Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So either have proper Open PvP, or have it seccluded to pre-determined areas. But whichever option is taken, it has to be done with the idea that it is supposed to be a desired thing for the game, not a burden.
You need to attach a burden to random player killing, otherwise it will grow out of control and alienate 90% of players. This scenario has existed in past MMORPGs as it becomes the case that being classed as a murderer and randomly killing players, in the case of experienced players, becomes almost easier than not doing it. It becomes a PvP switch and all PvPers become red and simply prey on the weak and eachother as they risk no more than a player who chooses to abide by morality. Thus the weak can be killed and looted by experienced players and do nothing about it. Should they hunt down and kill this player, they do not really one up him as he will just come back.
You're alienating all but the hardcore PvPers. Please see Darkfall Online for such a failure.
Open PvP is there to emulate risk versus reward in the sense of replicating a dangerous world. This was the triumph of the system. True open PvP in WoW where there is no risk is a laughing stock. There is literally no point to it. World of Warcraft features faction versus faction PvP and this will doubtless take place all over the place for those who wish it in PFO. Open PvP in the sense of generalised non-consensual PvP needs policing, simple as.
Consider an MMORPG which had full loot, open, non consensual PvP, no policing of random player killers and one which would survive 15 minutes in 2011? Again see the failure that is Darkfall Online.
The point here is to accomplish non consensual, open PvP on a single server, welcome to both PvE and PvP players. This is possible and exists now in certain MMORPGs. People need to stop enforcing their own playstyles on others and realising that both can go co-exist and benefit eachother in creating a rich and diverse community, not to mention a great game. Separate servers is a poor fix.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The stubbornness is shown from the people who are anti-pvp.
When you are being corpse camped you essentially have two options and only one of them include playing on the current character.
Option one, get friends to help.
Option two, play on another character.
It is pretty simple, it is not like you lose any progress unless you do drop items/lose EXP. Your character will still be there for later to play.
I so hope you are trolling.
People are not willing to play a game in which other players dictate how and when they play their character. Games which play into the hands of sociopathic behaviour are outdated.
Also, it has been suggested that it is possible that you will drop items upon death.
Corpse camping is griefing. You can have non consensual PvP and eradicate corpse camping.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well most the penalties I've suggested are similar to that, Every time you die you lose a percentage of your TOTAL XP and/or skills, (Not the nerfed percentage of distance between this level and the next, but actual total time playing). While technically not as much of a hinderance due to the level, you factor in for a new player, it is merely a few minutes setback, while for someone high leveled that could be days/weeks of work.
and yeah an exception to that rule should be during declared wars, which should take at least 24 hours of warning to go into effect (IE permit both sides to load up their defense warn their crafters to hide etc...
Stat-loss is indeed an option, although I think it's a last ditch and extremely poorly thought out option. You have to then ask the question of how far you're going to go in terms of punishing someone's play style. Especially a play style the game permits. If you allow a server with Open PvP but penalize PvPers that heavily, likewise you should penalize PvEers with some equally significant form of death penalty. Either way, it will not stop people from continuing with either action.
The month in jail option is just silly. It'd be an easy way to lose a paying customer from a game. You might as well just not have any form of murdering if that's the case (and that's clearly not what's currently being planned for PFO).
Ultimately, I see the only true option to cure the division is to simply have separate servers with different rule sets. It's the only way to appease both sides. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the current business plan. From previous posts it seems that we'll be looking at a single server with a single set of mechanics and rules. Unless something changes, it looks like those who are on the consensual side of the fence will either have to stick to the safe areas, or be out of luck in general.
My suggestion was XP/Skill loss is an overall suggestion towards the whole game, I don't consider it going out of the way to punishing the PVPer, only to prevent PKing with no concern for what happens if you are killed back. Odds are if you kill out in the middle of the wilderness, help will not arrive anytime soon. If you attempt to kill 5 or 6 newbies in town before inevitably getting slaughtered, that should be a highly punished offense. PKing should allow the possibility of reward without a guaranteed penelty for getting it. But encouraging a system of gain for no loss, or an even gain/loss rate (IE Kill 1 person who is off guard, +1, get killed by his friend -1 break even) type system will just lead to the point of endless griefing.
PKing near the mine you are after in the middle of nowhere, or going for a rare boss that is almost never seen, or whatever, should be a valid option. PKing newbies and people in the low/risk low reward area, should cost significantly more then it gains 9 out of 10 times.
The low risk low reward areas, should be just that low risk. Any system that it is common to lose nothing when attacking in those areas, changes it to high risk as people will have little reason to fear killing the people who want nothing to do with PVP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My suggestion was XP/Skill loss is an overall suggestion towards the whole game, I don't consider it going out of the way to punishing the PVPer, only to prevent PKing with no concern for what happens if you are killed back. Odds are if you kill out in the middle of the wilderness, help will not arrive anytime soon. If you attempt to kill 5 or 6 newbies in town before inevitably getting slaughtered, that should be a highly punished offense. PKing should allow the possibility of reward without a guaranteed penelty for getting it. But encouraging a system of gain for no loss, or an even gain/loss rate (IE Kill 1 person who is off guard, +1, get killed by his friend -1 break even) type system will just lead to the point of endless griefing.
PKing near the mine you are after in the middle of nowhere, or going for a rare boss that is almost never seen, or whatever, should be a valid option. PKing newbies and people in the low/risk low reward area, should cost significantly more then it gains 9 out of 10 times.
The low risk low reward areas, should be just that low risk. Any system that it is common to lose nothing when attacking in those areas, changes it to high risk as people will have little reason to fear killing the people who want nothing to do with PVP.
The problem with attaching your newbie stipulation is this. Eventually people will break the system. If there's some sort of system put in place that killing a new player gives you a much harsher penalty, then everyone will start having newbie escorts out in the wilderness. Throw a newb character into the fray against a PKer, and the PKer is going to end up killing the newb. At that point, you're going to have a system of baiting going on. Unless that is then coded around. And killing people outside of area x gives a harsher penalty. But then you're adding on silly amounts of programming to fix a problem that should be a much more simple fix.
As I've stated before, I have no issue with low risk/protected areas. But there has to be a line. Have protected areas actually protected. Make it nigh impossible to kill people in there. But once outside of that area, it should be open season.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I see the intent of PvP as a tool for RP, not THE tool for RP (much like war is a tool of politics, but is a last resort tool). The trick is to establish a game that has reasonable PvP mechanics but discourages spam killing low level players.
Many PnP games discourage players from engaging in combat with low level creatures by not awarding experience for those encounters. PFO might establish a similar mechanic regarding PvP. Granted, jerk players might not care about the lack of xp, so maybe an xp penalty for killing a player that is a lower challenge rating (for lack of another descriptor), and the amount of penalty scales for the disparity in level. On the flip side, if a lower level player attacks you, and you kill him, you are not penalized but rewarded with the proper xp. I guess the intent should be to discourage unfair PvP.
A compromise such as this would still allow PvP, and such PvP would be relatively "fair", but would discourage the lopsided PvP that people seem to be frustrated with.
EDIT: I took out the last sentence because it was unnecessary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it just me, or do we have 3 or 4 different threads in this forum about this exact same topic?
Yup. Every thread basically boils down to PvP (consensual/non consensual), and what to do about griefers.
I stopped posting about it because there simply isn't enough information to have a good discussion about it. We are all taking vague terms such as "sandbox" and "pvp" and merely stating our perceptions on what that actually means as fact.
"You don't understand" "No, YOU don't understand!" "You're stupid!" "YOU'RE stupid!" "You're a towel!" "YOU'RE A TOWEL!"
Is it just me, or do we have 3 or 4 different threads in this forum about this exact same topic?
Yup. Every thread basically boils down to PvP (consensual/non consensual), and what to do about griefers.
I stopped posting about it because there simply isn't enough information to have a good discussion about it. We are all taking vague terms such as "sandbox" and "pvp" and merely stating our perceptions on what that actually means as fact.
"You don't understand" "No, YOU don't understand!" "You're stupid!" "YOU'RE stupid!" "You're a towel!" "YOU'RE A TOWEL!"
OH YES! I am a pretty pretty beach towel, the kind that is more for decoration than for drying off.
I am not an MMO'er, at least not yet anyway, but my friends keep trying to bring me onboard so I do have potential interest in this.
My solution in another thread was to have PvP characters and non-PvE characters. You select the option at character creation as to whether or not you want your character to be able to participate in PvP.
Another idea is to be able to turn it on and off. I also had an idea to stop someone from being able to turn if off if they were about to die so they can't abuse the system. I can't seem to find the post though.
Until I find the old post I would suggest that once you log on in PvE or PvP mode you stay that way until your next login.
For those who would logout while they are about to die in order to avoid the consequences the individual's character can still be alive in the game world for X amount of time after you log out or a marker could be placed on the person marking them as having logged out, and the other players can just plunder their character for all of its belongings. That is a worse punishment that death IMHO, but cheating should have consequences.
For those who would logout while they are about to die in order to avoid the consequences the individual's character can still be alive in the game world for X amount of time after you log out or a marker could be placed on the person marking them as having logged out, and the other players can just plunder their character for all of its belongings. That is a worse punishment that death IMHO, but cheating should have consequences.
In WOW, when you log out, your character sits down and crosses her legs, and a timer begins. This makes logging out to avoid death pointless, as logging out takes about 20 seconds, and your character is vulnerable during that time, as she cannot take any actions. PFO could very easily make use of such a system.
I'm not sure if I like the idea of looting. I get attached to my gear in RPGs. Give the killer a monetary award, maybe deducted from the dead person's cash? Yes. Give them the dead person's gear? I don't like that idea.
|
For those who would logout while they are about to die in order to avoid the consequences the individual's character can still be alive in the game world for X amount of time after you log out or a marker could be placed on the person marking them as having logged out, and the other players can just plunder their character for all of its belongings. That is a worse punishment that death IMHO, but cheating should have consequences.In WOW, when you log out, your character sits down and crosses her legs, and a timer begins. This makes logging out to avoid death pointless, as logging out takes about 20 seconds, and your character is vulnerable during that time, as she cannot take any actions. PFO could very easily make use of such a system.
I'm not sure if I like the idea of looting. I get attached to my gear in RPGs. Give the killer a monetary award, maybe deducted from the dead person's cash? Yes. Give them the dead person's gear? I don't like that idea.
In Rift, when you kill another player, you loot the corpse. None of their gear is taken. The game generates coin or loot items depending on level of player killed. In some of the warfronts, when a high rank PvP er is killed, purple gear drops and folk get to roll for it. This is the best "Loot the dead" concept I've ever seen in a PvP game. It rewards the player who won, but doesn't strip the dead player of their gear, which would in turn make them more vulnerable to being killed again. I'm hoping this is the type of system that PFO will implement.
Cheers
For those who would logout while they are about to die in order to avoid the consequences the individual's character can still be alive in the game world for X amount of time after you log out or a marker could be placed on the person marking them as having logged out, and the other players can just plunder their character for all of its belongings. That is a worse punishment that death IMHO, but cheating should have consequences.In WOW, when you log out, your character sits down and crosses her legs, and a timer begins. This makes logging out to avoid death pointless, as logging out takes about 20 seconds, and your character is vulnerable during that time, as she cannot take any actions. PFO could very easily make use of such a system.
I'm not sure if I like the idea of looting. I get attached to my gear in RPGs. Give the killer a monetary award, maybe deducted from the dead person's cash? Yes. Give them the dead person's gear? I don't like that idea.
In Rift, when you kill another player, you loot the corpse. None of their gear is taken. The game generates coin or loot items depending on level of player killed. In some of the warfronts, when a high rank PvP er is killed, purple gear drops and folk get to roll for it. This is the best "Loot the dead" concept I've ever seen in a PvP game. It rewards the player who won, but doesn't strip the dead player of their gear, which would in turn make them more vulnerable to being killed again. I'm hoping this is the type of system that PFO will implement.
Cheers
This is a looting the dead guy system i can deal with heck it even encoursages the PVPers to kill each other instead of the guy who is just outside to mine ore.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The problem with attaching your newbie stipulation is this. Eventually people will break the system. If there's some sort of system put in place that killing a new player gives you a much harsher penalty, then everyone will start having newbie escorts out in the wilderness. Throw a newb character into the fray against a PKer, and the PKer is going to end up killing the newb. At that point, you're going to have a system of baiting going on. Unless that is then coded around. And killing people outside of area x gives a harsher penalty. But then you're adding on silly amounts of programming to fix a problem that should be a much more simple fix.
As I've stated before, I have no issue with low risk/protected areas. But there has...
You've completely misinterpreted what I've been trying to say. I never implied a harsher penalty if you kill a new player. I said a consistent penalty upon death via any cause that's harshness is determined by your power level. IE a consistent percentage of your total skill points.
IE the newbie who was killed, will still recieve a penelty to his death that is .25% of the total XP/skillpoints he has earned on his character, if he is ganked. However since he is a newbie, that's 0.25% of what he has earned in the week or so he has been playing (assuming skills level 24/7 that is 25 minutes he has been set back) and thus the time it is, can be made back in minutes. Now the much more experienced ganker who had been playing for a year, 0.25% of his total, is much larger and equates to a few days worth of work being set back, since he was more experienced he should have known the risks, and either had a good escape plan, or been ready for the consequences of his action.
Griefing a newbie and griefing an equal have no harsher penelties involved in either, except the location you are greifing in may or may not have a lower chance of getting killed. IE killing someone near his hometown, means his friends are far more likely to come after you, while killing someone who is alone 30 minutes away from civilization, it is highly unlikely that anyone is near to successfully avenge him.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You need to attach a burden to random player killing, otherwise it will grow out of control and alienate 90% of players. This scenario has existed in past MMORPGs as it becomes the case that being classed as a murderer and randomly killing players, in the case of experienced players, becomes almost easier than not doing it. It becomes a PvP switch and all PvPers become red and simply prey on the weak and eachother as they risk no more than a player who chooses to abide by morality. Thus the weak can be killed and looted by experienced players and do nothing about it. Should they hunt down and kill this player, they do not really one up him as he will just come back.You're alienating all but the hardcore PvPers. Please see Darkfall Online for such a failure.
Open PvP is there to emulate risk versus reward in the sense of replicating a dangerous world. This was the triumph of the system. True open PvP in WoW where there is no risk is a laughing stock. There is literally no point to it. World of Warcraft features faction versus faction PvP and this will doubtless take place all over the place for those who wish it in PFO. Open PvP in the sense of generalised non-consensual PvP needs policing, simple as.
Consider an MMORPG which had full loot, open, non consensual PvP, no policing of random player killers and one which would survive 15 minutes in 2011? Again see the failure that is Darkfall Online.
The point here is to accomplish non consensual, open PvP on a single server, welcome to both PvE and PvP players. This is possible and exists now in certain MMORPGs. People need to stop enforcing their own playstyles on others and realising that both can go co-exist and benefit eachother in creating a rich and diverse community, not to mention a great game....
I'm pretty sure Darkfall failed because of poor implementation of everything, not because of Open PvP. EVE is a very succesful case of Open PvP without arbitrary penalties. And WoW Open PvP was pretty fun back in the days before Battlegrounds, I have to admit (and while there were some penalties involved, which were eventually lifted due to how problematic they became, for the most it was heading in a great direction. For as much as I enjoyed my years in Alterac Valley, I would have loved if the game had kept the original idea of Open PvP with zone control battles).
Anyway, I disgress. I think you missinterpreted my point. I did not say that I want a game were people can freely kill everyone all the time; I said that applying arbitrary penalties on people for killing other people, in a game that is supposed to support Open PvP, seems counterproductive to me. Punishing people for doing what the game is telling them they can do is like trying to fill a bucket with one hand and empty it with the other.
If you are going to punish people for doing Open PvP, then don't do Open PvP; do it Flagged, or Instanced, or don't do it at all. But you don't hand kids a toy and say "Here, play with it. But I'll slap you every time you use it".
Instead, I'd vow for restrictions to Open PvP, rather than punishment, means that would allow PvPers and PvErs to peacefully coexist.
My favourite system, which is the one often used and the simplest one, are sepparate regions: Zones A, B, and C only allow Flagged PvP (or no PvP at all), while zones D, E, and F allow Open PvP. But rather than having A, B, and C as the low-level zones and D, E, and F as the high-level ones, have A and D be low, B and E medium, and C and F high-level. That way you essentially offer two paths for players, one in which they can enjoy the PvE content without worrying about sneak attacks, and another where they can enjoy another part of the PvE content but with the added risk of sneak attacks. And instead of separate servers (which is a measure I've always disliked), all in the same map.
That is why I mentioned WAR's PvP Lakes: The world was divided in 4 Tiers (depending on the level), each with a big instanced map, and inside each map, portions of the territory were marked with a red overlay on the map (hence the term "Lakes", as they were usually geographically limited by cliffs, hills, and rivers, so as to be easily recognizable and avoid people accidentally entering/exiting them). As soon as you stepped into one of those lakes, you automatically went into Open PvP mode (though only against the opposing faction) and became free game; and when you stepped outside, you were given some seconds before you went back to normal. Guards were posted on most of the potential exists-access (where there were usually command posts, campments and such), with heavy artillery included, so to avoid opposing factions from camping outside the door and slaughtering everyone that came in.
So my whole point is: Yes to restricting how, where, and when can Open PvP happen, since the ideal scenario is one that can include both PvPers and PvErs in the same server, and No to punishing the act of killing another player, which scolds people for doing something they are being told they can do.
Me, I'm a fan of MMOs. I'm a big fan of PvE and usually solo. I've tried plenty of MMOs - Lineage II, LotRO, DDO, EVE, WoW, EQ and others. I've dipped my toe into PvP a number of times and each time had it burned.
That said, I can see its merit. As long as it's clearly marked and I can avoid it, then I only have myself to blame if I venture into it unprepared. That's probably the key - "unprepared".
The biggest danger is one expressed elsewhere - when a single guild, clan, whatever, gets "too big". In other words they "own" an area, possibly even most of the zone, and your only option is to join it or die. This works in EVE, but it would be the death knell for PFO. We don't want to end up with a re-run of Thassilon! It's okay to carve out a keep or two but beyond that it begins to ruin the suspension of disbelief...for me, anyway.
Goblinworks Founder
|
I am not overly fond of losing things, but, if gear is not ever lost, you will have a difficult time constructing a viable in game economy. And I think that is a very very important part of a sandbox game.
In EvE you lose everything you are carrying when your ship is lost. Having lost a billion ISK ship more than once I can tell you it is not a great experience. However, you learn to manage that risk. You only fly what you can afford to lose. You only go into PvP areas if you can afford to lose. You learn how to gear and fly your ship in hostile territory and use stealth ships to scout the route. Remember when Mom told you that you should never going swimming without a buddy. If one is paying attention and playing correctly, it is very very difficult for someone to gank you even in the most hostile space.
With the zone concept you can also choose not to have a chance to lose anything.
That said, I do recognize this kind of play is not for everyone. But again, you do have to consider the information presented on MMO subscription base and clearly EvE is doing something right.
Lastly, I can't even get my brain wrapped around a sandbox style game without rich PvP content. Given that there will not be a lot of theme park style questing, what the heck would everyone be doing?
It's good to see personal experiences from games like EvE here. I like the idea of looting because it encourages you to travel light, travel smart and travel safe.
I've never liked how in so many games you can run around at full speed with 4 complete armor sets spread out among 4 or 5 back packs, thousands of gold coins, 4 dozen first aid kits, 2 dozen ready made meals, a horse, the family cat and a pickaxe all in addition to what you already wear.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Klaus van der Kroft
Your missing my point. You punish random player killing in open PvP because there is full loot of player bodies. Random player kills make up a small minority of the playerbase, other players craft, hunt monsters etc. Assuming these two groups of players operate in the same game world, the carebears will be hunted for their loot. You need to balance this. I come from the world of UO where reds would wait outside town to feed on the inventories of newbies, not the world of Azeroth where people roll eachother for pointless fun. If this game is going to feature full or partial loot and non consensual PvP, forget everything you know about themepark PvP immediately.
Ryan has mentioned that we should expect some level of looting to take place in this game. He has also mentioned that open pvp will feature.
When you allow players to murder other players in non consensual PvP and loot their gear, you have to balance it out with a punishment should they be caught/killed in the act. I am not saying punish them for committing the act, I am saying punish them for being caught and killed in the act.
This system of punishment exists in a metaphorical world in which both carebears and random player killers exist in the same areas; its a means to balance this environment. Think of Eve. RPKs are punished for the cost of their stuff should they suicide gank a player in highsec automatically. They are not punished in 0.0. This is more what I am talking about.
You're correct and I didn't quite say what I meant in regard to Darkfall. Open PvP was done very well in Darkfall, although it failed in so many other areas I got carried away with myself in claiming it a failure.
I'm not posting on this subject anymore as players come from too many backgrounds and have their own impression on what PFO may or may not be like. We also share totally different ideas that it's almost impossible to hit a common ground without writing books and exchanging them with eachothers.
|
@Klaus van der Kroft
Your missing my point. You punish random player killing in open PvP because there is full loot of player bodies. Random player kills make up a small minority of the playerbase, other players craft, hunt monsters etc. Assuming these two groups of players operate in the same game world, the carebears will be hunted for their loot. You need to balance this.
Ryan has mentioned that we should expect some level of looting to take place in this game. He has also mentioned that open pvp will feature.
When you allow players to murder other players in non consensual PvP and loot their gear, you have to balance it out with a punishment should they be caught/killed in the act. I am not saying punish them for committing the act, I am saying punish them for being caught and killed in the act.
This system of punishment exists in a metaphorical world in which both carebears and random player killers exist in the same areas; its a means to balance this environment.
I'm not posting on this subject anymore as players come from too many backgrounds and have their own impression on what PFO may or may not be like. We also share totally different ideas that it's almost impossible to hit a common ground without writing books and exchanging them with eachothers.
I think that you are forgetting that this is a sandbox game.
PvP isn't just part of the game. In a sense it is the game.
Punishment will come not because you killed a player, but because you killed a player who belongs to a faction that will then hunt and kill you for killing a player.
If you kill at random (without purpose) you will be killed by other players, because you will not have support or protection.
Think mafia/gang rather than dungeon diving for loot drops.
I hope I actually like any of the factions that are in game. Not sure I could play often enough to create my own, and I'd rather play with cool people.
|
|
I hope I actually like any of the factions that are in game. Not sure I could play often enough to create my own, and I'd rather play with cool people.
I think that is part of why they are using the river kingdoms rather than some place like Varisia.
By it's nature, it is in constant flux. If a faction is full of jerks, people will quit to join another faction.
Ryan posted the faction movement that occurred in Eve in another thread to demonstrate how such things aren't static.
It isn't just being in a faction, it is about shifting alliances, wars and such.
You'll pick sides, but sides will change. Just like real life.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The problem with attaching your newbie stipulation is this. Eventually people will break the system. If there's some sort of system put in place that killing a new player gives you a much harsher penalty, then everyone will start having newbie escorts out in the wilderness. Throw a newb character into the fray against a PKer, and the PKer is going to end up killing the newb. At that point, you're going to have a system of baiting going on. Unless that is then coded around. And killing people outside of area x gives a harsher penalty. But then you're adding on silly amounts of programming to fix a problem that should be a much more simple fix.
As I've stated before, I have no issue with low risk/protected areas. But there has...
You've completely misinterpreted what I've been trying to say. I never implied a harsher penalty if you kill a new player. I said a consistent penalty upon death via any cause that's harshness is determined by your power level. IE a consistent percentage of your total skill points.
IE the newbie who was killed, will still recieve a penelty to his death that is .25% of the total XP/skillpoints he has earned on his character, if he is ganked. However since he is a newbie, that's 0.25% of what he has earned in the week or so he has been playing (assuming skills level 24/7 that is 25 minutes he has been set back) and thus the time it is, can be made back in minutes. Now the much more experienced ganker who had been playing for a year, 0.25% of his total, is much larger and equates to a few days worth of work being set back, since he was more experienced he should have known the risks, and either had a good escape plan, or been ready for the consequences of his action.
Griefing a newbie and griefing an equal have no harsher penelties involved in either, except the location you are greifing in may or may not have a lower chance of getting killed. IE killing someone near his hometown, means his friends are far more likely to come after you, while killing...
Ok, I see what you're saying now. I misunderstood before. But basically you're up for more harshly punishing your more experienced long time players. Which is an awful idea from however you look at it.
And if that does happen, I can just give you the inevitable outcome: A rotating stream of weaker, newer characters in the hands of experienced players that will just constantly prey on newer people. Once the penalty starts getting too much to be worth it, delete the character and start anew. You haven't actually fixed anything. Just changed the methods.
For those who would logout while they are about to die in order to avoid the consequences the individual's character can still be alive in the game world for X amount of time after you log out or a marker could be placed on the person marking them as having logged out, and the other players can just plunder their character for all of its belongings. That is a worse punishment that death IMHO, but cheating should have consequences.In WOW, when you log out, your character sits down and crosses her legs, and a timer begins. This makes logging out to avoid death pointless, as logging out takes about 20 seconds, and your character is vulnerable during that time, as she cannot take any actions. PFO could very easily make use of such a system.
I'm not sure if I like the idea of looting. I get attached to my gear in RPGs. Give the killer a monetary award, maybe deducted from the dead person's cash? Yes. Give them the dead person's gear? I don't like that idea.
In Rift, when you kill another player, you loot the corpse. None of their gear is taken. The game generates coin or loot items depending on level of player killed. In some of the warfronts, when a high rank PvP er is killed, purple gear drops and folk get to roll for it. This is the best "Loot the dead" concept I've ever seen in a PvP game. It rewards the player who won, but doesn't strip the dead player of their gear, which would in turn make them more vulnerable to being killed again. I'm hoping this is the type of system that PFO will implement.
Cheers
The fact that it would be hated so much is why I think it should be done. The looting is only for those that log out not for losing a fight. If you die while logged in you can't be looted.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that you are forgetting that this is a sandbox game.
PvP isn't just part of the game. In a sense it is the game.
Punishment will come not because you killed a player, but because you killed a player who belongs to a faction that will then hunt and kill you for killing a player.
If you kill at random (without purpose) you will be killed by other players, because you will not have support or protection.
Think mafia/gang rather than dungeon diving for loot drops.
Problem is that sort of points at Eve and I really don't think that Eve's system of player response produces a reasonable world that I want to play in.
I'm imagining a mafia/game game where everyone shoots on sight outside the "safe zone" and that isn't the River Kingdoms that I know.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok, I see what you're saying now. I misunderstood before. But basically you're up for more harshly punishing your more experienced long time players. Which is an awful idea from however you look at it.And if that does happen, I can just give you the inevitable outcome: A rotating stream of weaker, newer characters in the hands of experienced players that will just constantly prey on newer people. Once the penalty starts getting too much to be worth it, delete the character and start anew. You haven't actually fixed anything. Just changed the methods.
A newbie weak griefer, can't or shouldn't be able to accomplish much. His skills on their own would be too low, the town guards would knock him out in a heartbeat if he were trying it near a city, and the pickings themselves would be very slim. After 1-2 kills, then they would become KOS (Kill on sight) for the veteran players in the area, and thus would have to hang out in areas outside of town, or near cities that have a lax policy on murder, both of which are places where people who want nothing to do with PVP, will not have to be near. Now a high level player can make occasional Get in get a kill or 2 and get out tactics on a rare occasion, but once he does, it would most likely be unwise for him to revisit the same area again in the near future. This method allows occasional killing, but it strongly discourages someone from becoming a regular pain in the ass in the same location and completely ruining an individual or a group of people's fun. Becoming a roaming pain in the rear that does not stick around long enough to become memorable in one place, would be fully possible, and actually that could turn very exciting if bounty hunters had some way to possibly track or chase after the wandering menace. Could turn into an exciting game of cat and mouse across the world.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that you are forgetting that this is a sandbox game.
PvP isn't just part of the game. In a sense it is the game.
Punishment will come not because you killed a player, but because you killed a player who belongs to a faction that will then hunt and kill you for killing a player.
If you kill at random (without purpose) you will be killed by other players, because you will not have support or protection.
Think mafia/gang rather than dungeon diving for loot drops.
Problem is that sort of points at Eve and I really don't think that Eve's system of player response produces a reasonable world that I want to play in.
I'm imagining a mafia/game game where everyone shoots on sight outside the "safe zone" and that isn't the River Kingdoms that I know.
But that is the game that is coming.
Before, no one thought anything was coming.
Now you are getting this.
It actually is the River Kingdoms as written.
"The River Kingdoms of northeastern Avistan have long been a haven for inland pirates, anarchists, exiles, and anyone who can't seem to make it in more civilized nations. The Kingdoms are by no means a unified nation, but rather a constantly shifting group of city-states and fiefdoms, each at war with the others both to gain more power and to prevent their own demise."
http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/River_Kingdoms
They aren't going to make an instance based game like WoW for a few reasons.
1. Cost
2. Market is already filled.
This is why it is in the River Kingdoms and not Varisia. Because it is EXACTLY how the river kingdoms are envisioned to have a game with every changing loyalties, factions, etc...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Klaus van der Kroft
Your missing my point. You punish random player killing in open PvP because there is full loot of player bodies. Random player kills make up a small minority of the playerbase, other players craft, hunt monsters etc. Assuming these two groups of players operate in the same game world, the carebears will be hunted for their loot. You need to balance this. I come from the world of UO where reds would wait outside town to feed on the inventories of newbies, not the world of Azeroth where people roll eachother for pointless fun. If this game is going to feature full or partial loot and non consensual PvP, forget everything you know about themepark PvP immediately.
Ryan has mentioned that we should expect some level of looting to take place in this game. He has also mentioned that open pvp will feature.
When you allow players to murder other players in non consensual PvP and loot their gear, you have to balance it out with a punishment should they be caught/killed in the act. I am not saying punish them for committing the act, I am saying punish them for being caught and killed in the act.
This system of punishment exists in a metaphorical world in which both carebears and random player killers exist in the same areas; its a means to balance this environment. Think of Eve. RPKs are punished for the cost of their stuff should they suicide gank a player in highsec automatically. They are not punished in 0.0. This is more what I am talking about.
You're correct and I didn't quite say what I meant in regard to Darkfall. Open PvP was done very well in Darkfall, although it failed in so many other areas I got carried away with myself in claiming it a failure.
I'm not posting on this subject anymore as players come from too many backgrounds and have their own impression on what PFO may or may not be like. We also share totally different ideas that it's almost impossible to hit a common ground without writing books and exchanging them with eachothers.
I was tempered in the fires of UO PvP back in the day, trying to earn a living as a miner in Minoc. I suffered through all what one could suffer back then. I know perfectly well how a fully Open PvP with Full Looting game works. I cursed my good amount, but I also was well-aware of the risk I was taking.
And it only reinforces my argument that arbitrary punishment for PvP is pointless: If you want to add the feature of Open PvP with Full Loot, then why scold people for doing so? Better remove it and the problem is automatically fixed.
You can have PvPers and PvErs coexisting together without having to impose penalties for enjoying one of the aspects of the game. You can restrict it to certain circumstances and regions of the game, impose specific rules in certain zones to discourage or even completely block PvP, like High Sec areas in EVE or Protected Areas in WoW.
Just as the PvEr would hate to get into a game that tells him "You can spend your life as a crafter and be succesful without needing to raise a sword" and then see days of work wasted to a random PK, the PvPer would hate to get into a game that tells him "You can kill others and take their stuff" and then being punished for doing it. Interestingly, though, one situation was caused by something promoted by the game (getting killed), while the other is because that same promoted situation is simultaneously discouraged. So what gives? You don't describe a gun in the first chapter if you are not going to have it play a role in the book.
A far more elegant and effective situation is to simply give room for both playstiles to coexist in the same game world by having designated zones. That way, PvErs get to PvE in the PvE zones, PvPers get to PvP in the PvP zones, and both get the chance to move from one style to the other should they so chose. But don't slap the kid for eating the candy you just gave him. If you are going to do that, then just don't give him the candy.
Ryan has made it clear that if you do not engage in PVP, you will get very little out of the game. I asked him directly how important PVP would be and if I could play without it, and he said I would get the lowest possible reward out of the game if I did that.
Ryan has made it clear that if you do not engage in PVP, you will get very little out of the game. I asked him directly how important PVP would be and if I could play without it, and he said I would get the lowest possible reward out of the game if I did that.
Well that seems like the dropping point for me.
I don't feel too keen on a PvP-focused game either. Whether I want to or not, I WILL end up ruining someone's day, and someone will ruin my day by some part as well. Also, Kelsey and Talon, all three of us should prepare for the inevitable stealth troll carpet bombings that will come from us "quitting" the game despite the fact that different people have different tastes :D
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan has made it clear that if you do not engage in PVP, you will get very little out of the game. I asked him directly how important PVP would be and if I could play without it, and he said I would get the lowest possible reward out of the game if I did that.Well that seems like the dropping point for me.
Unfortunately, that's the way it goes. You have to put yourself at risk in the open PvP areas to take part in the most rewarding content.
You could stay in the low risk zones and play through the game, it'd just be far less rewarding. Here's the exact quote:
Will I be able to play through the game doing quests and exploring dungeons without ever engaging in PVP if I have no interest in joining a kingdom or faction or claiming territory or resources for myself?Your ability to do so will result in your character getting the lowest reward for the time spent - low (or no) risk means low reward.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that you are forgetting that this is a sandbox game.
PvP isn't just part of the game. In a sense it is the game.
Punishment will come not because you killed a player, but because you killed a player who belongs to a faction that will then hunt and kill you for killing a player.
If you kill at random (without purpose) you will be killed by other players, because you will not have support or protection.
Think mafia/gang rather than dungeon diving for loot drops.
Problem is that sort of points at Eve and I really don't think that Eve's system of player response produces a reasonable world that I want to play in.
I'm imagining a mafia/game game where everyone shoots on sight outside the "safe zone" and that isn't the River Kingdoms that I know.
But that is the game that is coming.
Before, no one thought anything was coming.
Now you are getting this.
It actually is the River Kingdoms as written.
"The River Kingdoms of northeastern Avistan have long been a haven for inland pirates, anarchists, exiles, and anyone who can't seem to make it in more civilized nations. The Kingdoms are by no means a unified nation, but rather a constantly shifting group of city-states and fiefdoms, each at war with the others both to gain more power and to prevent their own demise."
http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/River_Kingdoms
They aren't going to make an instance based game like WoW for a few reasons.
1. Cost
2. Market is already filled.This is why it is in the River Kingdoms and not Varisia. Because it is EXACTLY how the river kingdoms are envisioned to have a game with every changing loyalties, factions, etc...
From your link, to the pathfinder wiki, it isn't the River Kingdoms as written.
"While many inhabitants of the surrounding kingdoms think of the people of the River Kingdoms as back stabbing curs they are wrong as one of the codes of the River Freedoms is that oathbreaker must die (usually in a very painful manner), as a result most people from the River Kingdoms would die before they broke their word but are also very cautious about giving their word in the first place. The River Freedoms have a heavy influence on the lands inhabitants and almost all respect these freedoms as those who don't often suffer severe consequences."
If we look at Eve though, I would say that oathbreakers make up a number of the most successful members of the society. And respect for freedom isn't synonymous with shooting anyone on sight that isn't an ally.
WoW reference seems completely random and irrelevant to this.
I didn't say anything about changing loyalites, factions. I spoke specically about the fact that we would get that with just a safe zone and the rest of the world relying on only the response of other players. In that case I point at Eve as an example of that and it ISN'T the River Kingdoms I know nor the River Kingdoms that your link speaks about.
If some arrogant tyrant decided that all who weren't allied with him would be killed on sight, his kingdom should dry up within a fraction of the time it took to build their empire. If you try to build a kingdom and ignore the River Freedoms, then the will of the people of the River Kingdoms should be enforced and punish that kingdom.
You shouldn't be rewarded for that level of paranoia or punished for not having it.
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
In Rift, when you kill another player, you loot the corpse. None of their gear is taken. The game generates coin or loot items depending on level of player killed. In some of the warfronts, when a high rank PvP er is killed, purple gear drops and folk get to roll for it. This is the best "Loot the dead" concept I've ever seen in a PvP game. It rewards the player who won, but doesn't strip the dead player of their gear, which would in turn make them more vulnerable to being killed again. I'm hoping this is the type of system that PFO will implement.Cheers
This works in games like Rift and Warhammer because items are often sold to vendors or placed on the Auction house. These games revolve around randomly generated loot tables because they are games designed around loot.
We've already been told that Crafting will have the best items in the game, this creates the supply but no demand. How do you keep a tradesman employed? Player and Monster looting, item decay and even things like rust monsters all create a demand for items to be crafted. If Crafts people are needed to craft, then Harvesters and Adventurers are needed to harvest materials. If there are harvesters and adventurers, then monsters and player killers have something to loot and if there is stuff to loot, then those harvesters and adventurers are going to need gear to be crafted for them.
|
|
If some arrogant tyrant decided that all who weren't allied with him would be killed on sight, his kingdom should dry up within a fraction of the time it took to build their empire. If you try to build a kingdom and ignore the River Freedoms, then the will of the people of the River Kingdoms should be enforced and punish that kingdom.
You shouldn't be rewarded for that level of paranoia or punished for not having it.
And they likely will. If you build an area no one is willing to travel to for trade because of the dangers of travelling to your area, you probably will have major issues.
Some players will want to bring order to the chaos. Some players will want to bring chaos to order.
This is the internal conflict of the game.
The WoW analogy is for the people who don't seem to understand that the game isn't going to be an instance based dungeon delve. It will be a sandbox economic game me that has dungeons.
First person civilization.
|
|
This works in games like Rift and Warhammer because items are often sold to vendors or placed on the Auction house. These games revolve around randomly generated loot tables because they are games designed around loot.
We've already been told that Crafting will have the best items in the game, this creates the supply but no demand. How do you keep a tradesman employed? Player and Monster looting, item decay and even things like rust monsters all create a demand for items to be crafted. If Crafts people are needed to craft, then Harvesters and Adventurers are needed to harvest materials. If there are harvesters and adventurers, then monsters and player killers have something to loot and if there is stuff to loot, then those harvesters and adventurers are going to need gear to be crafted for them.
I think the idea is that no one player can craft everything, and that making choices to become a crafter will mean not making choices that make you powerful in other ways.
Much like when you play the table top game, the choices that lead to being a good crafter aren't the same as the choices that lead to being a good fighter. Add in a reasonable level cap and you find yourself in a situation where you are making hard choices that mean you are going to have to buy items you can't craft from people who can, likely by acquiring resources and trading them with the crafters for other resources.
Players will likely secure towns/fortifications by paying for defense of some sort, and these will be the places crafters set up shops. It could also be a place where central storage areas are placed, like banks, where players who don't have their own fortifications can store equipment/gold they don't want looted when they are out adventuring. And the banks will also need to be secured, likely in exchange for rent. On top of that you will have temples (that need to be secured) selling healing and other services (including removal of the level penalties that come with dying)...
And suddenly you have an economy.
Players leave the "secure" areas to get resources. Other players play bandits and attack them. These players likely become "wanted" and won't be secure in "secure" areas. So they will need to create their own fortifications and "secure" areas where they trade...which will be subject to attack from the "good" players...unless they are able to make disguise checks...etc...
I am intrigued they aren't just making a player vs monster game. I'm not saying better or worse, I'm saying in a market that already has several instance based games with financial backing you can't match, different is a smart way to go.
Ryan has made it clear that if you do not engage in PVP, you will get very little out of the game. I asked him directly how important PVP would be and if I could play without it, and he said I would get the lowest possible reward out of the game if I did that.
And this pretty much kills the last bit of interest I had. I enjoy MMO's as I like to team up with folks, I enjoy having a Guild and online buddies I would never get to play with in real life. People I can call on for help on a hard quest or who can call upon me.
what I do not enjoy is being forced into PVP by grifers and gangs of teenagers with no life who stop me from enjoying a game and then loot my freaking body and take in 2 mins what I have spent weeks gaining the hard way.
Such a game does not seem like the River kingdoms but more like something that belongs among the drow in the darklands. This simply is not a game I wish to waste time on when I get nothing out of it if I don't wish to PvP and been an all round a%@~~~$.
Hope those that like that kind of thing enjoy it but, it is disappointing.
Totally agree with seekerofshadowlight.
141 posts about PvP? When did PvP become so important in D&D?
It should be there but it should be governed and limited severely.
Wars should be allowed.
Gaah, now its 142 posts on this useless subject...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Totally agree with seekerofshadowlight.
141 posts about PvP? When did PvP become so important in D&D?
It should be there but it should be governed and limited severely.
Wars should be allowed.
Gaah, now its 142 posts on this useless subject...
Considering that this is discussion for an MMO not a tabletop RPG, it's a perfectly relevant topic. It's already been stated that there will be open PvP that's not as restricted as you seem to want it.
We just kinda hoped a game based upon Golarion would be something more then Pvp's f+~% with non-pvp 's. It seems the game will reward those who attack the folks doing PvE while punishing those who just want to hang out with folks and ya know enjoy the game.
It means it rewards those who put in time to be the best killers, those who team up with other players to bully and take from those who are to weak to defend what they have worked for.
That is what it means.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It means it rewards those who put in time to be the best killers, those who team up with other players to bully and take from those who are to weak to defend what they have worked for.
That is what it means.
Sounds like quite a few tabletop campaigns.
But really, putting snide comments aside, you'll be able to play the game with minimal risk to yourself. You can stay in safe areas and still play the game. But to be the best you have to risk things. Just like you'd have to delve deep into a dungeon to get the best rewards. It's just a different style of danger.
By your reasoning, everyone should just be able to walk up to anything in the game and kill it. Weak, not so good at PvE content person should just be able to walk up to a dragon and make it explode. Things don't work that way.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
PvE games other players do not wait to ambush and gank you after you and the guys you teamed up with completed the Dungeon.
You can't justify it, it is what it is. Bulling and rewarding folks who take things from other players.
Hope you enjoy But, I will not be wasting my time or money on such a game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... You only fly what you can afford to lose. ...
this is what makes EVE economy work.
basic equipment is dirt cheap. but IT WORKS.
imagine a basic sword that does 10 points of damage.
now imagine, the best sword possible. it does 15 points of damage. not 100. not 1,000. and it costs tens of thousands times more than a basic sword.
so, yes, gear matters somewhat, but best gear costs so much to replace that one simply finds a comfort level. some will go cheap en masse. others will go expensive and pick their fights. but everyone will have to replace their gear eventually.
which makes economy possible.
and beauty of it is that anyone can contribute. first day in, pick up the basic sword and join the fight. or pick up the shovel and walk to the mine. or take the hammer and make a basic sword. everything matters. there is no wasted effort. (ok, there is wasted effort. in EVE, we call this "minerals i mine are free", but that's another story, with a happy ending too, called "recycling").
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
PvE games other players do not wait to ambush and gank you after you and the guys you teamed up with completed the Dungeon.
You can't justify it, it is what it is. Bulling and rewarding folks who take things from other players.
Hope you enjoy But, I will not be wasting my time or money on such a game.
One less person in contention for the first 4500 spots then. *Shrug
Have a nice day :)