anyone involved. Unfortunately this is most peoples concept of how to play an evil protagonist and the most prevalent attitude for player killers in MMO's.

[Diego Rossi]

KitNyx wrote:

Expanding the Player-driven reputation system. Players should be able to bestow positive and negative rep, and the amount of power your flags have are directly proportional to the amount of rep you have. People with high positive rep therefore, would gain it by doing "good" deeds for others...or just being a friendly person. As such, they are well trusted and their word carries more power than someone who has a negative reputation.

This also keeps people with negative rep trying to raise theirs by bestowing positive rep on each other.

Actually the result of such a system would be the creation of societies with the people with the highest rep being those who do what that society respects. If people respect kindness, they will reward acts of kindness with + Rep. The person with the strongest voice would end up being the person who was most kind. A different society may respect strength of arms, as such, the person who demonstrates the best skill in battle would have the highest + Rep.

Ohh, my friend has got a bad rep, I need to click "positive rep" a few hundred times to mend that.

Yes, carpal syndrome tunnel will stop me.

Sorry Kyt but you are an hopeless optimistic.
With that system the guy with more mates willing to support him will always be the guy with the better reputation (or the worse if he enjoy having it), regardless of his actions.

[Diego Rossi]

Derek Vande Brake wrote:

Aardvark Barbarian, Man in Black, I would be very interested in hearing y'all's analysis of my idea. It is player driven, yet not amenable to abuse by throwaway alts.

As long as the reputation is player set, it can be gamed.

Automated? Acceptable, but is should not become hopelessly complicated with hundred of different reputations.
To do that you should be limited to gaining/losing reputation only with developers created guilds/faction, not with player factions.

Aardvark Barbarian wrote:

Maybe a guild or faction can only create a certain number of contracts in a set period. There is a big difference bewteen assassinating the head of a rival group, and just wanting permission to take them out one at a time without being at war.

And bounties would only be automated by maybe NPC factions for the highest ba rep against them, maybe contracts too.

Automated bounties on players character are bad.

My throw away alt get his rep into the negative with faction x, possibly doing stupid things that don't actually damage the faction, like steal, drop the item back, steal it again, drop it back again, at libitum (or whatever easy mechanic I can find).
When his bounty is high enough, my main in that faction/guild slay him, collecting the bounty and getting positive rep.

My bandit kind get a negative rep and a bounty? I wait till it is high enough to compensate for raising him and other eventual damage, slay him, collect bounty and whatever other stuff I get, raise him and all is back as if nothing happened.

[Blazej]

I think that any method of discouraging/preventing griefing can't give an option for a player to avoid detection by the system. By that, I don't think thievery mentioned here would work our well because it will just attract griefers as a way to rob people blind and otherwise make them miserable without even the negative repercussions that are mentioned for ganking. There shouldn't be a system where a griefer can exploit with no penalty, much less one that they can exploit for a profit.

Having them join an griefing faction will not make them roleplayers as much as giving the griefers the tools to rip and destroy the game forever. You can not turn griefing into a positive thing for the game because their goal isn't to be a positive influence on the game. They win when the anyone/everyone else loses. So factions that have "griefing" goals, I can't see working out at all.

As for actual solutions for discouraging/preventing griefing, I don't have much for ideas because of the early stage of the game.

One idea that I have, which honestly may require too many resources in a massive game and it may just be too complicated to really implement well for this game. The idea would be to add an AI GM to the system (somewhat like what the Director in the Left 4 Dead games does) it would monitor PvP conflict and grant NPC allies (in the form of wandering heroes or a hungry/angry beast) and assistance to the griefer's target in order to give them a better chance to fight back or retreat from overpowered/overwhelming adversaries. The goal being that a prepared person going out into the wilderness would be better off, but a single player has a chance when attacked by a mob of griefers.

For non-combat stuff (and still somewhat for combat) I would trust any system within the game to hamper any griefers from getting around the rules or even using them to their advantage (example being the theif. If someone keeps repeatedly stealing from you in a way your character can't detect, then the game may easily declare you at fault when you attack the thief without "provocation."). A human moderator would be able to tell what really happened much better than the best programmed system.

[kyrt-ryder]

Tarondor wrote:

I simply don't allow evil PCs in my games. Not once, ever. And neither should Goblinworks.

*makes a mental note (and off-topic remark :P) not to play at Mr Paladin's table.*

Quote:

What's wrong with handling things like they do in LOTRO? No evil PCs, no PVP, no griefing of this sort (though there are still gold sellers and the like).

While there's nothing 'wrong' with any of that, it's not what this game has been promoted as.

Honestly, if we somehow (doubtful based on the horror stories I've heard) managed to purge griefing, it would totally rock.

However, I'm not prepared to sacrifice my vision of a vibrant, 'living' and interactive world in which people aren't restricted by artificial game constructs such as "PVP is impossible."

Also, while you may have issues with evil characters, I find them a fascinating alternative and tend to play all over the alignment scale, and wouldn't want it any other way.

[A Man In Black]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

However, I'm not prepared to sacrifice my vision of a vibrant, 'living' and interactive world in which people aren't restricted by artificial game constructs such as "PVP is impossible."

Not being able to PVP is not an artificial game construct; rather, being able to PVP in the first place is an artificial game construct. Without a game construct, you don't get a PVP game. Being able to do things in a fantasy world at all is an artificial game construct. Artificial game constructs are what MMOs and roleplaying and Paizo are all about, and I happen to think they're awesome.

Quote:

Also, while you may have issues with evil characters, I find them a fascinating alternative and tend to play all over the alignment scale, and wouldn't want it any other way.

That's super cool and all but if you're going to roleplay a sociopath please do it in some game where I don't have to put up with your antisocial persona, thanks.

[kyrt-ryder]

Evil does not automatically translate to Sociopath.

Furthermore, upon reading This page (assuming it's accurate of course) I'd have to say that I've seen a lot of neutral alignment sociopaths.

[A Man In Black]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

I'd have to say that I've seen a lot of neutral alignment sociopaths.

q234wersdfgcxvhdmgfsahFSZXCVSD WHAT.

Are you fooling with me here?

If you're not, and you don't understand how the long list of incredibly antisocial behavior you linked isn't appropriate for a game where other people are trying to enjoy themselves, then it's a great illustration why people shouldn't even be given the slightest encouragement to "roleplay" evil characters.

[kyrt-ryder]

Not fooling with you at all. I believe that you missed my point.

That list of behavior has a fair number of problematic points, HOWEVER, an evil character doesn't automatically fall under them, and some neutral characters DO fall into them.

Sociopathy isn't an alignment thing (though I'll admit evil sociopaths are more common than neutral ones) it's a behavior thing.

[Prime Evil]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Sociopathy isn't an alignment thing (though I'll admit evil sociopaths are more common than neutral ones) it's a behavior thing.

Is it possible to be a lawful good sociopath? What about a Chaotic Good sociopath? Can there be a true neutral sociopath? Forget the MMO for a second - these are interesting questions from a pen-and-paper perspective....

I've got a suspicion that any alignment can produce dysfunctional individuals. For example, a lawful good character might mete out justice a bit to quickly, without making sure that all of their facts are in order - there's a reason why people say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Similarly, evil characters can be regarded as heroes under the right circumstances. Heck, how many times in human history have people admired ruthless dictators for restoring a sense of pride to a nation or religious minority or ethnic group? I can easily imagine situations where good people support a tyrant because he or she seems better than the alternative.

[Animious]

A game that has open world PVP AND I can loot their corpses for their hard earned lootz AND some of the people I'll be killing aren't even a combat class AND there's so many people on these forums that don't want pvp in any way (killing you once or twice isn't griefing, that's just fun).

Sign me up.

On a side note, I don't think negative rep/taking away some gear is going to stop me from killing anyone I want. I spend all day every day killing players for their sweet loot. If you put me in poor gear and give me some penalties, I'm still going to be looting 75-80% of anyone I come across. And that's combat classes.

The above is an example of what runs through my head as I read your posts. Yes, I love PVP and I will pretty much kill anything moving if I can just because I WANT to. The fact that someone is annoyed by it/giving me bad rep is just icing on the cake. I have friends who will do the same thing. Who cares if the other half of the population doesn't like it?

^This is only half serious. It's my first intial thoughts as someone who loves PVP and yes, some twinking. That's the sort of people you'll be dealing with. Not someone who wants to RP on an PVP MMO and pick flowers with you.

[deusvult]

Make it so that one's real world name, phone number, email address, and home address are searchable in a 'pvp database' for paying members.

People won't be douches when they can't hide behind 'teh internets' anonyminity.

[Simon Hayes]

The reputation system is a cool idea, but I fear it's also overly complicated, as you already pointed out, the reputation is perceived differently as the onlooker changes. An hooligan is an hero for his fellows, he can eat or drink for free in the right places and is seen as a menace elsewhere.

I'm no expert but I would like introduce another point of view on the griefer-handling problem.
Let's forget mechanics for a moment and think about environment and story.

I'll make two assumptions here
1) Goblinworks want open PvP because they want to push for a deep player interaction and killing is a big interaction.
2) Griefers are not hated and feared because they kill, but because they do it without meaning. Being an high lord and have to deal with assassinations attempts could be fun.

I guess the environment would be divided in roughly 4 difference kind of places: Urban, Outpost, Wilderness, Dungeons.
Urban areas: some kind of lord should be in place, law enforcement, players playing as guards, and investigators. When a body is found, these players can try to find out who did it, then ban or jail the killer (jail is much worse than death if you can easily re-spawn), or other sanctions decided by the lord/judge. Stupid griefers would have an hard time here, meaningless killing in a crowded place would result in sure punishment. While hired assassins that work with precision can be a huge push for intrigue.
Outposts: little villages, mining places, these places can get raided by griefers, the outpost must be guarded, and the big city those resources come from the outpost should send armed people as well as workers.
Wilderness: works as the outpost, griefers/marauders will be chose an area, crossroad/bridge..., who wants to get through must pay the toll.
In both cases authorities can hire other players to track and eliminate the threat. Sounds as a good quest to me, more complicated than simple pre-designed grab/find/kill quest.
Dungeons: well, kill whatever moves is a good choice here.

I think a player that should choose to be a bandit is a legitimate choice in a role play, the problem maybe is to find way to make it a challenge. Let's say that each player should have a place like home/camp/lair where he virtually rest (not saying he has to actually eat or sleep) and all his possessions he can't carry are left there. In case of an unguarded bandit camp is for everybody to came and grab what they found.

Griefers can be avoided, so let them be useful. They are an enemy faction, track them down, use them as NPCs.

I still see two problems, low level characters, they must spawn in very safe places and have the chance to get used to the game before get into any real trouble. Then there are those players that want just go around and explore, this could be not the right game.

[A Man In Black]

Prime Evil wrote:

Is it possible to

Stop. Down this road lies madness, or at least a really mindnumbingly stupid alignment thread.

deusvult wrote:

Make it so that one's real world name, phone number, email address, and home address are searchable in a 'pvp database' for paying members.

People won't be douches when they can't hide behind 'teh internets' anonyminity.

A) Yes they totally will. Count how many people are jerks on this forum despite posting under their own names. I do post this with at least a shred of self-awareness, no need to point it out, thanks.

B) Patfinder Online was in the news today when one of the players killed another player...

[Elth]

Prime Evil wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Sociopathy isn't an alignment thing (though I'll admit evil sociopaths are more common than neutral ones) it's a behavior thing.

Is it possible to be a lawful good sociopath? What about a Chaotic Good sociopath? Can there be a true neutral sociopath? Forget the MMO for a second - these are interesting questions from a pen-and-paper perspective....

I've got a suspicion that any alignment can produce dysfunctional individuals. For example, a lawful good character might mete out justice a bit to quickly, without making sure that all of their facts are in order - there's a reason why people say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Similarly, evil characters can be regarded as heroes under the right circumstances. Heck, how many times in human history have people admired ruthless dictators for restoring a sense of pride to a nation or religious minority or ethnic group? I can easily imagine situations where good people support a tyrant because he or she seems better than the alternative.

The Theocracy of the Pale from the Greyhawk setting are a good example of sociopath paladins of Pelor. Pelor was a NG god, but could still have paladins. The Theocracy were your typical inquisition types that would purge by righteous fire heresy of any kind.

Whitecloaks from Robert Jordan Wheel of Time are another good example. Maybe not all of them, but their inquisitors surely are wicked enough.

[Simon Hayes]

Prime Evil wrote:

Is it possible to be a lawful good sociopath?

I know is off topic, but I can't resist.

Sociopathy is a personality disorder, it is associated with the inability to behave accordingly the society rules, so no lawful, and the lack of empathy, that means inability to feel affection, that goes with a general no good.

[Elth]

deusvult wrote:

Make it so that one's real world name, phone number, email address, and home address are searchable in a 'pvp database' for paying members.

People won't be douches when they can't hide behind 'teh internets' anonyminity.

You have got to be joking. Anonymity is the only thing keeping those psychopathic griefing types from knocking on your door in real life.

That's the second time today I have seen someone post a thought that reflects a gestapo attitude. They are pvpers not pedophiles. they don't need a database with their real identities on them. Are you honestly serious or is that a troll?

[Ettin]

Simon Hayes wrote:

I know is off topic, but I can't resist.

Poster takes a slow motion dive towards Simon, "NOOOOO" forming on their lips.

[Ettin]

Elth wrote:

You have got to be joking. Anonymity is the only thing keeping those psychopathic griefing types from knocking on your door in real life.

Also, plenty of women have problems with creepy dudes making unwelcome advances or straight-up stalking them in-game.

Why would you want to broadcast their personal info?

[Elth]

Animious wrote:

A game that has open world PVP AND I can loot their corpses for their hard earned lootz AND some of the people I'll be killing aren't even a combat class AND there's so many people on these forums that don't want pvp in any way (killing you once or twice isn't griefing, that's just fun).

Sign me up.

On a side note, I don't think negative rep/taking away some gear is going to stop me from killing anyone I want. I spend all day every day killing players for their sweet loot. If you put me in poor gear and give me some penalties, I'm still going to be looting 75-80% of anyone I come across. And that's combat classes.

The above is an example of what runs through my head as I read your posts. Yes, I love PVP and I will pretty much kill anything moving if I can just because I WANT to. The fact that someone is annoyed by it/giving me bad rep is just icing on the cake. I have friends who will do the same thing. Who cares if the other half of the population doesn't like it?

^This is only half serious. It's my first intial thoughts as someone who loves PVP and yes, some twinking. That's the sort of people you'll be dealing with. Not someone who wants to RP on an PVP MMO and pick flowers with you.

Now see I don't actually mind a player that enjoys player killing. As long as there is a hefty risk involved. I think that is the purpose of this thread to see if there was some way it could occur and I don't think anyone has found a way as yet.

My ideal game would be one where a pvper could effectively play a highwayman, robber, murderer in the same world as a non-combat class of merchants, diplomats and crafters, but also with combat classes that will have one up on bandits and player killers.

As many have mentioned here though, the pack mentality of the average pvper will mean that they band together to prevent losses. The average non-pvper that plays a non-combat class is generally more of a loner due to the fact that nobody wants to be grouped with a dude thats just working an anvil or playing the auction house all day.

If there was some way that allows criminal activity to be possible, but the punishment harsh enough that you would literally not be able to do so for an extended period in a heavily populated area.... or a way to prevent goons or wolf packs from becoming an oppressive force that shuts down an entire server.

What I would want to see in an MMO like this, and what I have seen fail because the wolves out numbered the sheep. I know that Ryan and his crew are going to have some serious challenges ahead. I hope they can pull it off without destroying the fun for any of the parties involved. There are more than just 2 playstyles at stake here. PvE players are different from crafters who are different from economists who in turn are different from roleplayers, from Pvpers, from player killers and from explorers.. there is far more than just black and white, red vs blue when it comes to sandbox games.

[deusvult]

Elth wrote:

deusvult wrote:

Make it so that one's real world name, phone number, email address, and home address are searchable in a 'pvp database' for paying members.

People won't be douches when they can't hide behind 'teh internets' anonyminity.

You have got to be joking. Anonymity is the only thing keeping those psychopathic griefing types from knocking on your door in real life.

Well, a psycho can already look me or anyone else up and show up unannounced as is. Should one look my name up via a game context, I'm pretty confident I can physically handle your average nerd-rager. For those that I couldn't, I'm lucky enough to live in a state that has a castle doctrine.

Maybe I was too absolute. SOME griefers will be LESS likely to grief, if they know that aforementioned IRL psychos are possible victims of their shenanigans. If you're not willing to antagonize random people IRL, you shouldn't do it in a MMO either.

Quote:

That's the second time today I have seen someone post a thought that reflects a gestapo attitude. They are pvpers not pedophiles. they don't need a database with their real identities on them. Are you honestly serious or is that a troll?

I'm not sure where the gestapo reference is coming from, but I will respond to the comparison of griefers to pedophiles. It's unfair to pedophiles ;)

[A Man In Black]

Elth wrote:

What I would want to see in an MMO like this, and what I have seen fail because the wolves out numbered the sheep. I know that Ryan and his crew are going to have some serious challenges ahead. I hope they can pull it off without destroying the fun for any of the parties involved. There are more than just 2 playstyles at stake here. PvE players are different from crafters who are different from economists who in turn are different from roleplayers, from Pvpers, from player killers and from explorers.. there is far more than just black and white, red vs blue when it comes to sandbox games.

What sheep? The sheep aren't even showing up for these games any more. No, ever since Shadowbane it's been the rabid dogs outnumbering the wolves, and the rabid dogs are winning the game.

If you have a dark sense of humor and an endless appetite for schadenfreude, here is 1200 posts by the gang that won EVE, gloating about their latest gank/scam scheme. It is completely within the game rules.

deusvult wrote:

Well, a psycho can already look me or anyone else up and show up unannounced as is. Should one look my name up via a game context, I'm pretty confident I can physically handle your average nerd-rager. For those that I couldn't, I'm lucky enough to live in a state that has a castle doctrine.

Can you leave this crazy crap in the off-topic forums please? "Someone coming to my house? Let 'em come, I've just been dying to shoot someone in the face!" is creepy enough when people keep it contained to the politics/philosophy threads, thanks.

Most people who are not lunatics do not want their personal info published in an obvious place just because they wanted to play a stupid game with elves and dragons on the internet, and the lunatics are no less likely to be lunatics because their personal info is out there.

Quote:

Maybe I was too absolute. SOME griefers will be LESS likely to grief, if they know that aforementioned IRL psychos are possible victims of their shenanigans. If you're not willing to antagonize random people IRL, you shouldn't do it in a MMO either.

Are you seriously suggesting that people will be less likely be obnoxious in the game because crazy people might come to their house and murder them?

wEADXZFCVZCdxfsadftgxcvbczfarsasf this thread this thread this effing thread

[Doggan]

A Man In Black wrote:

If you have a dark sense of humor and an endless appetite for schadenfreude, here is 1200 posts by the gang that won EVE, gloating about their latest gank/scam scheme. It is completely within the game rules.

Goons are probably the best example you can make for any game to not have any form of Open PvP. They destroy every game they touch.

[Derek Vande Brake]

Prime Evil wrote:

I can easily imagine situations where good people support a tyrant because he or she seems better than the alternative.

Like the entire American political system! :P

Just wanted to point out, I have played several evil characters on the tabletop. I don't do that anymore because I don't like what it does to me, but that's not the issue. The issue is that I have done it, and they were not sociopaths. They frequently got along well with (most of) the other party members... especially when it came time to do something morally ambiguous for the greater good, and all the heroes didn't have to moan over the consequences to their soul, because the guy who didn't care about such restrictions took matters into his own hands.

Here's another option. What if you could, instead of logging on as a character, have the option of playing a random mobile? Would it make people feel better if they were killed by *Orcish Raider 127* instead of *E1337BloodRaperofSouls*?

[Urlithani]

** I have not played any sandbox MMO's like EVE, just ones like WoW, EQ, etc. My idea probably has a lot of holes and I am more than welcome of constructive criticisms/improvements! :) **

Here's my idea:

The game will possibly be set in the Stolen Lands if Kingmaker is going to be an influence. While it is a frontier, the land is still owned by the new kingdom. You will have to file a claim at the registrar's office for the right to own land. You must have a reputation of at least neutral and not be considered a criminal. The Church of Abadar has clerics at the ready within the registrar's office at all times; portraits of the true land owners are kept on file and divinations are used to root out any deception. Thus, the claim to ownership cannot be stolen by anyone. Griefers and bandits that indiscriminately kill people are considered outlaws by the Stolen Lands authority. They cannot own land, and if someone were to become a griefer, their right to the land is revoked by the Kingdom.

What a law-abiding land owner can do:

- Own land as sanctioned by the rightful government of the Stolen Lands.
- Hire NPC mercenaries as guards from mercenary companies acknowledged and endorsed by the River Kingdom government to guard your property.
- Place bounties on criminals who have committed crimes against you. (edit: My idea doesn't really cover disputes between 2 citizens...)
- Hire more mercenaries and take back your property should it be overrun by lawbreakers. Methods used by the land owner while on his property are not subject to Kingdom Law.
- Own/control charmed/dominated/tamed monsters (which cost a lot of upkeep...try keeping a hydra or griffons fed compared to mere horses).

What griefers(bandits) can(and cannot) do:

- Bandits are allowed to build structures just like anyone else. However, they are criminals, not citizens; thus, any law abiding citizen may apply to own a piece of land that a bandit has already built upon. The Kingdom of the Stolen Lands recognizes the bandits inhabiting the area to be squatters. The new land owner may remove said bandits in anyway he sees fit. The new land owner may destroy the bandits' structures or he may just improve what is there.
- Bandits cannot hire mercenaries like a law abiding citizen. He may hire mercenaries from neighboring Pitax, Brevoy/Rostland, or Numeria, HOWEVER they are more expensive (the price goes up because you are asking mercenaries to intrude upon the lands of a Kingdom that does not want them there). Also, there is not a steady supply of mercenaries willing to do this job. Unlike a land owner's ability to hire Mercs, a bandit has a longer cooldown(not as many people willing to do the job, takes longer to travel through the backwoods of the Stolen Lands without getting caught).
- Own/control charmed/dominated/tamed monsters (which cost a lot of upkeep...try keeping a hydra or griffons fed compared to mere horses).

The idea is simple: Griefers(bandits) have a harder life. They can only "own" what structures they can hold through force of arms. A law-abiding owner can make farms, alchemy labs, forges, stables, and mines and easily hire mercs to guard it because the Kingdom of the Stolen Lands grants him that authority. Bandits have no reliable access to alchemy labs for potions. No land to call your own to grow herbs for potions/magical items. No permanent claim to mines to make your weapons. No permanent place to set a forge. Now, bandits can build all of these things, but if they do not guard it well and keep its location a secret, they could stand to lose their investment. Perhaps bandits will make their own "Bandit city" like Tortuga in Pirates of the Caribbean; they could even make deals and trade with law-abiding citizens who secretly smuggle goods to them.

The point is to not make griefing impossible, just harder. This will discourage people who are looking for an easy way to ruin other peoples' experience(every time I try to attack someone, I get killed by guards! I'm not having fun because I can't grief anyone) , but it will encourage those who like a challenge(The law is against me, the citizenry is against me. I'm living life on the edge. Let's see how high my bounty can get and how much people talk about me before I get caught!)

If you want to play like a bandit, you will have to live like a bandit.

[Blazej]

Simon Hayes wrote:

2) Griefers are not hated and feared because they kill, but because they do it without meaning. Being an high lord and have to deal with assassinations attempts could be fun.

Griefers don't kill without meaning. That is an inherit misconception in every single plan that involves trying to use griefers as some aspect of gameplay.

Griefers play the game in order to destroy it. They have fun when others do not. If at any point you imagine that the griefers are going to be doing something positive for the community than you are mistaken.

Your plan does not do anything at all to discourage griefing, I would say that most of it even encourages wide spread griefing. Nothing there impedes them from achieving the goal of making other people unable to play that game.

Urlithani wrote:

Thus, the claim to ownership cannot be stolen by anyone. Griefers and bandits that indiscriminately kill people are considered outlaws by the Stolen Lands authority.

Griefers don't have to kill other characters. It is just often the best way to get their end goal of ruining the game.

A griefer could be a "law-abiding land owner" who uses the rules of the system to give aid to his griefer allies to which no one can respond to without becoming marked as a criminal themselves. They could even use "law-abiding" griefing allies as a way for criminals to "turn themselves in" so that the griefers are the only ones that collect the bounties.

Griefers aren't really going to care that they can't develop

Urlithani wrote:

The point is to not make griefing impossible, just harder. This will discourage people who are looking for an easy way to ruin other peoples' experience(every time I try to attack someone, I get killed by guards! I'm not having fun because I can't grief anyone) , ...

There are games where guards still swoop in as soon as you attack someone, the griefers are still able to easy spread grief in those areas in part because the person very likely didn't want that confrontation, did all they could to avoid it, and were still slammed by it. And then that is not even dealing with the areas that are not patrolled by guards.

[Chuck Wright]

The answer is different servers. It's the only answer I've seen that works.

[Chris Wong Sick Hong]

In any society (online or not) without tyrannical constraints on behavior, it's impossible to stop griefers. Just look at a typical high school. I believe that the search for an ironclad system to prevent them buys into the utopia fallacy: 'If it can't stop any and all griefing, it's not good enough.'

Ultimately, this is a design decision. As long as open PvP, as well as other interactions, are allowed, there will be griefing. Also, part of the allure of such a lawless frontier world is the lawlessness. (In many, many such tabletop games, the players tend to grief everyone around them, but because they have a writ of mark or whatever from the king, the NPCs tend to kowtow. The problems and complaints only arise when they're on the receiving end.) This isn't a game mechanic problem so much as an immature player problem.

The lack of filling out forms, reporting, rep system and such also isn't a mechanic problem so much as an 'it's someone else's responsibility' problem.

It's an issue of community building. If enough people are willing to put in the time and effort and frustration of building a viable community, it works. If not, no amount of mechanics can do anything if they're unused.

Much of the posts on this topic approach this from a mechanical perspective. I'd like to come at it from more a psychological/sociological perspective, and then derive mechanics from there.

@KitNyx, I'd like to modify and expand your axioms in a direction that I believe will be more productive for purposes of dealing with griefing.

1. There is open world PvP
1.a. Griefing will be impossible to stop completely
2. Players play games, in part, as escapist fantasies, to have fun.
2.a. For some, this means playing in a safe environment where griefing doesn't exist, because they deal with this crap enough IRL.
2.b. For some, this means doing things, being somebody, because the world really doesn't care a lot. (In my experience, anecdotal as it is, this is a big motivation for many people to play D&D. IRL, they're a lowly sys admin who's looking at at least a few more years grinding out company faction before a promotion is even an option.)
2.c. For some, this means role-playing a real world where hard work is involved for achievement (which in some senses is the antithesis of 2.b.)
2.d. For some, this means taking out their frustrations for which they don't have any other outlet, i.e. griefing, in order to get that ego boost.
3. Game mechanics can reduce griefing, but in order to do so without breaking immersion, they must flow from story considerations, rather than meta considerations.
4. However, there is no system that cannot be circumvented, so the design aim is robustness, rather than perfection. The evaluation of 'robustness' depends on the design aim--which play styles/forms of escapism the game is intended to nurture.
5. If the design aim allows all alignments, griefing, which is an excellent demonstration of the essence of CE, is automatically acceptable. If you don't like that, it's the same as if you don't like a GM. Find another table, another game.
5.a. On the other hand, if griefing is not acceptable and the design aim specifically bars it, some things like limiting PvP to zones, etc., make more sense. If you don't like that, again, find another table, another game.

In a large part, this seems to be as much a design philosophy debate versus a mechanics debate.

So, for my part, I'm going to assume that, along with open PvP, all alignments are allowed (for realism), meaning that griefing is acceptable from the design point of view. Thus, Kit's axiom 5 is not true. Less griefing is not good for the community. Productively handled griefing is.

So, knowing that the Chaotic Evil playstyle is going to be present (not having rules and deriving pleasure from others' misery), how can you keep that from dominating the other playstyles?

I think the highsec/lowsec idea from EVE online is a great start, as well as @Urlithani's ideas. As base, I'm assuming these playstyles, both RP and mechanics:

Individual-oriented
-------------------
griefing (CE)
tyrannies - NBSI (LE)
heroic champion, fighting for the forces of good (LG)
robin hood-esque (fight the system for the right reasons) - (CG)
I just want to do cool things and look cool doing it. Who cares why?
I hate people, just let me kill mobs and find things
crafting (any)
merchants (any)

Community-oriented
------------------
City/kingdom building, mainly an extension of the previous. Griefer strongholds, paladin-led cities, etc.

Next, every world needs something to start from. If you just drop people into a world with no existing infrastructure, it will be chaos. The bullies will win, at least until enough people put in the time and effort needed to actually civilize things. Which will take a long time.

So I propose:

Seed cities (mainly GM/NPC control):
-----------

Axongraffyl (CE) - hidden in the mountains away from the more civilized societies, Axongraffyl is a blight upon the land. As of yet, though, it is too strong to be conquered and destroyed. Much of the evil resources are in this area.

Griefing Quests
Kill x number of player characters for rewards. Doesn't matter who or where. If you're feeling ballsy, accept a quest to kill someone with high faction from a city with opposing alignment.

Or, the leader of Axongraffyl has a long-standing challenge. Anyone who wins the Tournament of Blood gets uber loots. However, you need over 200 PvP duel kills just to qualify, and these kills only count if you win a duel against someone with more (overall, tourney and non-tourney) PvP duel victories than you. Of course it's to the death, and maybe contestants get a special weapon which makes death penalties that much more severe.

This won't completely contain the griefers, and there will be rogues, but it will give PvP-ers with griefing tendencies some organization and structure. If they have an outlet, plus any travel time issues, it will be harder to grief.

Also, the LG punishment, rather than hell or timeout, could be exile to Axongraffyl. They step off the teleportation circle and find the newbie gank squad waiting for them (which you know is going to exist). Welcome to Axongraffyl. These are your people now.

===

Milorian (LG) - Milorian is a shining beacon of order, which isn't to some people's tastes. They're dedicated to taming the world and making it a safe place for people to live and prosper. Under the rule of law, of course.

As part of that, they're more than willing to help anyone homesteading. They do the land registry, as @Urlithani mentions, plus also have golems for sale/rent. For people just starting out, they'll provide one or 2 low level golems for free. They're quick, strong and scary. The basic ones patrol an area and lay the beatdown on any PvP action.

For more powerful ones, as well as merchant guards, you have to pay, with one exception. If your golems are ever destroyed or made ineffective, the church in Milorian will give you upgraded ones for free in the name of advancing civilization. (This would probably require GM intervention by reading game logs, seeing what happened, etc.)

You could game the system by having people beat them up for you, true, but that would lead to ever more powerful golems enforcing anti-PvP laws. If griefers are going to game the system in their favor, I don't see a problem with allowing people wanting to make a homestead game the system in their favor.

Plus, those who attack the higher level golems get recorded (as part of the golems' abilities). If it goes on long enough, they lose any lawful and/or good part of their alignment just for striking them (with the attendant atonement quests).

And if it gets too bad, the high priests in Milorian ask for (and are granted) a miracle, which gives a town near unbreakable protection. One-hit incaps, large attack range, insane speed. If it gets to be too much, have a world event/patch in which they get nerfed. MMOs are always a work in progress.

They also hire out golems and guards for hunters, resource expeditions, etc.

As for justice in the lands they directly control, offenses are fines/imprisonment. For sever crimes, severe punishment with the option for exile to Axongraffyl. If they catch someone with high Axongraffyl faction, that's obviously not a choice. Though they may use them as agents to infiltrate and cause chaos.

Defender Quests
Players can sign up to defend the passes. While they can't destroy Axongraffyl, there are defended mountain forts. Sign up for a tour of duty and protect the civilized lands. Patrol an area, man the walls, beat back an NPC monster invasion, etc.

===

LE city
Much the same as Milorian, but their golems are laws and guard have a decidely NBSI character. You need papers, and guards are more than willing to rough you up. They typically don't deal with jail time, etc., but can be bribed into mercy. Otherwise, if you screw up, off to Axongraffyl you go.

They're also not as free with their golems. You want protection, you'd better be able to pay for it.

===

CG city
Laws are a bit looser, and smuggling's not uncommon. However, basic decency applies. I'm running out of steam here, so I'll leave it at this, but this is the basic framework I'm envisioning.

I realize that there are extreme situations, like a bunch of CEs manage to overrun the passes and wreak havoc. Then out goes the call for heroes. There are legends of an ancient artifact left behind by the God of Justice for just such an occasion. Who is brave and skilled enough to undertake the quest? Information will leak, CEs will try to stop them -- in short, you'll have an epic save-the-world fantasy situation with players on both sides. Who will accept the call? Even CE players may decide that the status for being the heroes will be worth it and aid in the quest for redemption. Or maybe just a chance to grief a griefer they hate.

This could also go the other way. If LG clans manage to overpower Axongraffyl, the CE quests start to revolve around finding the evil artifact to restore balance. Word leaks out, the good aligned try to stop them, etc.

If the balance of players, power-wise, gets to be too much, the game itself could start tilting in favor of balance (i.e. successful completion of the artifact storyline for whichever faction is currently screwed). Why? Because of the subtle machinations of the Overdeity, which prefers balance in accordance with its own inscrutable whims.

Well, that's my contribution. It will need extensive GM and player involvement, as well as excellent design, but it might be doable. Maybe throw in some magically protected non PvP areas which are under the protection of the God of Mercy, have them resource-rich enough to be viable (maybe a crafting haven?) and people with too many PvP kills just can't enter without undergoing atonement quests.

[KitNyx]

Chris Wong Sick Hong wrote:

...

Great post. Thank you for being very clear in your arguments. I also agree this is as much a debate on game philosophy as it is mechanics. I need to think about your points and digest your conclusions more before addressing them.

[Mark Kalmes]

Good stuff in this thread. I think our focus here will be on getting a designer with good experience with how several games have solved the problem. We'll try to get a good final solution based on experience the field. We will probably not eliminate all griefing - but we want to keep the level down so that it doesn't unduly irritate players who are focused on other things.

[Tarondor]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Evil does not automatically translate to sociopath..

Yes it does. That's the very definition of evil.

Evil does not need to be PSYCHOpathic, but it is always sociopathic.

[kyrt-ryder]

Tarondor wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Evil does not automatically translate to sociopath..

Yes it does. That's the very definition of evil.

Evil does not need to be PSYCHOpathic, but it is always sociopathic.

Except that's not true.

We're getting off-topic here, but the fact remains, evil is evil. It's self centered and such, but there are a lot of neutral sociopaths as well.

(I would estimate about 65% of sociopaths are evil and 35% are neutral, but those are just random figures I pulled out of thin air without any research to back them.)

[Prime Evil]

Doggan wrote:

Goons are probably the best example you can make for any game to not have any form of Open PvP. They destroy every game they touch.

However, the Goonswarm wiki does have a nice introduction to Eve Online that outlines the things that they do and don't like about the game. This list should give PFO devs insight into the features that attract griefers and those that they don't like.