Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
So with as much back and forth as there has been about PvP and the bounty system versus open world PvP and yadda yadda. I thought it might be useful to pinpoint the root of the main point of all the contention; the bounty system.
People have assumptions one way or the other on how it is going to work based off of things they have read here and there. All that aside, this being Crowdforging afterall, I wanted to lay down my thoughts on a mutually beneficial bounty system both to stop PvP griefing and PvP griefing griefing (yes the double griefing is intentional :D)
So my ideas on a bounty system.
**Note** This is all under the context that players can be marked for bounty by a player that has been killed in most areas of the game world without any consideration of disguise type mechanics.
Definitions:
Reporter - Player who was killed and is creating the bounty.
Killer - Player who killed the reporter.
Hunter - Player who takes bounty contracts and follows through on them.
Contract - The bounty specifications of who the bounty is on and how much the bounty is worth.
Bounty Creation:
- A reporter can create a contract when they are killed anywhere that isn't specifically indicated as not having laws against murder.
- A reporter can not create a contract when they are killed inside a war zone.
- A reporter can not create a contract when they are killed by a killer of an opposing declared waring group.
- When a reporter creates a contract they assign a monetary amount to the contract.
- A contract can only be created against a killer that has directly killed you.
- If a contract already exists for the killer by the same reporter another contract can not be assigned by that reporter. However, the reporter can increase the monetary amount of the contract.
- A new contract created by the same reporter against the same killer gets a XX multiplier, that increase the monetary amount of the contract, added to it if the reporter creates the contract without being killed by the killer again.
- After XX contracts have been created by the same reporter against the same killer without the reporter being killed by the killer again a reputation minus is also added onto the new contract. (And/Or possibly start adding alignment shift)
Bounty Acceptance:
- A contract can be accepted by any hunter except in the following situations:
- A contract can not be accepted by the same hunter within XX time if the contract is for the same killer and by the same reporter.
- A contact can not be accepted by a hunter if the reporter has a contract that the hunter created.
- A contract can not be accepted by a hunter if the hunter is a member of the killers charter.
- A contract can not be accepted by a hunter that is allied with the killers charter.
Bounty Effects:
- A contract effects a killers reputation only the first time a contract is created against the killer by the same reporter without the reporter being killed by the killer again.
It's getting late so I may have missed something, but I think that covers both players killing players to grief (ie they can get bounties put on them) but it also keeps players from griefing killers by continuously placing bounties without consequence. It also limits who can take bounties so people can't group up on the same player and keep killing them back to back.
Anyway this is just some initial thought to get the Crowdforging conversation started.
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks for sharing this, Dakcenturi.
Has anyone considered not allowing a bounty to be placed on a killer for a first infraction? Maybe it takes two or three murders to allow bounties to start collecting?
I wrote in another thread briefly about a 'revenge' system that might take the place of the bounty system for these initial infractions.
- A contract can not be accepted by a hunter if the hunter is a member of the killers charter.
- A contract can not be accepted by a hunter that is allied with the killers charter.
What about 'cannot be collected' instead? That way if someone wanted to go turncoat on a friend they could accept the contract, carry out the attack successfully, but wouldn't get the rewards at all until they dropped from the charter/alliance. The devs haven't spoken about collecting rewards for bounties yet (piece of ear, anyone?).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Another important matter for GW to define is what actions they consider griefing. Perhaps if we set up a continuum:
-Two players playing patty-cake in a lawful good settlement?
-Fighting in a war.
-Hunting bounties
-assassinating evil targets
-Randomly killing players out in the wilderness for loot.
-assassinating good targets
-Killing new players as they leave controlled territory (entering wilderness)
-Repeatedly killing the same players out in the wilderness, not for the loot
-Repeatedly killing the same players as they leave controlled territory (entering wilderness)
-Repeatedly killing the same new players as they leave controlled territory (entering wilderness)
-Killing new players outside of town, in lawful areas.
-Running around at the newbie spawn point and killing new players as they enter the game for the first time.
-Running around at the newbie spawn point and assassinating new players as they enter the game for the first time.
Just a rough continuum. I'm sure it can be polished up a bit, but it would be nice to have a clear idea on what GW doesn't want to see
I see this as a very important part of discussion of bounties as the stated intent of bounties is (for the most part) to discourage griefing.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Another important matter for GW to define is what actions they consider griefing. Perhaps if we set up a continuum:
-Two players playing patty-cake in a lawful good settlement?
-Fighting in a war.
-Hunting bounties
-assassinating evil targets
-Randomly killing players out in the wilderness for loot.
-assassinating good targets
-Killing new players as they leave controlled territory (entering wilderness)for no apparent reason
-Repeatedly killing the same players out in the wilderness, not for the loot
-Repeatedly killing the same players as they leave controlled territory (entering wilderness)for no apparent reason
-Repeatedly killing the same new players as they leave controlled territory (entering wilderness)for no apparent reason
-Killing new players outside of town, in lawful areas.for no apparent reason
-Running around at the newbie spawn point and killing new players as they enter the game for the first time.
-Running around at the newbie spawn point and assassinating new players as they enter the game for the first time.
Just a rough continuum. I'm sure it can be polished up a bit, but it would be nice to have a clear idea on what GW doesn't want to see
IMO bolded items would be considered pure griefing and not even skirting the lines of viable play
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well the newbie ones could be taken care of by having a system in place that prevents players from attacking other players who have not yet met certain criteria (EQ it was something like level 5 IIRC). Since there is not the traditional level system in PFO it would have to be based on training time or skills or something. It would also need to be able to be turned off by players if they desired. But then again you will get people moaning about "Why can't we toggle PVP back OFF then???" ugh...
Of course depending on how the rest of the game is set up you would also have to make sure that these "invincible" player characters couldn't be used to grief other players (speaking of EQ... Fansy the Famous Bard as an example).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My theory: towns must be built to create an "aura of laws" where they get to dictate what is and isn't allowed in their area of control. Further, watch towers can act as significantly smaller hubs for that. What this does is create a mechanic for companies to guard roads, while bandits will have a reason to not want guards in an area.
Guards will have expenses (towers aren't cheap to build and maintain), so they might charge fees. Folks might consider the fees too high, and another group might muscle in.
This all promotes meaningful interaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What does that mean? What classifies as a war zone and who does it apply to? Anyone who happens to walk into a Hex where two opposing factions are currently fighting?
- A reporter can not create a contract when they are killed inside a war zone.
I'd say any settlement under siege (ie where the settlement itself is under attack and/or land ownership contested) is a war zone. Some comment by Lee also suggested the possibility of declaring a wilderness area as some sort of (temporarily?) contested territory.
The important thing is that everyone wandering into (or out of) a 'war zone' should be explicitly aware of that. Same with entering and leaving held lands that are explicitly lawless or explicitly draconic (to avoid tricking players into getting crime tags).
maybe a DEFCON-type scale?
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@Jameow
As randomwalker said. Areas that are declared to be *war zones* either by settlements under siege or as mentioned a wilderness area becoming contested.
I agree there should be some sort of alert whether it is an actual "THIS IS A WAR ZONE" type of alert or more of a visual hint rather than a direct OOC message that is a completely separate question.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Having searched, I see that Lee's comment on "contested zones" is not very strong:
Note: we're also looking at a possible option where you can turn off some fashion of the punishment mechanics against those who kill you as sort of a "come get me and you won't get punished" way to signal you want to fight. Or maybe some manner of declaration of an area being contest territory, in which some aspects of the system are not applied. But that's all very up in the air.
So, we need more info on this.
As another "PVEer who likes PVP-RP servers", I don't mind zones tagged "here be gankers" as long as they are clearly marked, can be avoided, and can be conquered and made lawful. I want player killers turned into content - but optional content.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I thought it might clarify things to discuss intentions as they have been communicated, rather than the community squabbling over what each thinks is reasonable punishment for various actions.
We will take severe action out-of-game against regularly abusive players, while less flagrant issues will be dealt with in-game by way of an innovative bounty system designed to deter unwanted aggression.
So really bad griefing - mod intervention, mild griefing - players control via bounty system
Furthermore, we expect that some players will form bounty-hunting organizations, and those organizations will also need to maintain scrupulous reputations as agents of vengeance rather than agents of collaboration. Knowing that these experienced and deadly foes may be lawfully unleashed to hunt down and kill murderers
So now we have just learned bounty hunters will no longer be hunting down just griefers, but any who engage in PvP outside of wars. Not only does this stop many who would have wanted to try the bandit approach, thus lessening the legitimate opponents for the lawful good to fight, but it also spreads player driven control of legitimate griefing a lot thinner.
but we will also have ways to make potential gankers spend such significant amounts of time and attention that it will dissuade all but the most hardcore griefers from bothering. And those offenders will be dealt with out-of-game.
So far all we've heard about in game mechanics for this is the bounty system and now the death curse on top of that. Oh wait, I almost left out the restrictions to what settlements and gear and resurrection points the can access. So this anti griefing tool has accrued even more severe controls.
So players can discuss until they're red in the face what makes their own personal gaming experience unpleasant, but we also have Ryan saying some things that he thinks should be acceptable and viable:
I've said before that being a bandit is more than being a ganker. A big part of being a bandit is putting people in a place where you make them an offer they can't refuse.
Bandit: We will kill you, loot your husks, take all that valuable cargo that you're transporting, and wipe hours of hard work out in the next 30 seconds unless you give us a huge pile of Coin to leave you alone. I think you'll see that losing some coin to us is better than losing the huge value of coin if we torch you.
Bandit: We have scouted you with our harmless-seeming alts, tracked you with our harmless-seeming alts, and equipped our hidden, nearby lair with effective PvP gear with our harmless-seeming alts. Now when you're in the most vulnerable part of your journey, we switch to our PvP-equipped bandit alts and blitz you 3 or 4 to 1. We take your stuff, and vanish into the mists before your friends can arrive and help you. Later on we'll run our ill-gotten gains through a series of alts who are fences and get the money transferred to our Settlement coffers where we can use it to continue to advance our nefarious plans. Sure, our bandit alts are persona non-grata pretty much everywhere, but we are willing to accept that problem and engage in the huge logistics and coordination effort required to minimize it.
Bandit: We're at war with your Settlement. We're targeting everything you are shipping out of your Settlement, and we're declaring war against Settlements that are consistently delivering stuff to your Settlement. Anyone coming within a few hexes of where you live who is a war target is running in fear because of our effectiveness at taking out your logistics.
Bandit: Turns out, there's one class of folks we can gank without concern. Other bandits. When you take down a rich target, we're watching. When you manage to accumulate enough stuff to be worth our time and...
And yet they've now decided to throw this playstyle in with the griefers. Of course the worst griefers will still get worse treatment, like bans, but what happened to the philosophy of having players control some of the griefing?
If you are of the firm opinion that the bounty system isn't that bad, then that also means the controls for griefers aren't all that effective.
But if you think the controls are indeed effective, then claiming the bandit lifestyle is still viable is a weak claim.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@blaeringr
Honestly what i see is controlling pvp so that people dont go around griefing people for fun. What i see is someone mad they cannot go around griefing people at will and mad that people might get back at them if they do it.
And that view is based on your opinion of what griefing is.
If your opinion of griefing meant that, as Ryan, you thought that playing a bandit who makes a playstyle of mugging random people out in the wilds for their possessions was not actually griefing, then do you see the problem?
If you have read many of my posts from before yesterday, you'd know that I never had any intention of playing a bandit though (your definition of griefing). And they've assured us that assassins (what I was aiming for) will have ways around the bounty system.
But thanks for your concern anyways ;)
@All
The game is ever changing and being hammered out. It will swing from one side to the other until they reach a good testing point. Then fine tuning will be required. Right now, in my opinion it seems to have swung towards the non-pvp side. The bounty system is a great idea, but can be a very strong mechanic. It has to been closely watched or it will ruin a lot of peoples game play. Unlimited is too much. As I said before, there has to be a balance to good and evil. Right now as things sit, evil will not be able to compete.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
The one good thing Ryan mentioned is that the bounty contract is self limiting to some extent as per the below quote:
Bounty systems have a lot of known flaws and we think we've worked around most of them with this tweak: You choose who can accept the bounty.
However, I think there still needs to be some outlying rules on top of this in terms of limiting how often the same group can take a contract or something. Many of the ideas I posted initially.
So that means when a bounty is put on me, I get to chose Blaeringr to accept it? Or does the person placing it chose ?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Perhaps a limit on the number of times an individual can take a bounty on someone without it beginning to affect their alignment? If you take too many bounties on someone in a short time (as in actually killing htem more than once, not claiming multiple bounties at once) you are effectively targetting that specific player, that could be seen as a malicious act, no longer about the bounty, and shift your alignment. So if oyu're just killing the same people over and over, you end up heading towards CE too.
The exact numbers would have to be worked out with testing.
I still reckon repeat bounties should increase in cost. If you're doing it repeatedly it's become a vendetta, and those take devotion and resources.
perhaps a straight "first bounty can be any amount" second bounty must be at least old amount + 100, third bounty must be at least second amount + 500, fourth bounty must be at least third amount plus 10%, then 4th +10%, so it just keeps going up and up. You can still do it, but you have to be really devoted to it and still should make bandits consider their targets carefully. In a world where death isn't permanent, wealth and power really mean something.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A griefer is going to be just running around killing people, they'll have enough bounties on them to keep them constantly under attack anyway ontop of everything else.
Perhaps I should have said "taking bounties from the same person for the same person over and over it should cause alignment loss"
But I think just increasing the cost would do it. Unless the bandit is just killing everyone they come across, in which case they aren't really thinking about the consequences, are they?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Blaeringr, you keep acting as if it's a foregone conclusion that Griefers and Bandits will be affected the same way by the Bounty system. It makes me want to keep pointing out that there's a really significant difference between them in that the Griefers who are going to be most deterred by the Bounty System are the casual Griefers who are just random killing for the lulz and who really don't want to have to put up with any consequences to their actions, while Bandits should have embraced living the Chaotic Evil lifestyle with constant Bounties on their heads.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Blaeringr To your point it would apply to each in almost identical ways, and it would not seem the Bounty system would just be limited to "griefers" only and not "legit" PvP bandits that are attempting to work an angle and play out a path to success. Certainly as described you couldn't simply rely on the honor system of a victim to only initiate bounties on the former and not the latter.
Logically the only difference would be in the way that the two types would/could cope with the difficulties.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon you keep acting as if it's a foregone conclusion that casual griefers wont have thick skin. The reason I keep ignoring that point is because no matter how many times you say it, I still disagree. You are making assumptions about what motivates people to grief. Some like to "cheat" a little at the game they're playing. You'd still be wrong if it were just all about the lulz, but more so since that's not all it's about.
But don't try to convince just me - there are plenty others now posting that they see the same approach to the two different playstyles.
@Vorduvai exactly. If the system is, as Ryan pointed out, supposed to be a system that makes people not want to keep following that playstyle, then that's a big problem since he wants to see a game with evil characters in it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon you keep acting as if it's a foregone conclusion that casual griefers wont have thick skin.
I'm distinguishing the "casual" griefers from the griefers with thick skin. The casual griefers will be easily deterred. The griefers with thick skin will end up getting banned. The bandits will enjoy playing CE and bragging about how many Bounties they have on their heads.
The line between greifer and bandit needs to be more clearly defined. That being said bandits should have bounties on them often, and they make obvious targets for Bounty hunting CC's. Hopefully the reputation hit you take from being a bandit is more on the evil/good access and less on the lawful/chaotic so that it is an optional style of play for players who which to choose it.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
The player that will be discouraged by the alignment shift and the bounty system is the one that's been developed normally, and now the player just wants to mess with people a little bit. In systems where this has no consequences, the only control on this behavior is to ban them after the fact. When they knowingly risk being excluded from their normal play style, perhaps for a long time, there is a strong disincentive.
Bandits, on the other hand, should typically expect to carry a bounty as part of their standard operating procedure. The marginal loss of having another bounty is small.
Thus there is a strong disincentive for a neutral character to perform casual ganking, and a weak disincentive for an established bandit to take down a target.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As a bandit, you should be more concerned about the number of people you kill, than how many bounties, after all, if you kill 10 people and they all set different people that can claim it, that's still 10 different groups that can kill you, even when you've been killed before and a bounty claimed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Pretty big bet based on a lot of assumptions.
Blaeringr, you may not believe me, but I actually respect you. I like to think you're largely role-playing a character, and I admire your consistency and the level of menace you maintain. I was completely blown away by that purple giraffe picture (you drew it?) and will probably be hanging it on my wall this weekend.
I know we mutually irritate each other at times, and I have no doubt we jointly irritate a lot of other people in the community at times.
But I am sincerely trying to offer you the benefit of my knowledge and analysis. I tried (but partially failed) not to make a big deal out of it but if you analyze this whole situation, you'll see that I was trying to tell you something for a very long time, and you repeatedly dismissed me as obviously wrong. Over and over - obviously wrong. Until suddenly I had obviously been right all along.
You ask "How can Bounties be an effective deterrent to Griefers and not make Banditry unviable?" Please accept the simple fact that I am trying to answer that question, with no ulterior motive.
1. The Bounty System will effectively deter casual Griefers, the kind of players Ryan has spoken about before* who are generally only griefing for lack of something better to do, or because it's fun and has no cost.
2. Almost nothing can "deter" serious Griefers. They will push the boundaries as long as they can get away with it, bearing whatever costs are imposed, until they're banned. All we can do is hope that the loss of the time they've invested in a character to make it effective at Griefing will eventually prove to be a high enough cost to make them stop.
3. The Bounty system will deter "honest" Bandits, too. But no more than the Bandits themselves deter honest Merchants or honest Adventurers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm curious what you mean by "honest" bandit.
Part of the reason for my curiosity though is that I see a no holds barred bounty system as not only not deterring honest bandits, but encouraging them to dabble in genuine griefing. If you're going to do the time then you may as well do the crime, right? Especially if you can use it as a way to bully the guy who issued the infinitely repeating bounty into cancelling it.
But you also don't want them to weaken the bounty system itself, because that just encourages the bad griefers that we don't want,
In any case, I've had some time to think about it a lot today (slow day at work) and I think I see a way around the whole problem. I intend to start a thread soon about my "player made solution".
Ya, I drew the giraffe :) And to show that your respect is mutually returned, I'd be happy to draw a more polished version without the rhetorical stab at you ;)
If you want to check out more of what I draw, I'm currently illustrating a webcomic. It was written by a girl from California though, so don't go misinterpreting its storyline as my style.
Here's my DevArt page, and here's the comic's page.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm curious what you mean by "honest" bandit.
I'm using "honest" to mean "intentionally playing within the spirit of the rules". I would think that most "honest" bandits would avoid dabbling in genuine griefing because it is expressly forbidden and could cause them to lose everything they've invested in their character.
Ya, I drew the giraffe :) And to show that your respect is mutually returned, I'd be happy to draw a more polished version without the rhetorical stab at you ;)
Actually, I think the text, in that "Eat More Chikin" font, is part of what I really like about it.
I must admit, I'm a little shocked by your art. It's so much more fluid and peaceful than I would have expected. The top half of this is quite emotive, and seems to be a motif. Thank you for sharing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The story's got a lot of psychological elements and I've been experimenting a lot with how to depict that. Glad to get feedback :)
In any case, I've posted the thread now about how I think we can resolve any issues that may come up with the bounty system from a player based approach, and not worry whether GW goes ahead with it or not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, I've finished purple giraffe version 2. I gave him a monocle and a bow tie to add that extra level of schmexiness!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Blaeringr, you keep acting as if it's a foregone conclusion that Griefers and Bandits will be affected the same way by the Bounty system. It makes me want to keep pointing out that there's a really significant difference between them in that the Griefers who are going to be most deterred by the Bounty System are the casual Griefers who are just random killing for the lulz and who really don't want to have to put up with any consequences to their actions, while Bandits should have embraced living the Chaotic Evil lifestyle with constant Bounties on their heads.
Nihimon, I don't think the "Casual Griefers" will be overly detered by this. From my experience in FTP games they typicaly don't care much about thier characters and often use throw away accounts to do Griefing. Probably won't be much of an issue during the "Invite Only" phase of the game...but once the flood-gates get opened... I don't see this doing much to hinder "casual griefing"... So you put down a bounty to have them hunted by another character... by the time they would be hunted down and killed another for it to actualy matter...they would already be off to some other FTP game to cause havoc there, as their attention span for games tends to be short...or maybe at worst trying out some other character build. They usualy don't put much time/effort into building up characters....just enough to beat a rank newbie and not much more.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ALL,
For what it's worth, I don't think "bounties" are that big a deal unless they come with specific mechanical advantages for the Bounty Hunter (which I hope they wont).
They are just a license for a player to attack another player lawfully, which they player would be able to do anyway if they didn't care about the consequences of being "unlawfull". It's an allowance for PvP, which we actually WANT to happen and they are pretty logical from an IC standpoint. I don't think they'll really do much of anything to stop/deter griefing, nor do I think they'll do much to stop/deter banditry. So not a big deal as far as I'm concerned.
My bigger problem is tying the Alignment system into Anti-Griefing measures by making griefers "Evil" and applying strong mechanical disadvantages to being "Evil".
This is a game killing mistake (IMO). I WANT "Evil" characters in the game. We WANT "Bad Guys", "Antagonists", "Villians" and I WANT them played by GOOD Players, RP-ers, people who are NOT "griefers" and we WANT those characters are for the LONG TERM. These are the guys who create conflict, dramatic tension and meaningfull interraction.
I really DON'T WANT to interact with a "griefer" at all, even if it's beating them up. Killing a "griefer" in PvP is only marginaly less annoying then getting killed by one...either way it's not particularly enjoyable interaction. What is enjoyably interaction is dealing with a well played Antagonist/Villian...those are the guys that make the game fun and interesting.
We don't want to deter those type of characters from playing the game, so using the same mechanical disadvantages to deter griefers as you do for "Evil" aligned characters that are played by good players makes absolutely no sense. I don't want to deter good players from playing "Evil" characters. "Evil" should be different then good, but it should NOT be mechanicaly disadvantaged and difficult/impossible to advance overall. That's a game-killer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree that we want Chaotic or Evil characters. So far, LE and CG settlements will be viable (I hope only a small disadvantage to LG), while CE settlements with low reputation are destined to become the 'wretched hives of scum and villiany'. I was originally strongly against taking this direction in development, but my concerns were softened a little bit by new information and I resigned myself to the fact that more people would likely enjoy PFO if Random Player Killing was curbed at the extreme.
Either the bounty system OR the system of limiting settlements of different alignments and reputations won't have a *huge* impact on banditry (though any mechanic to penalize banditry would of course decrease it). Together, though, I do feel that it's putting a lot of strain on banditry and it is lumping 'acceptable' banditry together with less-desired activities like excessive Random Player Killing and even griefing.
Here's a short post on why I'd rather have alignment and reputation be the method through which this behavior is discouraged than bounties. Even shorter, alignment and reputation systems punish players that repeatedly engage in behavior, while bounties punish a player most for doing it the first or first ten times, and after that have little effect on the player's decisions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel: According to Lee Hammock, Good-Evil is more flavor more what you are calling IC. Law-Chaos is more the mechanical sorting:
Full post: The value of an alignment varies mainly on two axis: freedom and settlement options.
Key distinction:
Good vs. Evil is a matter of flavor for the most part; good aligned towns will have different alliance options than evil towns. So a Chaotic Good town may join a Neutral Good alliance and build an outpost for them in the settlement, unlocking Alliance gear, training, NPCs, etc. A Chaotic Evil settlement can't join that same alliance, but could join the Cult of Lamashtu. Each has different costs and benefits.
Basically law vs. chaos is a choice of playstyle; if you want to fight the man and cause trouble, Chaotic is for you. If you want your settlement to be a place you hang out but don't worry about developing while you run around and do whatever, go Chaotic. If you want your town to be the best town ever and run as efficiently as possible, go Lawful.
Most players will probably end up in varying shades of neutral.
It appears to me, distinguishing a noble max-chaotic player from a griefer max-chaotic would make no difference, based on the above? Either way a high-chaotic is a loose cannon...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm mulling over the idea that if there is to be a bounty system in place, then the bounty-issuing player should have to place the amount of the prospective reward into an escrow account.
Doing so guarantees payment of the bounty hunter, and guarantees the bounty-issuer remains committed.
Should the bounty be removable by the player issuing it, against the event of the victim and the muderer reaching some other agreement?
There is a potential problem where the griefer extorts the victim into removing the bounty placed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@AvenaOats,
Actualy I was fine with that post of Lee's since he was basicaly saying that each alignment choice came with it's own set of advantages and disadvantages.
However, it doesn't seem to jive with what Ryan has been saying (at least my impression of it) in terms of Alignment as a mechanism to punish griefing.
Alignment whether Good or Evil, Lawfull or Chaotic is an IC choice about what sort of character a player wants to make, it has absolutely nothing to do with "griefing" which is an eniterly OOC activity conducted by the PLAYER to annoy other players. Tying the two together pretty much takes the "rpg" out of MMORPG.
Chaotic is not the equivalent of killing people all the time, it's not even the equivalent of "ganking" which is killing people under circumstances in which they have no possibility of fighting back. It's simply the desire to preserve freedom of choices, it doesn't dictate which particular choices a character makes.
I agree that you want to curb RPK, Alignment has nothing to do with that. Heck, you could easly play a CE that NEVER kills another player. The character could be obsessed with spreading disease and pestilance, with conducting unsafe experiments (i.e. Dr Frankenstein), with opening up portals to the abyss, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel
That seems true enough, as I'm very low in my understanding of alignments in any guise, but I think if someone is "high Chaotic", you need to take care, it seems is a fair take-home message, unless you personally know the player? But perhaps the difference of a IC-Chaotic and a Griefer-Chaotic will also take into account the other info available such as: Reputation and Evil for the triple condition? And if they split flagging of Attacker and Criminal also, further again. And finally "hearsay" between players?
But Chaotic if high is going to have ticked enough boxes to get there to warrant: Actions > Words.