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


Pathfinder Online

151 to 200 of 389 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
he will not be searching for hours for a perfect repairman or forced to make a crafter alt just to get his weapon fixed and back in action.

He won't. Past successful sandbox games which utilised a skillcap have never struggled for people to play required roles. If you ever played Ultima Online back in the day, Britain smithy had a plethora of well renown and trusted smiths sitting there all day repairing peoples gear for tips, and crafting armour. Simply because most on this forum have not seen this system work perfectly in the past, it would be ridiculous to simply paste over it for the fear that it doesn't work when it does. Gear was readily available from logged in players. Even in the metaphorical situation that nobody was there to help you, player shops had more than you could ever need.

My point is, if you make this game like Darkfall and allow players to be both the hero and the crafter, your killing the role of the dedicated crafter. To you it makes no difference if your gear is provided by the hybrid hero/crafter character, the npc crafter or a dedicated character, but to the character wishing to play the dedicated crafters, their role in game will disappear as it becomes more and more easy for hero characters to supply themselves through each having immediate access to one or more crafting skills.

The usefulness of a dedicated crafter requires his role to be unique. I didn't think this was rocket science. If you allow people to be bother epic warriors and master craftsmen, you shut down a playstyle. Players can still choose to play a dedicated crafter, but their role is not needed and their character selection is inferior to others.

Goblin Squad Member

But I would not want to limit the hybrids. Rangers for example live off the lands but are also fighters...however the time they spend learning to make bows/arrows/leather armor/hunting/cooking/etc, seriously cuts into their weapon training time.

Likewise, magic should be an arduous task to learn. It should take as much time to master a branch of magic as it does to master a craft as it does to master a weapon. But, if I wanted to learn to make fire or enchant my own sword even though previously I was a soldier...I should be able to spend my time doing so. I would also say that these various tasks would be taught by factions who are not going to teach just anyone who comes asking. As such...this could be a very difficult and time consuming path, but possible. You have to design the world in such a way that a fighter is hindered or handicapped by casting spells. Something like metal interfering with spell casting (just an example)...so your spell is more likely to fail if you are wearing armor and wielding a weapons. So, you get by this by making iron wood weapons and armor...once again hopefully a difficult task.

And, as to making multiple characters, this depends on how you learn things...if you learn by doing, or by scheduling, and can you schedule two characters simultaneously. If the former, there is no reason to make alts because the time spent making your crafter character is time away from your melee character...so they would not be working melee anyways. Why not just use one character and diversify. You learn all the skills, just as fast.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
Anyways what is ridiculous is the "Poof I changed from my full plate armor, and now my strength and melee combat skills are gone and now I'm instantly a caster as I put on this hat" idea. How exactly does one instantly forget everything, and instantly remember everything. Nobody is implying that you will need 10 different characters to do the basic tasks of one character, but you will need 3 characters if you are wanting to play 3 completely different styles of game-play. Say someone makes a crafter/dealer character, a stealthy roguish character and a support/healer character. All of them should be able to be on their own, fully playable on their own even if they were your only character, but you have the option to play as something else when you get bored of your normal style, you can switch.

Probably the same way in which In EVE I will drop a close ranged, heavy damage dealing ship in station and pick up a ship dedicated to remotely repairing other ships.

The skills are always there, but I need the right gear to make them work.

So skill I can still use while "donning" different gear but they don't work has well as if I was using the dedicated equipment.

So to move to a more fantasy/Pathfinder example: after playing for years I can be both an archemage and a top fighter but to use my archemage powers I need to wield a staff that is only a second rate meele weapon when compared to the greatsword of a top fighter, wear a robe and not a armour plate and so on.
Some of the fighter skills could be still functional, but all the training I put in greatsword and plate armour using is doing nothing, while if I was to enter melee I had to have quarterstaff fighting skills.

As I still had to learn my skills one at a time a guy going straight fighter would have got there way faster than me and a new guy walking the fighter path on the straight and narrow would be on par with me after a few months.
On the other hand, I with a older and more developed character, would be capable to fulfil several roles for a group and be always useful.

You seem to like the idea of characters capping up at some point, I prefer the idea of being forever capable to branching out in new directions.

Goblinworks Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MicMan wrote:
Elth wrote:
The only limitation is time management here. The player might want to do all those things

This is one of these "wouldn't it be nice things" that end less fun than originally anticipated.

First, a game can never be perfectly balanced, some choices are always superior from a game mechanics pov. While not all people may care for that, most certainly do.

If you allow a Fighter-Wizard-Rogue-Priest then, maybe later than sooner, you will have it. If this happens to be the most profitable combination, sooner or later almost everyone will be a Fighter-Wizard-Rogue-Priest.

Happened in Ultima, will happen in PFO.

So you need limitations, a player must choose wether she wants fightery skills or magey skills and if she can mix those two she must be weaker in each (edited: thx kyrt) than a full version of either.

You are looking at the problem without thinking of a solution.

A solution that Pen and Paper Roleplaying games though of over thirty years ago.

Most of these problems are already solved by making armor penalize the non-combat abilities.

  • You cannot pick locks with steel gauntlets.
  • You cannot sneak in chain mail or plate.
  • You cannot cast spells in armor without the chance of spell failure.
  • You need at least one free hand to cast spells.
    Ideally you need two free hands to cast spells that require components as you generally need to combine them or fiddle with them (Try pulling the wings off a fly with gauntlets)
  • You need a holy symbol to turn undead or cast clerical spells. Not just hanging around your neck. You need to use it as a focus of prayer, held in both hands and praying for a miracle.

My suggestion is to allow anyone to have any skill unrestricted.
But have a system similar to Skyrim where wizard spells need to be equipped like a weapon, holy spells need to be focused through your holy symbol, and the more restrictive your armor, the higher the spell failure or skill failure.

Some people might not agree with the above because it is a needless hindrance and most players will not accept it. I put it to them that it is not a needless hindrance, it is in fact a tried and true method of balance that most pen and paper players have been doing for decades.

I am hoping that the itemization in PFO will be such that a warrior will want to wear chain mail or leather if he wants to have mobility.
Where a Thief would rather wear regular clothes with plenty of pockets.
Where a Fighter/Mage/Thief would use a short sword in one hand, a spell in the other and nothing more than padded leather armor in battle.
(using fighter/mage/thief/cleric as example to combine skill)


So if Ryan is supporting open PvP, with full gear looting, I'm out...won't even touch it.

I played on Rallos Zek all of 8 levels before losing all my stuff to naked wizards became stupid.

I played Ultima Online all of 7 days because of the bank gankers...(naked thieves who would kill, loot, stuff loot in bank before guards killed them...that's what they did all day.)

Open PvP leads to griefing. If Pathfinder should have a set gear economy like the PnP says then losing all your stuff is catastrophic, leaving you open to losing everything over and over. Actually IF I played I would play a naked monk...

The game isn't balanced for solo play in the normal game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"And lo, the many roleplayers of pathfinder cried out at the evil destroyers that rode upon the backs of misery, pain, grief and death."
~Chanticle 3, Stanza 2,
~ Book of NyxShiArammu

Seriously guys its time to take the comforter off and join the real world. There are no boogey men that want to kill you, just other humans. PvP isn't scary once you have experienced it and not cried like a child.

Goblin Squad Member

NyxShiArammu wrote:
Seriously guys its time to take the comforter off and join the real world. There are no boogey men that want to kill you, just other humans. PvP isn't scary once you have experienced it and not cried like a child.

Your not really helping anyone, let alone yourself if you think such an attitude is going to convince anyone.

PvP games scare people, and for good reason. A full loot open PvP game has never succesfully been created and by that I mean one which hasn't been a cluster****. I'd know because I've been in all of them, they're my domain. Ultima Online is a game I played for over a decade and I love it to pieces. I would equally never wish the first few years of that game on anybody ever again. It was fun then.

Open PvP full loot games need to evolve to an intelligent system which puts an end to griefing and immersion destroying random player killing. We need this to provide a believable and authentic environment; we need intelligent systems in place and intelligent game design if it is ever going to work.

The softness of players is clearly not the issue.


NyxShiArammu wrote:

"And lo, the many roleplayers of pathfinder cried out at the evil destroyers that rode upon the backs of misery, pain, grief and death."

~Chanticle 3, Stanza 2,
~ Book of NyxShiArammu

Seriously guys its time to take the comforter off and join the real world. There are no boogey men that want to kill you, just other humans. PvP isn't scary once you have experienced it and not cried like a child.

There is nothing wrong with not enjoying participation in PvP anymore than you dislike participating in RP. It's time to take your Huggies off and join the mature world. There are no boogey men that want to force you to play in any game that you do not like. Acting like an adult isn't scary once you have experienced it and stopping stroking your peen enough to recognize that different people enjoy different things, and enjoying PvP doesn't particularly make you a better player than anyone who prefers a different approach to the game.


Moro wrote:
NyxShiArammu wrote:

"And lo, the many roleplayers of pathfinder cried out at the evil destroyers that rode upon the backs of misery, pain, grief and death."

~Chanticle 3, Stanza 2,
~ Book of NyxShiArammu

Seriously guys its time to take the comforter off and join the real world. There are no boogey men that want to kill you, just other humans. PvP isn't scary once you have experienced it and not cried like a child.

There is nothing wrong with not enjoying participation in PvP anymore than you dislike participating in RP. It's time to take your Huggies off and join the mature world. There are no boogey men that want to force you to play in any game that you do not like. Acting like an adult isn't scary once you have experienced it and stopping stroking your peen enough to recognize that different people enjoy different things, and enjoying PvP doesn't particularly make you a better player than anyone who prefers a different approach to the game.

I do enjoy RP and i will participate in it i just hold to the stance that PvP is the deciding factor in RP. Otherwise its just meaningless drivel.


NyxShiArammu wrote:
Moro wrote:
NyxShiArammu wrote:

"And lo, the many roleplayers of pathfinder cried out at the evil destroyers that rode upon the backs of misery, pain, grief and death."

~Chanticle 3, Stanza 2,
~ Book of NyxShiArammu

Seriously guys its time to take the comforter off and join the real world. There are no boogey men that want to kill you, just other humans. PvP isn't scary once you have experienced it and not cried like a child.

There is nothing wrong with not enjoying participation in PvP anymore than you dislike participating in RP. It's time to take your Huggies off and join the mature world. There are no boogey men that want to force you to play in any game that you do not like. Acting like an adult isn't scary once you have experienced it and stopping stroking your peen enough to recognize that different people enjoy different things, and enjoying PvP doesn't particularly make you a better player than anyone who prefers a different approach to the game.
I do enjoy RP and i will participate in it i just hold to the stance that PvP is the deciding factor in RP. Otherwise its just meaningless drivel.

And that is your opinion, duly noted. However, forcing your opinion upon those who do not agree doesn't really do anyone much good at all.

So if we were playing WOW back in the Burning Crusade days, and our Roleplaying led me to challenge your character to a duel with my warrior, and I managed to defeat your soundly due to my most excellently well-timed mace stun skillz, would you from that point forward roleplay as my servant, ever in fear from yet another beating from your master?

This is what I am hearing that you want other people to do, for no better reason than to stroke your ego and admit that you have 1337 skillz.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xaaon of Korvosa wrote:


The game isn't balanced for solo play in the normal game.

Nor will Pathfinder Online be. Hell I would guess half the PCs on PFO (acknowledging many secondary characters) aren't going to be adventurers at all.

Goblin Squad Member

NyxShiArammu wrote:
I do enjoy RP and i will participate in it i just hold to the stance that PvP is the deciding factor in RP. Otherwise its just meaningless drivel.

In your opinion. Sometimes opinions matter, but I somehow doubt yours will.


Moro wrote:

And that is your opinion, duly noted. However, forcing your opinion upon those who do not agree doesn't really do anyone much good at all.

So if we were playing WOW back in the Burning Crusade days, and our Roleplaying led me to challenge your character to a duel with my warrior, and I managed to defeat your soundly due to my most excellently well-timed mace stun skillz, would you from that point forward roleplay as my servant, ever in fear from yet another beating from your master?

Personally speaking, I value my freedom far too much to ever agree to such terms in a duel. If I WERE to agree, it would be for a limited period of time (say a few months to a year, something like that.) And yes, I would roleplay that for the agreed duration.

Actually though, this made me realize something. Personal duels of honor (wherein both parties mutually agree to permanent death) could be a really interesting thing to add to the game if it wouldn't be a huge hassle on the programming end.


Coldman wrote:
NyxShiArammu wrote:
I do enjoy RP and i will participate in it i just hold to the stance that PvP is the deciding factor in RP. Otherwise its just meaningless drivel.
In your opinion. Sometimes opinions matter, but I somehow doubt yours will.

In your opinion.

Goblin Squad Member

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Actually though, this made me realize something. Personal duels of honor (wherein both parties mutually agree to permanent death) could be a really interesting thing to add to the game if it wouldn't be a huge hassle on the programming end.

This is a form of perma-death being introduced in an upcoming game called Origins of Malu.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

NyxShiArammu wrote:
Seriously guys its time to take the comforter off and join the real world. There are no boogey men that want to kill you, just other humans. PvP isn't scary once you have experienced it and not cried like a child.

Meet one of the rabid dogs.

Hi. I like to crush and bake bread. I'd like to be able to play the game without having to regrind through the same setbacks over and over and over again. That's not fun. That's lunacy.

Darkfall exists. Go play it.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Xaaon of Korvosa wrote:


The game isn't balanced for solo play in the normal game.
Nor will Pathfinder Online be. Hell I would guess half the PCs on PFO (acknowledging many secondary characters) aren't going to be adventurers at all.

Why a non-adventurers should not be balanced?

I suppose you mean that they will not be balanced combat wise and on that I concur, but there are other kinds of balance.

The key point is that they should be balanced for the environment where they are presumed to live. If I open a magic shop and have the cash to sell something above first level scrolls I suppose I will have the cash to buy/rent better protection than my crafter fighting skills.

The alternative would be to rise my crafter character fighting skills first and start crafting after they are high enough to stall a would be robber or killer long enough that the city guard or settler defender will come and take care of the robber.

Maybe that is why some people is so set aginst the idea to develop multiple set of skills on the same character, they want undefended merchants and crafters.

kyrt-ryder wrote:


Actually though, this made me realize something. Personal duels of honor (wherein both parties mutually agree to permanent death) could be a really interesting thing to add to the game if it wouldn't be a huge hassle on the programming end.

If there is a way to make that "stick" there is a reason to make that part of the programming, if the respect of the agreed upon penalty on the part of the loser is based only on his willingness to respect the rules set at the start of the fight it is simpler to add an arena and let the players do what please them while in it.

And if the penalty is permadeath agreeing to the duel should come with double and triple warning, as you will find people trying to con new players onto agreeing while keeping the actual consequences hidden.


I don't recall anybody being against having multiple skill sets. I know that I, personally, would like to see a cap on total skill points so you have to distribute your capabilities, but I haven't pushed that stance too hard because it's fairly low priority to me. Whether the devs decide they want a hard cap or a soft cap (time, for example) isn't a big deal.

In regards to the balance of non-adventurers, I completely agree they should be balanced, just not in personal combat. I was addressing his regards of how the game is 'not balanced for solo play' (by which I assumed he was referring to combat, given that his post was mostly ragging on open PvP.)

Goblin Squad Member

Elth wrote:
You are looking at the problem without thinking of a solution. A solution that Pen and Paper Roleplaying games though of over thirty years ago.

Where in D&D or any other P&P have you the free choice to max all your skills/talents/abilities as you proposed?

D&D has classes. A Fighter can not cast spells nor can he pick pockets and he even can't max a great many skills either. Your example is way off!

Why is it that in all sucessful P&Ps AND MMOs you have classes and/or tightly controlled skill sets that prevent anyone from maxing even close to everything?

Multiple skill sets may be fine IF there are strongly limited roles to each char (as in MMOs where a Warrior can either Tank OR DD and can never heal or provide utility). In a game where the roels are already broad (ie anyone can tank somehow), it isn't needed.

Again, if anyone can max all skills it doesn't matter much if he can't use them all at any time. There WILL BE a "best" combination for any task and sooner or later everyone will use this to their advantage and finally you see only a single skillset being used by anyone in any given situation.

Thus the game will be poorer because of it instead of richer!


Offtopic to the original topic of this thread, but relevant to the current side tangent...

This could be the fate of the your smith on Pathfinder Online.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

kyrt-ryder wrote:
This could be the fate of the your smith on Pathfinder Online.

They could be trapped in the series that killed all hope of anime ever being good ever again?


getting too off-topic here:
I was referencing the scenario and hoping to provide a few laughs, not the show in general.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

kyrt-ryder wrote:

I don't recall anybody being against having multiple skill sets. I know that I, personally, would like to see a cap on total skill points so you have to distribute your capabilities, but I haven't pushed that stance too hard because it's fairly low priority to me. Whether the devs decide they want a hard cap or a soft cap (time, for example) isn't a big deal.

In regards to the balance of non-adventurers, I completely agree they should be balanced, just not in personal combat. I was addressing his regards of how the game is 'not balanced for solo play' (by which I assumed he was referring to combat, given that his post was mostly ragging on open PvP.)

To me all the posts about "you can't be a wizard/crafter or fighter/wizard" it will cheapen the game an/or it is illogical sound as being strongly against multiple skill sets.

Goblin Squad Member

No, you are being to broad here.

Different Skill sets can be done with the confines of certain limitations.

For Instance a Sword & Board Fighter and a 2-H Weapon Fighter are two different skill sets.

But being a Fighter now and being a Wizard 10 seconds later is not what I would describe with different skill sets but rather with different character altogether.

Besides, you can't do that in Pathfinder P&P, why should it be feasible for Pathfinder MMO?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What you can do in Pathfinder P&P, and what I want to see, is the ability to diversify at the cost of max potential. To make the lazy class level comparison, you can't be Fighter 10 Wizard 10 at level 10, but you CAN be Fighter 5, Wizard 5 at level 10.

Something like that. Take some martial combat skills and some magic skills in the same character and blend them into a given concept. Just understand your versatility comes at a price compared to specialists.

Goblin Squad Member

Diego Rossi wrote:
To me all the posts about "you can't be a wizard/crafter or fighter/wizard" it will cheapen the game an/or it is illogical sound as being strongly against multiple skill sets.

Not at all. My argument is that you can be a Fighter/Wizard/Crafter/Miner/Milkmade, but a Warrior should by all means be by far the better...Warrior.

A Fighter/Wizard should be a strong and viable combat class, but would not have access to the same number of spells as a Wizard, or the Strength of a Fighter etc.

The biggest debate here is how much of a trade or craft orientated skill set e predominantly combat character can posses, as this can damage a craft orientated characters purpose or validity if others can self supply relatively easily.

Goblin Squad Member

Yeah, but there is a reason that you do not see that possibility in most or even all games:

It sucks!

Really, what you must understand is that many many mechanical inferior options in P&P can be ironed out through roleplaying and GM fiat.

Through this a 6 Fighter / 6 Wizard can work in a party of 12th Level chars despite being mechanically vastly inferior.

But in an MMO there is no such thing, no ironing out. Thus noone that cares will create such a char.

And thus no developer includes an otpion to make yourself suck since Ultima Online.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

kyrt-ryder wrote:
What you can do in Pathfinder P&P, and what I want to see, is the ability to diversify at the cost of max potential. To make the lazy class level comparison, you can't be Fighter 10 Wizard 10 at level 10, but you CAN be Fighter 5, Wizard 5 at level 10.

Except that in Pathfinder, there's a cap at level 20, and a Fighter10/Wizard10 is awful.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MicMan wrote:

No, you are being to broad here.

Different Skill sets can be done with the confines of certain limitations.

For Instance a Sword & Board Fighter and a 2-H Weapon Fighter are two different skill sets.

But being a Fighter now and being a Wizard 10 seconds later is not what I would describe with different skill sets but rather with different character altogether.

Besides, you can't do that in Pathfinder P&P, why should it be feasible for Pathfinder MMO?

Curious, I don't see any rule that prohibit me from getting 5 levels as a fighter and 5 as a wizard. I will be less efficient than a 10 level fighter or a 10 level wizard, but having multiple classes is perfectly allowed in Pathfinder.

There is even a name for that: multiclassing. Sometime it is even a prerequisite needed for accessing some prestige class.

If I have the persistence to get 10 levels as a fighter and 10 levels as a wizard I will be better than any level 10 wizard or fighter.

Coldman wrote:

Not at all. My argument is that you can be a Fighter/Wizard/Crafter/Miner/Milkmade, but a Warrior should by all means be by far the better...Warrior.

A Fighter/Wizard should be a strong and viable combat class, but would not have access to the same number of spells as a Wizard, or the Strength of a Fighter etc.

The biggest debate here is how much of a trade or craft orientated skill set e predominantly combat character can posses, as this can damage a craft orientated characters purpose or validity if others can self supply relatively easily.

So apparently those that have argued against my posts don't have really read them, with the exception of kyrt-ryder.

You have skimmed them and decided what I was saying.
I have pointed out several times that it would require more work to get both options for the same character.
I don't get what as given you the impression that I was advocating the possibility for two guys to get the same wizard level spending the same time when one was training as a pure wizard wile the other was training as as a fighter/wizard.

I am against a maximum cap on the total skills as it seem related to the concept of "end game raids", something that I don't like much.
The skill system is good in that you can broaden your base without the need for a infinitely extending maximum level.

There is a more basic debate, Coldman. You want to cast in concrete my possible skill set with the first decision I make for my character when I create it, I want someone that can continue to grow and branch out in different directions even after years of playing.

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have a suggestion for PVP Griefer discouragement.

Law and punishment should be upheld in the game and built into the play experience.

What do I mean? simply put when you die two things happen, you are either captured or enter a death state.

Captured

This includes captured by enemy player guilds, arrest in an NPC town and the like.

Anyone that is captured is placed in jail. Then the act of leaving jail falls not only on yourself (in the way a rogue would try and escape his cell by picking the lock while the guard sleeps; but also by your team mates who should do their best to free you from your incarceration.

failure to escape leads to two end results, you do your time and walk free (a timer that could pass while offline) for lesser crimes, or you are sentenced to death via execution for major crimes, thus entering the death state. You could also suicide to enter death state prematurely.

Death State

While many games in the past have left you with a simple button to re-spawn at your bind point or to force you to journey to specific resurrection alters, or even wait for a kind soul to resurrect you on the battlefield. to prevent death-rush griefing I propose an alternate death state. you effectively travel as a spirit in the world. You cannot interact with anything or anyone and must travel to special churches and alters before interaction can take place. This could include a communing priest (PC or NPC) or even "haunting" a dungeon or house.

Once at those alters you must wait for your soul to be united with your body. teammates can recover your corpse from the battlefield and drop you off at a shrine or church at which point you can use the alter to return to life. without a body you can be brought back via powerful resurrection magics but you must wait for either a hosting body or for the new body to regrow.

Resurrection in the battlefield should be a lengthy process - not a simple click and your up.

Death state is just as much as a journey as adventuring and if done right many players might enjoy staying in death state for extended periods of time. the spirits of others both players, NPCs, Mobs and Environment are all still there and you can fight them off as they try and prevent you from getting to a shrine or church.

Additionally the death state has a bright light that hovers above your head. A destination that allows souls to move on from the world. choosing this option (by simply clicking it) deletes your character from the game. you go back to character selection and can only choice 2 options, delete and restart. Delete clears the available character slot. restart sets your character back to its original state when first created and allows you to restart from scratch without having to remake the character.

Additional Comments

Rewards:
Dieing is an experience and while many games in the past have penalized people for dieing with XP loss or time investments on corpse runs, I propose to reward people for dieing. give players that die some incentive to come back to life. The longer between each death the bigger the reward. These rewards would affect you in life such as granting a sixth sense of other spirits near you or a limited ability to commune with the dead.

Starting characters:
When making characters for this game immersion should start BEFORE you click "enter world" - The character creation process should be tied in with mini-games, puzzles and tutorial maps to introduce the player to the game but to also deal with certain decision making aspects of character creation.

For example deciding to be a wizard should enter you into a tutorial on how to cast spells. you are entered into the game as a young version of yourself experiencing the wizard guilds training. you then, upon completion, return to character creation and decide on additional skills, taking blacksmithing introduces you to the role of a smith and what you can make. being evil introduces you to the dregs of society in your starter town. bully's, muggers, and assassins teach you how to truly be evil.

Each skill choice and the decisions on alignment (if its in the game) should come with some form of gameplay.

Players should be able to make quickplay characters but this should be limited to 1 slot per account. That quickplay slot should be limited to 1 character per day (thus deleting it locks that slot to prevent multiple toons and each is flagged as non-PVP for the first day it enters the world.

Intent
The intent on this is to A) discourage making fast play characters purely to grief new players. B) make the penalty for dieing time consuming without it being a grind or boring.

Do's & Dont's
If your attempt is immersion please, please, please do not have the new areas of the game teaming with giant rats, snakes and other vermin for the players to "grind" on. MMOs are notorious for filing the worlds with trash to kill, its not realistic and it most certainly isn't immersible gameplay.

Some people like to be helpful and I think it would be very nice to have guide programs. Guild leaders, officers and the like could flag themselves as guides. They could tutor people during these tutorials as possible recruits for their guilds. This would only improve the interaction and immersion. Guides should be aware of the requirements however, kind of like a customer service option, the player is responsible for his actions, everything they do is reported to the Customer Service for mediation after the fact, thus highlighting (and discoraging) bad experiences for new players.


Looking at the arguements that are being made, and my own personal experiences with PvP and griefing/ganking, I have a small thought for an in-game method of dealing with it.

Create in game zones which have different penalties, based on their alignment.

For instance, in lawful zones, there would presumably be a prevalent and quick guard response to aggression against others (at least outside of designated areas: a lawful evil city might have an arena, while a lawful neutral city might allow duels that parties agreed to). When one PC kills another here, they are forced (by the system) to pay a weregild to the killed PC, based on their relative power levels: The closer you are to approximately the same power level, the smaller the weregild you are hit with. If you're more powerful than your opponent, you're forced to pay a larger weregild. Presumably most low level PCs would start in these zones, to benefit from their protection until they could fend for themselves.

In neutral zones, there's still a guard presence, but it isn't as large (and therefore not as quick to respond). Weregilds don't exist, though bribes to get the guards to leave you alone after you've killed someone definitely should.

In chaotic zones, there are no guards, and no protections or punishments for anything you do.

From there, you could build everything around the zones alignment as far as what is allowed. Looting a corpse? Sure in a chaotic zone, and maybe in a neutral zone, but in a Lawful zone you'd never be allowed to do that.

Goblinworks Founder

MicMan wrote:
Elth wrote:
You are looking at the problem without thinking of a solution. A solution that Pen and Paper Roleplaying games though of over thirty years ago.

Where in D&D or any other P&P have you the free choice to max all your skills/talents/abilities as you proposed?

D&D has classes. A Fighter can not cast spells nor can he pick pockets and he even can't max a great many skills either. Your example is way off!

Why is it that in all sucessful P&Ps AND MMOs you have classes and/or tightly controlled skill sets that prevent anyone from maxing even close to everything?

Multiple skill sets may be fine IF there are strongly limited roles to each char (as in MMOs where a Warrior can either Tank OR DD and can never heal or provide utility). In a game where the roels are already broad (ie anyone can tank somehow), it isn't needed.

Again, if anyone can max all skills it doesn't matter much if he can't use them all at any time. There WILL BE a "best" combination for any task and sooner or later everyone will use this to their advantage and finally you see only a single skillset being used by anyone in any given situation.

Thus the game will be poorer because of it instead of richer!

You must be joking.. A fighter can not cast spells nor can he pick pockets? Have you never played a fighter/mage/thief in AD&D?

Have you never multi-classed in 3e?

Have you ever played West End Games D6 system? They were the original Star Wars RPG before Wizards took over. The D6 rules could be played without classes and were far superior to AD&D 2nd Edition. Star Wars D6 was purely skill based. There were far too many skills in the game to even consider maxing out every skill. There are modern and fantasy rules available for the D6 system as well.

Whitewolf Games did not use classes or tightly controlled skill sets.
GURPS did not use a class system. I'm sure they had templates, but you weren't locked into them.

Imagine D&D 3e skills system, you have a limited amount of points *Int bonus to distribute among Lockpicking, Disguise, Spellcraft, Concentration etc etc etc.... Now picture a game with that skill system, but on the skill list you have weapons and armor and individual spells, individual crafting techniques, all starting in a base trunk and branching out into specialties.....

You do not need classes restricting skills.

Why is it that in all sucessful P&Ps AND MMOs you have classes and/or tightly controlled skill sets that prevent anyone from maxing even close to everything?
Ultima Online was a successful MMO
EvE Online is a successful MMO
WEG D6 RPG is a successful RPG
Vampire is a successful RPG
Werewolf is a successful RPG
GURPS is a successful RPG
The Elder Scrolls: Successful Skill based CRPG.

Just because Darkfall and Mortal Online tried and failed doesn't mean the genre is a failure. Those two titles were barely more than indie projects, they hardly had Triple A financial support.

Goblin Squad Member

Elth wrote:
stuff

Ok, Elth, you are contrary for the sake of contraryness.

We can agree upon that a Fighter is not a Fighter/Wizard/Thief and that multiclassing carries disadvantages that actually prevent the MAXING OF ALL that we talk about here.

We can agree upon that when I wrote thy have systems in place to prevent the maxing of each and everything then this is just what it means and no AD&D, D&D 3e, World of Darkness, Gurps or D6 has the intention that one char maxes it all.

Ultima was successful because it was actually the first game of this scope out there. But there is a reason that ALL it's successful successors have not carried on with the max-all-have-no-classes-scheme, and this is because it sucked big time - I know it, I have been there.

So, it still stands - it is in the best interest of gamers if games prevent the maxing of all in order to support choices you have to make.

And PFO should not and will not be any different.

Goblin Squad Member

One general concept that could work that would allow the cappless ideas that Rossi wants, but maintain the versatility, while still encoraging specialization and making the jack of all trades, still require the master of none that it entitles.

Universal diminishing returns. Just like all MMO's, the higher up you go, the slower you progress, whether it is XP, skill points or any other system, going from 1-2, should cost less then 100-102. Lets just use a random made up system.

Pickpocket 10
Swordfighting 10
Arcane Magic 40

Most games do the system where it would cost more to put in magic then it would to add points to pickpocket, but if you did a universal system where instead of basing the cost on the individual skill, it based the cost on the 60 total, and so it takes the same amount of points to raise magic to 41, as it does to raise pickpocketing to 11. This concept would simultaneously reward specialization, Allow as much variation in a character as you desire, allow limitless progression, but constantly slows down the higher you get. You can fully be a wizard/pickpocket combination, and if you plan it out to synergize correctly you can make a character that is equally viable to a pure focus. At the same time you don't wind up with everyone being the exact same "I am everything" characters, thus encouraging a diverse society.

The problem with the "1 character does everything" is that it greatly hurts the idea of teamwork. A good concept for crafting for instance, an explorer retrieves X item needed to craft, either sells it to the crafter for 100G, of which the crafter turns it into a weapon to sell to another explorer for 150g, or possibly just directly exchanges it to the explorer for the weapon for 25-50G depending on how their partnership is.

Once you have explorer/crafter/whatever going out into the woods, obtaining the crafting item, going back to town as he's also an expert crafter making the sword. Eventually you work less and less of an MMO, and more into a single player game, and if you really want to play the entire game, without ever needing to interact with another player, well offline RPGs will do far more for you. Skyrim will always allow you to do more then you can in any MMO's potential.

Note: I am not implying that you should never be capable of soloing. I think a ballance is necessary. There should be tasks that are best done alone, and there should be tasks that are far better to do in a small group, and some that require a large nation. In addition I think that whatever is earned from any of those requirements should be able to mix. IE super item X, requires parts that are both gathered as a team, and earned by a lone wolf, and needs to be combined by a crafter. Crafter should be able to buy both team and lone wolf items, mix them and both should be plausibly able to buy the item with the money they have earned in their respective fields.
Equal but different playing styles.

Dark Archive

Well they can do what other games already have:

You can PVE (player vs. Environment) usually 75% to 80% of the general world area were you can run instances (group with people to clear a dungeon).

This PVE system can be 100% of the map and have certain areas that become PVP by creating specific areas for them with their instances.

PVE can also have global quest, what do I mean by this. Let's say a troll is attacking a village all players in the general area can participate in the quest and get a reward for saving the townsfolk.

They can also be PVE specific for their kingdoms to gain territory from quest defeating monsters expanding their kingdom that must later be defended by skirmishes of low level players or can just be NPC groups attempting to reclaim their lost land becoming a borer fight vs. NPC's of certain factions (fey, barbarians, bandits, etc...)

There can still be a PVP area, divided on zones and tiers/level for example:

Border skirmish instance: for levels 1-5
Supply line instance: 6-10
Battlefield/tower siege: 11-15
Castle Siege instance: for levels 16-20

Now you have tiers of pvp so there won't be a level 20 running around killing level 5 people but people that actually are pretty close in level/power.

There should also be quests added into the PVP areas, like break the gates, sabotage something which would be an instance were there is PVP. For example it can be an alley fight amongst players to sabotage and open the gates from the inside while other players attempt to prevent it.

This is the common MMOG approach now a days to have both PVE players only and PVP players.

You can also add a XP bonus on exploration and the discovery of ruins, caves, instances, etc... This way you encourage players to actually roam the world and fully map their own maps that should only show their known/visited areas.

There should be a guild system in place also for those that do not wish to have any allegiance but occupy keeps or other holdings becoming themselves little towns to be raided by other guilds for supplies and stuff. there could also be mercenary guild that work for kingdoms and do PVE.

Market economy controlled by players is not encouraged in my personal opinion since things can get out of control very easy I've seen it before.

For people that do decided to kill players that are PVE they should be flagged as criminal, attacked on sight by guards giving the option to surrender and pay for the crimes with a suspended amount of time with out play since the character would be in jail, serving the kingdom in a series of quest to benefit the kingdom and the community.

There should also be a toggle thing for all players that are doing PVE to attempt a duel with another player.

Liberty's Edge

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.

Can someone explain why "PVP inside certain arenas" is an option that's not being explored?

There's lots and lots of room in a server for both PvEers and PVPers.

Non-consensual PvP is... I can't imagine why you'd ever want to make a game that allows it. I literally cannot imagine the draw. Consensual, instanced PvP is far, far superior. It allows those who prefer competition to compete. It allows those who want a purely collaborative experience to have one. It literally provides all of the benefits with none of the drawbacks.

Why on earth isn't this on the board? It should be.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

DreamAtelier wrote:

Looking at the arguements that are being made, and my own personal experiences with PvP and griefing/ganking, I have a small thought for an in-game method of dealing with it.

Create in game zones which have different penalties, based on their alignment.

For instance, in lawful zones, there would presumably be a prevalent and quick guard response to aggression against others (at least outside of designated areas: a lawful evil city might have an arena, while a lawful neutral city might allow duels that parties agreed to). When one PC kills another here, they are forced (by the system) to pay a weregild to the killed PC, based on their relative power levels: The closer you are to approximately the same power level, the smaller the weregild you are hit with. If you're more powerful than your opponent, you're forced to pay a larger weregild. Presumably most low level PCs would start in these zones, to benefit from their protection until they could fend for themselves.

In neutral zones, there's still a guard presence, but it isn't as large (and therefore not as quick to respond). Weregilds don't exist, though bribes to get the guards to leave you alone after you've killed someone definitely should.

In chaotic zones, there are no guards, and no protections or punishments for anything you do.

From there, you could build everything around the zones alignment as far as what is allowed. Looting a corpse? Sure in a chaotic zone, and maybe in a neutral zone, but in a Lawful zone you'd never be allowed to do that.

Lawful zones

What happen if the killing character don't have the money?

Almost certainly it will be possible to loot the corpse, so what happen then? the winner take the loser gear and pay the weregild selling it?

As apparently happened in other games we will have nude and penniless monks killing people with impunity while their alt or friend loot the corpse?

As you see it is easy to circumvent your solution.

Neutral zones

So the rich can pay to harass the other players with impunity. Return to square one, free harassment.

Chaotic zones

Free harassment again.

So your solution is to have people harassed freely?

Goblin Squad Member

Jeremiziah wrote:

Can someone explain why "PVP inside certain arenas" is an option that's not being explored?

There's lots and lots of room in a server for both PvEers and PVPers.

Non-consensual PvP is... I can't imagine why you'd ever want to make a game that allows it. I literally cannot imagine the draw. Consensual, instanced PvP is far, far superior. It allows those who prefer competition to compete. It allows those who want a purely collaborative experience to have one. It literally provides all of the benefits with none of the drawbacks.

Why on earth isn't this on the board? It should be.

Instanced PvP is, for many, terrible. You PvE yes? You want your actions and triumphs to be important and be persistent with the game world itself. Your guild owns a town? People might want to conquer that town, not be flown to a distant galaxy to fight a fight which has no result or influence on whats happening in the world we live in.

I will play Pathfinder if it has non-consensual PvP or if it has no PvP what so ever. But instancing PvP is something I can't stand; plainly because it absorbs all pvp activity into minigames and becomes the only source of PvP.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
stuff

So, instead of training my character and identifying with him I train 3-5-n characters (after all the basic game will be free) and cover all the activities the same.

If that is what I want I "teamwork" with myself.

You work with other people because it is more efficient and fun, not because the game try to force you to work with them.

Goblin Squad Member

Coldman wrote:
Jeremiziah wrote:

Can someone explain why "PVP inside certain arenas" is an option that's not being explored?

There's lots and lots of room in a server for both PvEers and PVPers.

Non-consensual PvP is... I can't imagine why you'd ever want to make a game that allows it. I literally cannot imagine the draw. Consensual, instanced PvP is far, far superior. It allows those who prefer competition to compete. It allows those who want a purely collaborative experience to have one. It literally provides all of the benefits with none of the drawbacks.

Why on earth isn't this on the board? It should be.

Instanced PvP is, for many, terrible. You PvE yes? You want your actions and triumphs to be important and be persistent with the game world itself. Your guild owns a town? People might want to conquer that town, not be flown to a distant galaxy to fight a fight which has no result or influence on whats happening in the world we live in.

I will play Pathfinder if it has non-consensual PvP or if it has no PvP what so ever. But instancing PvP is something I can't stand; plainly because it absorbs all pvp activity into minigames and becomes the only source of PvP.

I don't think he is necessaraly talking about instanced PK zones, but possibly physical territories. I also agree that a war should be an exception.

Lets say a system like this
Kingdom X's territory, kingdom X and a largely expansive area around it, with average resources available, is a non PK zone.

Neighboring kingdom, Kingdom Y, declares war on kingdom X, Kingdom Y can now attack kingdom X's players, attack it's city, damage it's walls, destroy raid pillage etc... Drawback, Kingdom Y can be attacked now by kingdom X, and possibly even have it so that it can be attacked by other cities that are not even at war with it currently as long as it's war status is enabled. X cannot Soley remove it's at war status without Y's consent however. Meanwhile wilderness territory, with very good resources, is complete anarchy, has potential very good rewards, but also very high risk from both unpredictable enemies, as well as bandits etc...

Liberty's Edge

You're correct, I am talking about physical territories. They need not be "in another galaxy". They could just as easily be "in (an instanced copy of) the gladitorial pits right in the center of town".

That kingdom idea is interesting. It would lead to a lot of alliances and the like.

Also, please note that there is nothing at all about the concept of instanced PvP that summarily eliminates the possibility of persistent PvE. Those two concepts are not exclusive of each other. Some creative thinking may be required.


Diego Rossi wrote:


Lawful zones

What happen if the killing character don't have the money?

Almost certainly it will be possible to loot the corpse, so what happen then? the winner take the loser gear and pay the weregild selling it?

As apparently happened in other games we will have nude and penniless monks killing people with impunity while their alt or friend loot the corpse?

As you see it is easy to circumvent your solution.

Neutral zones

So the rich can pay to harass the other players with impunity. Return to square one, free harassment.

Chaotic zones

Free harassment again.

So your solution is to have people harassed freely?

Actually, I already addressed part of your concerns about the lawful zones by saying it wouldn't be possible to loot player corpses in them. Which in reality is sensible... despite how most MMOs work it, looting a corpse is not an instantaneous task, so simply turning off that functionality within the area can easily be rationalized as "there wouldn't be enough time for anyone to loot that body here before the guards were summoned and interrupted them."

As far as a player not having the money to pay a weregild: I'd actually recommend that the system forcibly sell off their items at vendor trash values in order to generate the necessary funds. Hit their bank/home/what not, and target the most expensive items first. I think that if griefing meant you might loose your Uber-Weapon of Potency to pay off the penalties for doing it, a lot less people would be inclined to making attacks on another player in a lawful zone.

Now, nude and penniless monks? I admit I hadn't considered them, and don't really have a good suggestion on what to do. Possibly just apply the weregild to the account and charge them interest until they pay it off? Of course, if they're wandering around engaging in a murder-spree, they shouldn't be able to continue advancing as monks (because that's not lawful activity, really, now is it?).

Neutral zones are by definition not free harassment if people have to pay in order to harass others. The difference here is that the penalty a griefer is suffering is being returned to the system, which I think is actually probably a good thing, as it should help to deal with part of the problem of in game inflation, by removing in game money from circulation permanently. Perhaps failing to pay the bribes results in a character accumulating bounties that other players can kill them for? I'm not sure if a fire with fire mentality is a good thing though.

And Chaotic zones are free harassment, but guess what? That's exactly what chaos is all about. It's not like anyone has to go into those zones unless they want to... and really, it is not the place of the developers to protect you from your own choices, any more than it is your tabletop DMs

Goblin Squad Member

Couple of things you could do with structures to help steer the PvP... as long as you have no military structures your homestead is safe from razing (maybe even leading to adhoc trade cities with little more than bandits and bar fights to worry about). You could make the "limiter" something acceptable to those primarily to strictly interested in PvE.
Also you could have rich resources areas suitable for some sort of guild-house set up that becomes vulnerable and/or its resource sites become vulnerable to PvP attack a few hours a day. These areas would be less than ideal for gathering the more common resources which would open up trade and alt homesteads.


A Man In Black wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
What you can do in Pathfinder P&P, and what I want to see, is the ability to diversify at the cost of max potential. To make the lazy class level comparison, you can't be Fighter 10 Wizard 10 at level 10, but you CAN be Fighter 5, Wizard 5 at level 10.
Except that in Pathfinder, there's a cap at level 20, and a Fighter10/Wizard10 is awful.

This is true, and if it worked out exactly like that in PFO it would be a problem.

In my personal opinion, what would happen is the Red Mages (to steal a Final Fantasy term) would be training some martial skills and some mage skills. They would be good fighters in their chosen fields but less powerful overall, and they would be good spellcasters in their chosen fields, but less powerful overall.

That would be my choice. At any rate, there are dozens of different ways this could be handled properly (and several ways it could go badly, such as Wizard 10 Fighter 10.)

Goblinworks Founder

Jeremiziah wrote:


Can someone explain why "PVP inside certain arenas" is an option that's not being explored?

There's lots and lots of room in a server for both PvEers and PVPers.

Non-consensual PvP is... I can't imagine why you'd ever want to make a game that allows it. I literally cannot imagine the draw. Consensual, instanced PvP is far, far superior. It allows those who prefer competition to compete. It allows those who want a purely collaborative experience to have one. It literally provides all of the benefits with none of the drawbacks.

Why on earth isn't this on the board? It should be.

Because every other themepark MMO on the planet has explored that option. Pathfinder Online is targeting a different audience because the other audience is already playing World of Warcraft, Rift: Planes of Telara and soon to be Star Wars: The Old Republic and Guild Wars 2.

To even attempt to compete with these ip's at their own themepark/instanced games would be a waste of a good license.
The themepark MMO is hastily becoming nothing more than a foyer with instant portals to instanced dungeons or capture the flag games. They don't feel like MMO's anymore.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

So in regards to limiting the amount of greifing - would a system that

a_) only allows you to attack a player who is at least 1 level (or challenge rating or color coding - or whatever quantifiable stratification is employed) BETTER than you. This should mitigate that amount of "punking" or "bullying" if you will to people of lower level.
b_) Attempting to attack anyone not one level higher would prompt a "sparring/Dueling" inquiry to the "victim" to see if they wish to partake. Furthermore the "spar" agreement includes a "stake" (I.E -- to the death and winner can loot an item, to the disabled, or to the X% of one's health and winner gets XP or something like that).

This would allow PVP and not allow it to run-amok.

ALSO:
Include regions where it's "Free-game" for anyone to be attacked. This area should provide some of the best, most attractive or bountiful loot - meaning that people will have reason to go there for more than just killing or being killed by other players - but an incentive to go there, but also the most dangerous.

ALSO:
include factions where if you belong to them, you can attack and be attacked freely by people in certain other factions. (like Pathfinders vs Aspis Consortium); but not allowed to attack just anyone - only those of the opposed faction. Of course becoming part of such a faction that predisposes you to possibly being punked by another faction should provide some in-game benefits to make the risk worth it.

I play LOTRO and love it - it allows for sparring requests which definitely prevents "griefing". I personally play to enjoy some free exploration of the world, enjoy the story of it, earning reputation in the goodly factions, and crafting. I am not a diehard gamer by any stretch, I have poor control over game interfaces (slow to react on the keyboard etc), and not inclined or driven enough to read/learn/know all the "best optimized builds" - I just want to immerse myself and escape the real world for a time so that I can "roleplay the part of a hero" for a couple hours. This is to the point that if there WERE griefers in the game, it would directly interfere in my fun - and I would probably not pay for an ongoing subscription that I currently do. I know I'm not alone - probably close to a majority in this mindset, and thus Paizo's business practice has always been to never disinclude a particular type/style/preference of gamer; I'm sure it will hold true in an MMO with their name on it also - which means it will have to cater to all sorts. Any one type that is disenfranchised directly affects their profit margin negatively.

However there is an area within that LotRO game that allows you to be part of the opposition: in the Ettenmoors, you can play the part of an orc or Warg or other servant of the Shadow and go about with others and kill PCs. Players who go there know that this is a hostile area and risk being punked by a group of the Shadow's forces. But there are rewards there too, and places to seek respite. This area is in addition to the ability to request a spar.

Some other notes:

What is a "greycon"? I keep seeing this term used.

I play on LotRO with 7 different characters. Each one has a unique name and identity, and serves a different style of play; five of them are adventuring types, and 2 are simply crafters. The five different adventuring characters give me a varied level spectrum to allow me to play in an area, or with a group, or with certain friends and family of a given level so as to be appropriate for the group. Other times I just feel like casting spells, and other times shooting ranged weapons, and other times healing, and other times crushing; so it just depends on my mood. But I wouldn't dream of making a main character and then a bunch of ALTS with similar names etc - that would be boring. None of my friends or family that also play the game do so either. Then again, perhaps that game specifically attracts that type of player that wouldn't. I don't know

Finally - I really like the "reputation" idea that "killers, and thieves" will eventually get a bad rep and among others; not sure if it's achievable without obvious abuse, but the notion is pretty darn cool. Just like in Real Life there are companies that get a bad rep for their business practices: Real estate agencies, lawyer offices, banks, and even some certain Fantasy RPG publishers for instance all obtain bad rep and people then choose whether or not they wish to do business with them; in the case of an MMO - perhaps people will hesitate to let them into their fellowship for adventuring, or what have you.

Neverwinter Nights game had an alignment system that had an numeric value - as you did quests the alignment shifted based on how you responded to NPCs, and what you demanded as compensation for your heroisms. This is something worth exploring, too. My playstyle would always wind up with "good" characters because that's just the type of player I am - I believe Fantasy RPGs are meant to be for hero players - the good vs the bad-guys. I respect that my preference isnt the way all people view it or prefer it - but definitely my style is to play the good guys for sure. As DM - I never allow "evil" characters because someone on here said it best - when afforded the opportunity MOST players allowed to play evil characters DO play them sociopathically and it winds up destroying the campaign.

Robert


Robert Brambley wrote:
What is a "greycon"? I keep seeing this term used.

Granted I haven't touched an MMO in years, but Greycon was an opponent too far below your level to be a challenge/credible threat. This was generally indicated with the color grey. .

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Robert Brambley wrote:
What is a "greycon"? I keep seeing this term used.

"Con" is short for "consider", a DikuMUD (and, later, Everquest) term for a command to determine how hard an enemy is, relative to your level. Everquest labeled enemies with colors, ranging from "red" (it will just murder you) to "grey" (helpless before your might). Hence, "grey - con".

A "greycon" foe is someone who is so much lower level than you that they're basically helpless. Ganking greycons (in a PVP context) is killing other players who are much lower level than you are.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

A Man In Black wrote:
Robert Brambley wrote:
What is a "greycon"? I keep seeing this term used.

"Con" is short for "consider", a DikuMUD (and, later, Everquest) term for a command to determine how hard an enemy is, relative to your level. Everquest labeled enemies with colors, ranging from "red" (it will just murder you) to "grey" (helpless before your might). Hence, "grey - con".

A "greycon" foe is someone who is so much lower level than you that they're basically helpless. Ganking greycons (in a PVP context) is killing other players who are much lower level than you are.

Thats some of the worst kind of PVPers IMO. Thats why i previously suggested the ability only "gank" a character 1 level better than you (or color coding or whatever); anyone else you try to "gank" gets a prompted question appear that "IGankYou331 wishes to spar - do you accept: NO, Yes-to the death, Yes-to the disabled"

Robert

Goblin Squad Member

Robert Brambley wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:
Robert Brambley wrote:
What is a "greycon"? I keep seeing this term used.

"Con" is short for "consider", a DikuMUD (and, later, Everquest) term for a command to determine how hard an enemy is, relative to your level. Everquest labeled enemies with colors, ranging from "red" (it will just murder you) to "grey" (helpless before your might). Hence, "grey - con".

A "greycon" foe is someone who is so much lower level than you that they're basically helpless. Ganking greycons (in a PVP context) is killing other players who are much lower level than you are.

Thats some of the worst kind of PVPers IMO. Thats why i previously suggested the ability only "gank" a character 1 level better than you (or color coding or whatever); anyone else you try to "gank" gets a prompted question appear that "IGankYou331 wishes to spar - do you accept: NO, Yes-to the death, Yes-to the disabled"

Robert

Well I would say the 1 level better is going to be difficult considering PFO is going to be a skill system, and thus no levels. It also doesn't eliminate many issues as abusive ganks are just as possible. In fact opens up possible scenerios that are worse. You go out to hunt a boss monster, you see a known bandit just watching you. You can't do anything about the bandit since he's lower then you. You fight the boss, kill it with only 10% of your HP remaining (or maybe haven't even killed the boss yet), the bandit strikes, you are boned.

Also even if level and capabilities are clearly defined, numbers are not. 10 gankers teaming up to hunt individual players higher then themselves are still at a strong advantage. All a level system does is give gankers tricks to hide behind to turn it into a 1 way system that they can use to avoid retaliation.

Open PK does have advantages to preventing things assuming they lose more then they gain if they are killed after making a kill. Just using level numbers because that is easier to explain with.

level 10 ganker kills level 5, loots 200g. 3 level 15's from level 5's guild rush to the scene and kill the ganker costing the ganker 1000g in repairs/resurection cost. Ganker takes a huge loss and rethinks ganking someone in that area again.

151 to 200 of 389 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Ideas for mechanics in an open PvP system that discourage griefing. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.