Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just some ideas regarding "meaningful interaction", especially with regards to "criminal behaviour" (I'm thinking raiding, waylaying, killing, etc.).
One of the big problems I see in the game is the relatively minor consequences a criminal is facing compared to his victim.
Let's take outpost rading as an example:
In real life, something similar might be robbing a liquor store. Here, both sides face serious consequences: the owner faces both potential loss of property and life, if the robber is armed.
But the owner might also be armed, so the robber also faces possible loss of life and there is of course the risk of being caught and serving time in prison. Fairly serious for both, but also fairly even with a bit of a disadvantage for the bad guy (property can be restored over time, time spent behind bars is mostly wasted).
Compare that to PFO: Loss of life is no real issue, as every PC gets an easy respawn and permanent character deaths don't happen. Loss of property is a serious risk for the victim(s), both in terms of resources invested in building and running the outpost (which can be completely destroyed by the raider), resources harvested and stored there, as well as stuff carried around in their inventory (as they don't know they are going to be robbed). But what risk does the raider run? He knows he's out to raid, so he will only carry the necessary items and those he can afford to lose. He does not face permanent death and there is no prison.
So the worst possible outcome for the raider here is a respawn some distance away (i.e. really nothing serious). The worst possible outcome for the owner of the outpost is a respawn some distance away AND serious loss of resources/property. This lopsided distribution of consequences tilts the system here quite a bit in favor of the "bad guy", making evil (or at least banditry) play much more attractive for those so inclined. It seems highly unfair to disadvantage the "constructive" player in that way.
Is the reputation system going to be enough to alleviate this difference? I doubt it, with "PvP windows" and "feuds" still allowing for repution-safe raiding.
Instead, I believe that PFO might need a prison system :-).
Actually, that should be fairly easy to implement. Let's say, raiding, robbing, murdering gets you a "wanted" flag for a limited amount of time (say, a week). If during that time you are caught(i.e. killed) by someone who would be expected to turn a criminal in (i.e. PCs with LG, NG, LN alignments, possibly others?), your wanted flag is exchanged for a "prisoner" flag, for starters, let's say for one week. While you are marked as a prisoner your respawn point (including the spawn point when you initially log in to the game) is fixed to a completely enclosed area somewhere (aka the prison) that you cannot leave. Effectively, the character is taken out of the game for a limited time. To me that seems a much better way to handle meaningful PvP-interaction, that does actually carry meaningful consequences for BOTH sides!
That very basic system should be easy to implement, yet also could in the future be expanded:
- bounty hunters could play a role, the robbed company/PC could post a bounty; in order to collect, the robber must be turned in
- time served could be dependend on the actual crime (theft 1 week, murder 3 months)
- interactions between prisoners might still be possible, maybe even intra-prison-play could be a way to pass the time (or find future partners in crime)
- the prison could be placed, say, below the keep in the good aligned starter city, with well executed jail breaks from the outside a (remote) possibility
- for even more serious consequences, make a character undeletable while imprisoned and limit the amount of characters an account can have
Really consequential meaningful interaction - the PvPers should be delighted! Opinions? :-)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Repeated Shocks to Modify Behaviour"
Yes, lets do this.
Or, at least, try it.
Why not try it? Trying stuff is what beta test is for, right?
We know it works, because that's what we do IRL.
Seriously, we know it works because IRL.
Having a game that implemented prisons as the result of PvP would be awesome.
"- interactions between prisoners might still be possible, maybe even intra-prison-play could be a way to pass the time (or find future partners in crime) "
Even more awesome!
Prisoners would be doing gang-fights within the prisons - PvP between PvP players, giving CP and achievements, and even criminal training.
In LE settlements, the prisons would be Roman Collosseums with all the fighting that implies!
Open-field PvP could include capture, and the historical practice of Prisoner Ransom.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While I can see a superficial attraction in this (and even toyed with the idea in my head) even in the real world prisons have never been a great idea. We have them because sometimes there is no other way short of death to stop people from hurting (whether Physically or Emotionally) other people.
As soon as you introduce a mechanism that denies people the use of their paid-for account, you open it up to abuse and accusations of fraud.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While I can see a superficial attraction in this (and even toyed with the idea in my head) even in the real world prisons have never been a great idea. We have them because sometimes there is no other way short of death to stop people from hurting (whether Physically or Emotionally) other people.
Well, what other way do we have in PFO? Nothing else effective, really.
As soon as you introduce a mechanism that denies people the use of their paid-for account, you open it up to abuse and accusations of fraud.
Possible. Still, there could be prison play (unlimited PvP, maybe). So they do have access to their accounts. They just can't do everything in the game for a while. Of course, the company who had their outpost raided needs to waste precious time gathering new resources to rebuild as well, so it's not really a one-sided thing. It's merely opening up the attacker to some consequences as well (and note, I'm not suggesting an automatic imprisonment, the bad guy still has to be caught. If he spends the next week staying out of the "law's" sight, he's fine as well.) Talk about meaningful...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DEJA VU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously dude we had this flame war a year or so ago.
Do a search for "very bad ideas" and the threads will probably pop up.
Well, in that case, this time can you help us make it a non-Flaming productive discussion instead?
It sounds seriously interesting to me, but I could be missing something of course.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Imprisonment seems to become pretty popular in Eastern MMO's: both Age of Wushu and Archeage have it. I have no idea if it curbs any anti-social behaviour but they are pretty fleshed out features in both games and are there to stay. Both games have been live for 2 years or some.
Some guy that is playing the Trion Archeage alpha recently got sentenced to something like 2000 minutes of imprisonment because he had been constantly looting the banana-gardens of other players. :)
Here is a nice picture of that sentence, with the Court in session and all. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Possible. Still, there could be prison play (unlimited PvP, maybe). So they do have access to their accounts. They just can't do everything in the game for a while. Of course, the company who had their outpost raided needs to waste precious time gathering new resources to rebuild as well, so it's not really a one-sided thing. It's merely opening up the attacker to some consequences as well (and note, I'm not suggesting an automatic imprisonment, the bad guy still has to be caught. If he spends the next week staying out of the "law's" sight, he's fine as well.) Talk about meaningful...
Yes, being stuck in the PvP Colosseum for the duration of the sentence - meaningful, appropriate, punishment, that fits the crime, and does allow the player to do suff - specifically, to do PvP, which is what they are into anyway - but in a way that prevents harm to the regular players.
If they get caught.And assuming they don't get ransomed out…
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Imprisonment seems to become pretty popular in Eastern MMO's: both Age of Wushu and Archeage have it. I have no idea if it curbs any anti-social behaviour but they are pretty fleshed out features in both games and are there to stay. Both games have been live for 2 years or some.
Some guy that is playing the Trion Archeage alpha recently got sentenced to something like 2000 minutes of imprisonment because he had been constantly looting the banana-gardens of other players. :)
Here is a nice picture of that sentence, with the judge in session and all. :)
Dang..I'm in the alpha and the longest sentence I've seen is 160 minutes. The Prison system in Archeage doesn't STOP people from doing pvp, it increases it. Most people who have that playstyle (random PVP/stealing crops) use the jail time as a "score". they TRY to get higher jail times. Then they just afk while in jail, or do whatever little minigame stuff there is, OR their is a way to break out (includes a little RNG from what I'm told.
The way it works is as you play, you get "crime points" for certain actions (killing same faction and stealing crops are the two main ones). Once you gain 50 Crime, the next time you die, you go to a Court Hearing, with an NPC judge and 5 players (all level 30+ who have done the easy quest) who then see any crimes you commited since your last imprisonment, then they get to vote on a sentence ranging from Not Guilty, then 4 time limits, depending on their "Infamy points" (total crim points accumulated, becuase every time you go to jail, your crime points start over)
This works well in Archeage, because although it is a sandbox, it starts out as a theme-park style game. It's East vs West for now, until players get large enough guilds to make their own faction (not available in Alpha right now that I know of). I DO NOT see this working well in PfO due to the the fact of "we make our own laws" and their is no "set main factions" (via East vs West, or Horde vs Allaince)
There's not really an imbalance. The tradeoff is that the merchant stands to gain more than the bandit does—the bandit is only getting a fraction of what the merchant has, while the merchant is obviously getting the whole thing.
The merchant also knows exactly what he's getting and can pick and choose, while the bandit has to take what he can get.
Ironically, being a merchant is the high-risk, high-profit occupation, while being a bandit is safer, but perhaps less efficient.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There's not really an imbalance. The tradeoff is that the merchant stands to gain more than the bandit does—the bandit is only getting a fraction of what the merchant has, while the merchant is obviously getting the whole thing.
The merchant also knows exactly what he's getting and can pick and choose, while the bandit has to take what he can get.
Ironically, being a merchant is the high-risk, high-profit occupation, while being a bandit is safer, but perhaps less efficient.
There is a MAJOR imbalance. The merchant spends a lot of time and resources to start and run his outpost. The bandit spends no resources and very little time to raid it. As it is, the merchant has much to gain but much more to lose, wheras the bandit has somewhat less to gain, but nothing to lose. The bandit gets a much better cost/benefit ratio. And don't forget that after the raid, the merchant starts the long and ardous (not to mention expensive) route to getting his business back up and running so he can again make a profit, while the bandit just respawns and then tries again. Depending on the complexity of and expense necessary to build an outpost, a bandit can possibly raid dozens of outposts in the time one of these gets back on his feet.
As long as there are no serious consequences to raiding, only to being raided, the system ist not balanced.
I think, raiding should absolutely be possible. But there should be a deterrent to avoid it being done on a whim, just because it carries no real consequences. And if you choose to do it, you know the risk you are running.
Are you seriously saying that "only taking some of your stuff by force and probably not even the best stuff because I don't know what you've got" is somehow a balance?
Yes, and I think your problem is the use of "emotional" language. You're looking at this from the merchant's perspective.
You're phrasing this as a horrible pain for merchants, and it is. It's supposed to be. Merchants suffer more than bandits because merchants earn more than bandits. Bandits have to hunt through woods, using up a ton of their time just to track down a potential mark and not even earning much of anything for their trouble. And they might still just die.
Banditry takes hard work and lots of dedication. Time is money, and every time they die, they take a pay cut.
If you think bandits have an advantage, take a look at merchant guards. Now that's a cushy position. The only things at risk for them are death and not getting paid. Kinda like bandits, except they don't have to deal with any Criminal flags.
Should we instate bandit prisons to lock unruly guards in?
That's true, but I don't get how it refutes my point in any way. Can you clarify?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, being stuck in the PvP Colosseum for the duration of the sentence - meaningful, appropriate, punishment, that fits the crime, and does allow the player to do suff - specifically, to do PvP, which is what they are into anyway - but in a way that prevents harm to the regular players.
If they get caught.
And assuming they don't get ransomed out…
well... that is something to think about more deeply i think.
-lets say you need to do unsanctioned pvp to get a "wanted" or "criminal" flag-someone need to bring you in(through pvp)
-and you get sentenced to do time in the coloseum(as a gladiator, doing pvp)
wouldn´t that be something a not to small group of people might be interessted in?
of course the exact term need to be figured out, but i think this idea might get more fans then the "go to jail - and do nothing" version.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
to expand on this.
-you will be teleported to the coloseum once there is a minimum amound of people sentenced to do times there(regardless of what you are doing atm)
-your company will get notived of were you are doing your time(settlements need to have a coloseum to trigger this) and be able to break you out(mor pvp)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Design a game, one that you want people to spend as much time playing as you can get them to, and then introduce a mechanic where players can stop other players from playing the game for extended periods of time.
That's the challenge. Do it and make it not suck. If you can pull it off, (and you won't and nobody else will) then come back and talk about it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
to expand on this.
-you will be teleported to the coloseum once there is a minimum amound of people sentenced to do times there(regardless of what you are doing atm)
-your company will get notived of were you are doing your time(settlements need to have a coloseum to trigger this) and be able to break you out(mor pvp)
Well, no, that doesn't sound right. First of all, this is meant to be some kind of punishment to serve as a deterrent from extensive, ad-hoc crime (to make up for the fact that there is no other serious deterrent). It should primarily be a time out (similar to the time-out necessary for rebuilding that the victim requires). You should go to prison immediatly after you are "caught" and stay there for the necessary time. No coloseum, no waiting till the time is right. You're caught and you serve time. Otherwise, it turns into some perversion of the concept of punishment and becomes more of a reward.
IF there are others in the Prison at the same time, you may interact with them, start a prison riot, fight them, whatever. But you don't get to resupply at home in-between fights, and you may lose more of your equipment (or it may degrade to the point of uselessness) if you lose fights. Still you respawn in the prison every time until your time (in real time) is up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First of all, this is meant to be some kind of punishment to serve as a deterrent from extensive, ad-hoc crime (to make up for the fact that there is no other serious deterrent). It should primarily be a time out (similar to the time-out necessary for rebuilding that the victim requires). You should go to prison immediatly after you are "caught" and stay there for the necessary time. No coloseum, no waiting till the time is right. You're caught and you serve time. Otherwise, it turns into some perversion of the concept of punishment and becomes more of a reward.
So essentially "we want you to play this game as much as possible" and "when we don't like how you play, we'll make you play less and even give you strong negative associations with playing our game at all"?
Again, if somebody could actually make those two concepts mix without the end result looking like a sad joke, then they will have pulled off a miracle.
Creating mechanics to "punish" bandits indicates to the playerbase that banditry is something bad, and it isn't. "You watch your phraseology!"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Design a game, one that you want people to spend as much time playing as you can get them to, and then introduce a mechanic where players can stop other players from playing the game for extended periods of time.
This proposed mechanic does not allow players to randomly stop others from playing. It always requires a certain "evil" action from the prisoner first.
Actually, if you want people to enjoy the game as much as possible, a certain deterrent from random crime is very much necessary. Listen to all those, who think "murder sim", "griefing", "ganking", and what not. All those who want to primarily build something in PFO, and not have it constantly torn down. If consequence-free crime is easily possible, it will happen - the anonymity of the internet all to often brings out the mean side in people. And excessive crime will drive the constructive players away.
IRL, you have death or prison sentence as a deterrent, in PFO, you have neither. And looking at real life, many will still try, and some might get away with it. But the possible consequences will at least have some of them think twice about it.
Again, I'm looking to balance the possible rewards and negative consequences here, as I don't think they are currently well balanced.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This proposed mechanic does not allow players to randomly stop others from playing. It always requires a certain "evil" action from the prisoner first.
I know, I read that part. You're essentially connecting making someone's character respawn (which is what death is) to making someone not be able to play at all. And despite what's been said to you, you're still not grasping what a huge problem that is for a company whose success depends on getting people to play more, not less?
Fair enough. I've offered my critique. You're not getting it. I'm ok with that. Good day, sir.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You're essentially connecting making someone's character respawn (which is what death is) to making someone not be able to play at all. And despite what's been said to you, you're still not grasping what a huge problem that is for a company whose success depends on getting people to play more, not less?
Think of it this way:
There a many possible and acceptable ways of playing this game. Playing it bandit-style is one of them, but so is building and running a small logging camp in the woods. In fact, we need many logging camps and similar outposts to have the game's economy work.Now, all playing styles should come with certain risks and benefits. The same is true in the TT game, that PFO is to some extend modeled on, where each character class has its pros and cons.
But in the transition to the MMO, the inherent risks of playing as a bandit disappeared, namely (permanent) death, bodily mutilation and prison time. That is kind of like telling a mage, he now doesn't have any armor restrictions or lower hp anymore. Sure, people could play in the "spirit" of the game, but very soon you'd see plate-mail-clad mages everywhere.
This(consequence-free robbers) makes the crafters and farmers very unhappy, as they see themselves unfairly disadvantaged, as they still have their disadvantages (having to spend major time and money on an outpost that could then be destroyed or exploited by someone else witout consequences).
If such were the situation in a pseudo-real life, that the "normal" penalty for robbery, namely death would suddenly no longer "work", you'd be surprised how quickly prisons or creative ways of torture would spring up to penalize robbery while avoiding death. Seing how I don't think torture should be simulated in a game, creating prisons seems a logical consequence.
Without any meaningful possible disadvantage to the bandit lifestyle to replace the lost death, mutilation or prison, that style will grow out of proportion, leading to exactly the kind of exodus of pis*ed-off other players everyone wants to avoid. That would quite effectively be "getting people to play less"
You're not getting it.
Thank you for the constructive discussion!
Without any meaningful possible disadvantage to the bandit lifestyle to replace the lost death, mutilation or prison, that style will grow out of proportion,
How about it being just as unreliable as merchant's work, but with far less profit involved?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And again, I'm not looking to send every raider to prison. But I want their actions to have a noticable consequence, one that will have them think twice, if it's worth the risk. And one that they will have to play out later (primarily avoiding capture, while being wanted). And if they do get caught, tough luck. But the blacksmith who got robbed and now needs ro retrieve all the materials for the holy avenger he just finished will be a lot more angry than if he had to just spend a few days in prison....
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How about it being just as unreliable as merchant's work, but with far less profit involved?
It's actually very reliable. Little if any initial investment, repeatable ad nauseam, no risk of serious loss. Sure, not every single repetition nets that much, and sometimes nothing. But in the end, you're guaranteed to come out on top, because you can't lose.
As the merchant, you have a major investment up front, both in time an resources. Completely undisturbed, that would be quite reliable. But if it suffers from repeated raiding, it's a guaranteed loss.
I'm trying to find a more balanced middle ground for both.
I rather doubt that. I would much rather lose some gold than be banned from meaningful gameplay for 48 hours. That's because I pay to play to play. Maybe the blacksmith needs to get his priorities straight.
There's a reason the game won't be including things like darkness, easy permadeath, and, indeed, prison. It's because, no matter how "realistic" they might be, they do not work.
Bandits already have checks on their behavior, but they shouldn't have any more than your average PvEer, merchant guard, or soldier.
As the merchant, you have a major investment up front, both in time an resources. Completely undisturbed, that would be quite reliable. But if it suffers from repeated raiding, it's a guaranteed loss.
Then hire guards. That is the problem with your logic. A merchant has ways built-in to block bandits. Bandits making your work hard? Hire guards and raise prices. Bandits killing the guards? Team up with other merchants and threaten to leave the settlement if they don't help to drive the bandits off. And there will always be guards begging for you to hire them. Being a guard is just like being a bandit, only you get to choose what you get paid and you don't get the Criminal Flag.
Time is money. That is an adage of particular veracity in an MMO, because without death, time is all we have. Bandits lose time every time they die—and they will die very often, since they aren't using consumables and have to go far from home to ply their trade.
That is time a merchant could spend making swords and armor. It is time a guard could spend getting paid for just standing around. It is time a farmer spends growing his crops. It is time everyone needs. And it is time the bandit lost.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I rather doubt that. I would much rather lose some gold than be banned from meaningful gameplay for 48 hours. That's because I pay to play to play. Maybe the blacksmith needs to get his priorities straight.
Well, if it's just a matter of spending a few coins, I'd probably agree. However, I expect there to be serious time necessary to retrieve a bunch of rare components (or to earn the coin to pay someone else to do so). If undoing the raider's damage can be accomplished in just a few minutes, I withdraw my proposal. But if you force your victim to spend days doing something again, that he didn't want to do again, why not use the threat of the same against the raider?
If you think it's okay to pay to play a style that only works at the expense of someone else (who then gets to pay to NOT play his own style), with no danger for yourself, maybe it's your priorities that need adjusting?
Well, if it's just a matter of spending a few coins, I'd probably agree. However, I expect there to be serious time necessary to retrieve a bunch of rare components (or to earn the coin to pay someone else to do so).
If you took something like that through bandit-patrolled areas without bringing guards, you deserved to lose it. Maybe the item's new owners will be wiser with it.
(who then gets to pay to NOT play his own style)
The merchant still has a choice. He's not locked in a cell.
But if you force your victim to spend days doing something again, that he didn't want to do again, why not use the threat of the same against the raider?
You mean like dying? I don't think the raiders really like damaging their items and wasting valuable time. Especially considering how much less they stand to gain.
If you think it's okay to pay to play a style that only works at the expense of someone else (who then gets to pay to NOT play his own style), with no danger for yourself, maybe it's your priorities that need adjusting?
And yet that is exactly what your system proposes. Boy, being a merchant guard sure is easy. Pity all the bandits signed on as my coworkers and now there's no demand for us. Guess we'll all just become merchants, since banditry is now the most frustrating gig on the planet.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then hire guards. That is the problem with your logic. A merchant has ways built-in to block bandits. Bandits making your work hard? Hire guards and raise prices.
Sure, any merchant will do that, as the threat of prison time will not (and is not intended to) deter all raiders. But if killing them turns out to be inefficient, alternatives are called for. And at this time my impression is still that the current system encourages excessive banditry to the detriment of the entire community.
Anyway, it's getting late in this time zone, so good night for now. Maybe someone else will chime in, as well?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Think of it this way:Think of it this way: not playing is not a playstyle, and customers aren't going to pay to not play.
If you think it's okay to pay to play a style that only works at the expense of someone else (who then gets to pay to NOT play his own style), with no danger for yourself, maybe it's your priorities that need adjusting?
If you were saying that to someone suggesting no consequences, you might have a point. But the person you're talking to is merely disagreeing with your particular suggested consequences. As he pointed out, your suggestion can not possibly accomplish what you want it to.
Here's point A.
Here's point B.
The directions you're giving don't lead from one point A to B, you only think they do because you continue to miss the point that not playing at all is not a playstyle, and you can't make money off it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm going to play a crafter/merchant. When bandits start cutting too far into my profits, I'll start hiring mercenaries to protect me while I transport high value cargo.
If you're strong enough and capable of holding onto it, you're merchandise value goes up as other players who let themselves get robbed lose their product.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like I said, I am not convinced that the bandit has any more of an "advantage" than a bandit guard, soldier, or other PvPer.
But let's really tackle this here.
Let's say, raiding, robbing, murdering [can land you in jail]
And how will any of this deter people in a feud, or at war? Seems that warfare will just become even more common to compensate. Now, PFO often encourages such things, but is that really what you want? It'll make things even easier on bandits and even harder on the merchants who now have to regularly pass through warzones.
Actually, that should be fairly easy to implement. Let's say, raiding, robbing, murdering gets you a "wanted" flag for a limited amount of time (say, a week).
So, a flag that outlasts the Criminal and Heinous flags. That'll make the necromancers and slavers happy. Poor li'l guys.
If during that time you are caught(i.e. killed) by someone who would be expected to turn a criminal in (i.e. PCs with LG, NG, LN alignments, possibly others?)
Is there a reason you ignored one of the most obvious alignments, Lawful Evil, or did you just not think of it? Do you think evil people are not going to be able to use this system?
your wanted flag is exchanged for a "prisoner" flag, for starters, let's say for one week. While you are marked as a prisoner your respawn point (including the spawn point when you initially log in to the game) is fixed to a completely enclosed area somewhere (aka the prison) that you cannot leave.
And here's where people have the real problem. A robbed merchant can choose to work on a new project for a while. He has a choice. But you are putting this poor player in a confined space for at least a week.
Effectively, the character is taken out of the game for a limited time.
Bolded for emphasis.
To me that seems a much better way to handle meaningful PvP-interaction, that does actually carry meaningful consequences for BOTH sides!
I've already gone into my feelings on the profitability of banditry. This change will make banditry ridiculously impractical—it makes death become something beyond dreaded, since it will waste your time for weeks while you wait for the sentence to run out. Bandit organizations like the UNC will become paranoid, unwilling to risk losing their members. They will get stuck with inescapable flags for almost all of their playtime, which put them in greater danger than any other flag ever.
- time served could be dependend on the actual crime (theft 1 week, murder 3 months)
Holy crap. You just said death is less troublesome than theft, and now you want a murder sentence to use up ?!
I'm sorry, I'm cool, I'm cool. It's all good.
...
...
...---------
- interactions between prisoners might still be possible, maybe even intra-prison-play could be a way to pass the time (or find future partners in crime)
- the prison could be placed, say, below the keep in the good aligned starter city, with well executed jail breaks from the outside a (remote) possibility
Jail breaks and arenas are what kind of caught my interest. A jailbreak should involve effort from both inside and out, though—it should be possible to do it solely from one side or the other, but likely easier if you have both sides covered. It shouldn't be a remote possibility, either—it should be maybe a bit tricky, but easily doable for a small team if they're careful.
Moreover, placing it in the good settlement is not going to work. It just isn't. Wardens will ruin any attempt at escape.
- for even more serious consequences, make a character undeletable while imprisoned and limit the amount of characters an account can have
Okay, back to holy s*+! stuff here. This is blatant meta punishment for in-character activities.
It's bad enough that you're basically saying, "Hey, remember that character? Well, you'll be playing an alt for one week/three months. Have fun! :)" Don't compound it with even more harsh measures.
Look. My reaction hasn't been driven by my normal bouncy wacky kobold self, I'll admit. It's hot in the valley right now, and I'm more easily agitated when I'm hot.
I get what you're trying to do. But this is a non-issue that is already going to be handled by the community, and the solution you propose is ridiculously harsh. It's more like a whole other game. Moreover, it doesn't even make sense from a flavor perspective, since the River Kingdoms are supposed to be pretty lawless.
Maybe, if you refined the core idea of a prison break minigame, this could have potential. But not in PFO. It's a creative solution, but it's just a bit too crazy to work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This idea of prison seems to be based upon the opinion that banditry is evil and not just a different, more chaotic style of play.
If a bandit came in and stole from you, then killed you after you surrendered and then burnt down your shop then that would be evil.
If a bandit attacks you, overwhelms your defences and forces you to surrender then steals a percentage of your wealth and leaves, it's a chaotic action and there is a system in place (reputation) that punishes this accordingly as well as gives you the option to place a wanted poster for that bandit.
I believe GW have stated that you can reissue wanted posters once they've been fulfilled so in essence, if you have the funds, you can make life very difficult for the bandit who robbed you.
Also, as Kobold Cleaver mentioned, you should have guards and defenses (strong box or vault) if you are dealing with valuable, high-risk materials and goods.
In a game where players are going to be the "bad guys" as well as the "good guys" there has to be viable ways to play different styles but there also needs to be a system which balances the risk-reward of each playstyle and I believe the GW reputation system and wanted/reward system will provide the balance you are after.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Okay, for me, the problem is with meaningless PvP.
Meaningful PvP includes:
Banditry, guards, feuds, wars.
Meaningless PvP is a new player hearing that PFO is world PvP, decides that means it is a murdersim / ganking / griefers paradise, and signs up to be a jerk.
Those players need a repeatable shock to their system.
That is where I would be interested in jail time.
So it would be driven by the Murderer flag, and require capture, and otherwise designed to focus (ideally exclusively) on where new players will start out.
So the murderhobo gets caught, and put in the stocks / jail for 5 mins, with no ability to switch characters, and a big red warning on his screen that the next offence is 10 mins, then 20, then 40, then 80, then 160. etc.
For me, none of the meaningful PvP actions should trigger this, either absolutely, or failing that as a matter of practicality.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you want a system in which Golgotha can imprison those that wander into our territory?
Yep. Fair is fair. If you can throw criminals into prison, there needs to also be a balancing 'hostage' mechanic where you can truss up victims until sold for ransom or until they get sick of them and throw them into a pit with a bear and a wooden sword.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you want a system in which Golgotha can imprison those that wander into our territory?Yep. Fair is fair. If you can throw criminals into prison, there needs to also be a balancing 'hostage' mechanic where you can truss up victims until sold for ransom or until they get sick of them and throw them into a pit with a bear and a wooden sword.
A majority of this community would disagree with you. I think the deck is a little stacked at the moment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm ambivalent on this issue. Both sides present some good arguments. Since I've never played a game where jail time or time outs were involved, I can't compare how it was done in other games.
If such a system was implemented, I do not think long sentences of time should be used because these are paying customers. I sort of like Bormun's idea of escalating penalty though.
I think the "post reward, capture, and put in jail for a bit" might be workable as long as the sentences weren't too excessive. A week seems excessive to me. Heck, 2 hours seems almost excessive to me since that might be the whole game time a player might have available that day.
So I sort of lean towards "can we try it and see?". PFO is not a knock-off game, what did or didn't work in another game might just work or not work here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Those players need a repeatable shock to their system.
They're going to get it. Ryan's words:
I think that what perhaps what people are missing is the critical factor of feedback.
Most people need guidelines and clear references to understand how their actions influence the results they obtain. Especially when you are talking about something as abstract as an MMO.
My thesis is that a bright, simple, clear guideline is needed to help people make good choices ("good" defined as "generating results that are generally in-line with my expectations and desires")
A second thesis is that a lot of people will come to Pathfinder Online with two incorrect preconceptions about the way the game is played. Those two preconceptions are:
1: Open World PvP implies a murder simulator
2: Killing early, often, and without discrimination is the route to long-term success
These two preconceptions mutually reinforce each other. If #2 is true, #1 is inevitable. This is the trap that game after game after game fell into. (Sometimes they didn't "fall" into it as much as they embraced it as a design paradigm on purpose.)
We are going to break this pattern and we are going to redefine those preconceptions. In order to do that we must repeatedly and powerfully shock the system. One of those shocks is a negative feedback loop that links random killing to gimping character development.
This's a popular quote with quite a few folks, and has been pasted into many similar threads.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Okay, for me, the problem is with meaningless PvP.
Meaningful PvP includes:
Banditry, guards, feuds, wars.Meaningless PvP is a new player hearing that PFO is world PvP, decides that means it is a murdersim / ganking / griefers paradise, and signs up to be a jerk.
Those players need a repeatable shock to their system.
I still think the best shock to their system is to make them a consequence-free kill until they've pulled themselves out of the jerk funnel.