The last MMO I got into was a MUD, and they had a pretty good system. PvP was completely open... but there were RP consequences for your actions. Kill someone in town, and the watch would attack you. But even more so, the game was specifically set up to give griefers an RP outlet. The whole point of playing on the "Dark" side was PvP, and you were playing something that wanted to kill indiscriminately. (You could even butcher and eat the corpses of "Light" side players.) The final balancing piece was that this faction was located fairly remotely to the north. So even though they could (in theory) go as far south as they wanted, they rarely made it that far unless they organized.
So for the PvE crowd, you simply kept to the southern areas. It wasn't a zero chance of being attacked by other players, but it was much reduced. If you wanted PvP, you'd go north... or join the other side. Sure, there were a few that just wanted to be jerks - and were universally hunted - but by making player killing a valid and viable part of the RP behind the game, it worked out pretty good.
Goblin Squad Member
|
I will cite my reply from the other thread, kyrt:
Wow... PvE is designed to win almost all the time? I'm certainly grateful the developers are going with a risk vs reward game design so the carebears (I only just learned that term after reading this thread and googling it by the way, amusing terminology that) don't just slack off, play on the kiddie slopes, and accomplish the same things at the same rate as those of us out there risking our necks for the sake of a dream.
The risk of possibly dying and the challenge is a huge part of the reason I play games. If it's too easy I find it rather meaningless. I'm rather looking forward to seeing just what we can build in this game and how the region evolves in play.
It is not about dying and losing to the computer or losing equipment.
It is about losing and dying to someone that then will gloat while looting your corpse, display the remains on the forum, make a kill board with the ranks of who he has killed and the looted stuff and care about killing other players characters instead of reaching the game goals.
Hell, to take it one step farther, Pathfinder Online could keep track of one's aggressive attacks (the times they assault another PC without being in War against them) and have them accumulate to a greater penalty when that PC eventually does die.In that way, 'griefers' would have things much more difficult. Sooner or later they will bite off more than they can chew, and they will pay the time for every crime.
Oh yes, the dreaded "I have a negative security status, I can't enter a city as the guards will kill me".
Followed by: "Oh well, I will send my second character Jamie the Bland to the nearest city to buy what I need."Diego, though having a built in Perception vs Stealth mechanic and warning signs go off to alert you of someone creeping around, and an initiative mechanic if both combatants are aware when the fight is initiated could go some ways to mitigating the problem of which you speak.
Perhaps I'm looking at this scenario with rose-colored glasses, but I'm really excited by the immersion of it all. By how open-ended it is, the danger, the risk, the reward, the communal story.
Personally, I'm not a huge PvP person either. I have a tendency to want to master my abilities and be capable of kicking ass, but my primary purpose is interaction with the world (including people in it) and development of the plot.
I am looking it through 6 years of EVE tinted lens :P
It teach you a lot of ways to be a griefer, even when you are simply interested in avoiding them.After a point it is self perpetrating. "Everyone that enter our territory is a potential spy or griefer, so we should kill him on sight" (NBSI policy;: Not Blue Shoot It). It is perfectly logic.
In the end all the kingdoms will be LE: everyone that is not one of us is against us and should be killed or enslaved.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You see kyrt, one of the points about the fact that the guy starting PVP will be the one choosing the moment, location and conditions, is that he will not do it in a location where the city guards or whatever will intervene and "punish" him. He wii do that where he can do the maximum damage for the smallest loss.
If he will do that in a city or other law abiding location it is because he is sure that the consequences will be lower than the loss.
The law abiding citizens will not loot his corpse while his friend is ready to loot the target corpse or the loss for his characters is smaller than what the target will loose and so on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks Diego, those should give this thread's posters more things to address in their suggestions :)
EDIT: I will note that allowing secondary characters to function as minions for primary characters is something I would want to see in this game.
(Also you might want to de-quote your responses, it looks better if the quotes are staggered with non-quoted text :P)
De-quoted.
In the little informations we have it is stated that we will be allowed to have multiple characters (not that there is any way to avoid that if someone really want to have multiples).
So it is almost guaranteed that people will have some alternate character to go were the main is persona non grata.
Well, one I see right off is not to allow item transfers between characters. That at least solves the problem of using alts to do shopping for targeted characters. Then the player must either log on with both characters (usually banned), or use friends (in which case, why use second characters anyhow?).
Also, what is the usual Pathfinder method of dealing with people like this? Eventually, a group of adventurers hears about a rampaging evil bastard, goes out, and kill him! This will happen more and more as the griefer's reputation grows.
Of course, you could always make character death permanent, or nearly so, and the risks are thus much higher than the rewards...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You see kyrt, one of the points about the fact that the guy starting PVP will be the one choosing the moment, location and conditions, is that he will not do it in a location where the city guards or whatever will intervene and "punish" him. He wii do that where he can do the maximum damage for the smallest loss.
If he will do that in a city or other law abiding location it is because he is sure that the consequences will be lower than the loss.
The law abiding citizens will not loot his corpse while his friend is ready to loot the target corpse or the loss for his characters is smaller than what the target will loose and so on.
Criminals can be intelligent.
Looking to the River Nations and Kingmaker, "bandit" activity can also be reported, and wanted flyers or handbills posted for the goodly folk of the towns, who receive a bounty, incentive, etc. to go take care of the bandits. Who says quest lines must only involve NPCs? Pathfinder Online has the real opportunity to destroy the preconceived notion of WoW-era MMO, and become something SO MUCH MORE. No one likes character death, but were I so good at bandit-ing that I was put in as the target of a quest, I'd happily accept permadeath with a sense of fulfillment for contributing and being part of not only MY story, but the story of those who took me out, and became heroes to all those I'd wronged. Taking out a legend should make you feel legendary, not like someone in line waiting for dailies or weekly dungeons to reset.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It all depend on how open is the PVP.
In the death consequences (and if they are different in PVP and not PVP).
And a plethora of other stuff.
You cant a EVE example of griefing where I will not lift a finger against you but I will probably cause your death, adapted to Pathfinder?
You (and your group) start a fight against a monster that is a reasonable challenge. I came there and start healing and buffing the monster.
I am doing nothing against you so I will not activate any PVP flag, I will not get negative reputation and so on. Probably the monster will not even start to accumulate aggro against me.
Your thought but reasonable fight become a hard challenge. If my buffs are strong enough your whole groups will be destroyed.
If you were to attack me, you were the guys starting PVP will all the negative consequences.
The solution? After several years of that in EVE buffing or healing the NPC start a PVP flag.
-*-
Another "nice" PVP tactic?
A is at war with B.
They fight in a "secure" location where people not at war can't fight.
Come C, that is not at war with A but is a friend of B, and start buffing B, without doing anything directly against A.
Now A is fighting against 2 guys, but one of them is not PVP flagged.
The solution for this was to make the buffing guy PVP flagged as soon as he started buffing B.
The problem is that while in EVE the buffs don't have a duration and you have to maintain them, ours have a duration, sometime a long one.
So my 2 level character, pre buffed by my big 20th level caster, will be capable to kill characters of a noticeably higher level.
Even if it were destroyed in the process I can remake it with a small expenditure of time.
Maybe some sort of Karma-meter that goes down with unprovoked assault - with the exception of duels and maybe deep wilds. With negative Karma increasing death penalties (and possibly other penalties, like, worse reaction from certain NPCs - those possessing ability to detect evil/high empathy, etc.)? Unless some other MMO already tested that method and found unworkable (none I known of).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not allowing item transfers between characters of the same player would be a good step in the right direction. Perhaps you can have some sort of mail system in town that would allow good citizens of the same player to exchange good with eachother?
Making death permanent would hurt the victims as much or more than the killers. Making death light on victims and harsh on assailants could help a lot though, particularly if that 'harshness' accumulates with each attack made outside of War.
"I am too loaded. I will drop some stuff behind these bushes."
"Ohh,I am so lucky, I have found this stuff behind a bush."Beside that, how you want to go around blocking a player from using two characters at the same time?
Only I instance of the game on one PC?
- Sorry, plenty of people has a portable and a fixed PC.
Only 1 person from each IP?
- My sister/significant other/brother/room-mate want to play too.
- There are ways to get multiple IP even if you use the same entry point.
No direct trading between characters?
- "Charley, don't pick up that sword ...." too late "Damn, I needed it. Now we shall return to the city to trade it."
No, I doubt it will be the solution.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"I am too loaded. I will drop some stuff behind these bushes."
"Ohh,I am so lucky, I have found this stuff behind a bush."Beside that, how you want to go around blocking a player from using two characters at the same time?
Only I instance of the game on one PC?
- Sorry, plenty of people has a portable and a fixed PC.Only 1 person from each IP?
- My sister/significant other/brother/room-mate want to play too.
- There are ways to get multiple IP even if you use the same entry point.No direct trading between characters?
- "Charley, don't pick up that sword ...." too late "Damn, I needed it. Now we shall return to the city to trade it."
No, I doubt it will be the solution.
I actually like the idea of a single player per server per account. I think people who pay for two accounts should be treated as two people for all intents and purposes.
Of course, this is assuming there will be multiple servers so you can still experience the whole game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, assuming characters are associated with an account, you could make it so they can't log in at the same time. Then players would at least have to have two different accounts, not just two characters. (Mind you, that's easier on a F2P system.)
Dropping an item at least carries the risk someone else will pick it up. (Hmm, goblins wandering the landscape, picking up shinies?)
But honestly I like the bounty system most of all. You want to pick on others? Prepare to be targeted yourself!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Use a bounty system like in SWG.
It will keep those that enjoy PVP busy.Bounties, especially in line with Runnetib's post, sound like an excellent addition which goes hand in hand with the safe zones.
We the people are the environment!
Been there, seen that too.
What happen when the bounty is collected?
- The reward notice is removed and the bounty target, if resurrected, is again free from bounty hunters?
Then as soon as the bounty is higher than the cost of resurrection you have a friend kill you and collect the bounty.
You get resurrected and your friend keep the extra cash after the cost of the resurrection. Maybe he even get XP for killing you.
- The bounty is automatically renewed if you are resurrected?
If the bounty is higher than the resurrection cost you have a unlimited source of money. And maybe even of XP.
- Permadeath?
Ouch.
So far I haven't seen a system that work. Maybe Kryzbyn can explain how it worked in SWG.
Honestly, Diego is right. There is NO way to stop someone who wants to play in a way that screws over others, without also harming the fun of those who use the features legitimately. Any system can be abused.
(EDIT: Not without involving game staffers, anyway.)
The reason we can have effective mechanisms in Real Life is because the consequences can be permanent. Game characters don't have that limitation.
Probably the only way is Permadeath, and then only for aggressors. And even then you can have the buffing problem Diego mentioned. Setting a flag is going to be abused.
Perhaps permadeath for the target of special griefer bounties, but to set such a bounty it must be approved by a staffmember who investigates complaints against the character?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I didn't say this would solve griefing, but in theory the PVPr's and the ones that like to kill players being d-bags will be occupied hunting each other.
Bounty boards were run by the computer. If you walked into a town of opposing faction and did any force related stuff in front of an NPC, the game generated a bounty, the amount being determined by the level of the BH and the Jedi.
You could set up a similar system where d-bags who kill quest npcs get wanted posters.
In EQ and also in SWG there were players and entire guilds who looked at the forums and took bounties posted by disgruntled players to take out asshat players for training people, corpse camping, etc.
It's my understanding that, in WoW, when you drop something, it's gone forever.
So step 1: Any item that hits the ground is destroyed.
If we can track griefing in any meaningful way, then disallow griefers from trading at all for a set period of time, escalating with each additional infraction. That means they can't start a trade nor accept a trade.
Step 2: Griefers not allowed to trade.
Alternatively, you could ban griefers from joining or forming groups, especially if being in a group is essential for any part of the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see a system implemented which utilizes not only alignment (with the usual methods of determining alignment) but also a reputation system. The purpose of this system is to remove the anonymity that allows players to behave in a poor manner without consequence, but still allow the maximum freedom of action (such as open-PvP).
Alignment (which I have to assume is planned to be built in to the game already) is universal; evil in one area and at one time, evil everywhere every time.**
Reputation on the other hand are limited spatially and temporally. Reputation changes based upon your interactions with others in a region, and is perhaps based upon the laws of that region. If a region allows or encourages vigilantism, killing bandits or criminals (or anyone with negative rep)will make your rep more good. A region that has concrete laws against murder would look at all killing of other players/NPCs as negative.
Another way to modify your reputation is through association. For instance, trading with someone with a bad reputation will damage your own reputation. Since you are able to see the persons reputation before the trade, you are able to decline it and therefore avoid this. All interactions that can be quantified should have this effect.
A good reputation will get you better prices with NPCs and perhaps if negotiable with players too (as you will be raising their reputation).
Reputation increases in "power" and "range" as it is reinforced, for instance by continually killing people in the same area. the range is centered upon the action, so a person who kills people along the boarder of a nation might get a reputation along that border, but not necessarily within the center of that nation. Of course, if the same person kills enough people, then their reputation might very well extend to the whole nation. The range and power of the reputation is not only influenced by the repetition of actions, but also by the magnitude of it. A king would have a large reputation simply because of the strength of the reputations of the people with whom they regularly interact. Likewise, a person who kills a king would acquire a huge reputation (positive or negative), simply for the interaction with a character with such high reputation.
Another feature of reputations is their temporal nature; they dissipate if not reinforced. Good deeds as well as bad will be forgotten over time.
Bounties were mentioned earlier and can be automatically based on this system (for NPC bounties, I would hope players can also place non-reputation based bounties).
One of my concerns with this idea is that I would like to see the possibility, perhaps stealth based, to allow interactions without reputation impacts. If an assassin wearing full ninja gear for instance, were to kill a king and escape...why would their everyday reputation be damaged? However, these types of interactions would be specialized and rare. I do not think a trader should bypass the system and be able to do business with criminals in public simply due to putting a lot of points into stealth.
** Clarification: I would like to see alignment variable too, but much slower and still universal. A good person who randomly kills other good players should slowly have their alignment moved. Alignment also never dissipates.
Goblinworks Founder
|
I'm not sure whether permadeath would be the answer even though I personally would have no problem accepting permadeath were I to RP a bandit/highwayman character with a bad reputation.
It is hard to speculate on penalties when we don't have much of an idea on how much of an effect itemization will have on character progression or how important their skills or financial situations will be.
Some other penalties I would be in favor of:
1 - Full looting
Assuming magical items in PFO will be more akin to that of the table top game and not a ridiculous parody like the warcraft ip, full looting is a good deterrent for many player killers.
It is one option that can easily be bypassed by storing valuables at camp before heading out to waylay travelers. I would suggest using it in conjunction with one of the other penalties listed.
2 - Permanent loss of important attribute
This could be an ability score like constitution, charisma, strength, dexterity. Or it could be in the form of experience lost.
3 - Bounty
I am always in favor a bounty system in conjunction with other penalties. Especially player set bounties. Players will have a better idea of risk vs reward, hence better reward for the more notorious bounty.
4 - Infamy (used in conjunction with Fame)
An Infamy bar would work much like a reputation bar in theme-park MMO's. The more a player killer breaks the law and evades capture, the higher his infamy becomes. The greater the infamy, the higher the rewards offered in bounty, the higher the fame score a player gets for bringing them to justice.
5 - Fame (used in conjunction with infamy)
The Fame bar would work much like a reputation bar in theme-park MMO's. A Famous player would receive discounts from NPC services throughout the lands he is famous. They could also advertise their services as Justicars or Mercenaries at higher prices as they become more famous. A player gains fame by seeking out the infamous and bringing them to justice.
Permanent death(variation of)
If an aggressor kills another player without provocation he is flagged for permanent death. A player that is flagged as such can be fully looted, and can only be resurrected by a high level Cleric. If the player cannot be resurrected within a certain timeframe (5-10m), he is forever lost and must re roll. If the player is lucky enough to receive a resurrection, he permanently loses points from base constitution (reaching zero in base constitution equates to permadeath)
Any game with permadeath on the table I will not play, especially if I'm a subscriber.
If you are the kind of player who would be susceptible to it, we probably don't want you, since this is a thread about controlling griefers. That is, if permadeath makes you not play, then your initial idea on playing would have been to reduce the amount of fun for others.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No, it's not. If a player is acting in a manner that's against the EULA or game policy, then a GM or Moderator gives him a time out or perma bans him.
That makes way more sense to me than having a permadeath mechanic. I want a living person making those decisions, not a game mechanic.
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
Any game with permadeath on the table I will not play, especially if I'm a subscriber.
I don't have a problem with it if it only applies to someone with the aggressor debuff.
The aggressor debuff would not affect:
- killing trespassers in your guilds territory,
- killing players with a bounty on them
- killing players that have provoked (ie attacked)
I have seen murder systems like this fail terribly though (without permadeath). Age of Conans being one that was easily exploited because of attack arcs. Gangs of low level players would stand in front of another players attacking arc in order to force them into being an aggressor, then they would attack them without penalty while the higher level player that got duped would have to sit there and take it or gain more murder points.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Meh - there's a lot of QQ in this thread and a lot of pretty poor design decisions.
Prevent characters transferring stuff? WHA!? Why shouldn't I be able to have a shard bank/space for my alt so I can pass things between my characters rather than have to have a friend meet me somewhere for a game of swapsies?
Permadeath flags?
Fame and Infamy were interesting, but then wouldn't there be an 'infamous' city or the like? Doesn't that Infamy bar just simply become a status symbol?
I've been solid at MMO's since EQ was launched (late 90's) and have seen some GOOD ideas and some BAD ideas.
PVE/PVP servers were always a good plan, as it kept the player base separate.
PVE games (such as Age of Conan) did it pretty well, PVP was with people of a similar rank, and in controlled areas.
My personal preference though was the 'toggle' that allowed people to opt into PVP as a one way choice. Click the button, enjoy PVP. In EQ you got a nice red name instead of the blue, and were immediately identifiable. You couldn't attack NON PVP players. Alternately the same mechanic could be used, but with a 24hr cooldown timer BOTH ways.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Fame and Infamy were interesting, but then wouldn't there be an 'infamous' city or the like? Doesn't that Infamy bar just simply become a status symbol?
Certainly, and that is why I specified that it depends on the law of the land. I think this adds a cool dynamic to the game to have each regions laws apply differently to reputation.
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
Meh - there's a lot of QQ in this thread and a lot of pretty poor design decisions.
Prevent characters transferring stuff? WHA!? Why shouldn't I be able to have a shard bank/space for my alt so I can pass things between my characters rather than have to have a friend meet me somewhere for a game of swapsies?
Permadeath flags?
Fame and Infamy were interesting, but then wouldn't there be an 'infamous' city or the like? Doesn't that Infamy bar just simply become a status symbol?
I've been solid at MMO's since EQ was launched (late 90's) and have seen some GOOD ideas and some BAD ideas.
PVE/PVP servers were always a good plan, as it kept the player base separate.
PVE games (such as Age of Conan) did it pretty well, PVP was with people of a similar rank, and in controlled areas.
My personal preference though was the 'toggle' that allowed people to opt into PVP as a one way choice. Click the button, enjoy PVP. In EQ you got a nice red name instead of the blue, and were immediately identifiable. You couldn't attack NON PVP players. Alternately the same mechanic could be used, but with a 24hr cooldown timer BOTH ways.
I'm only throwing around idea's because I enjoy the discussion to be honest.
I don't have a problem with the way Goblinworks intend on doing things.
What Ryan and Vic have given us sounds perfectly fine to me.
That being said, I would still love to see a permadeath option that is based on base constitution and resurrection. Say you have 14 base constitution, you attack a player unprovoked and the high sec guards kill you. You call for one of you guild clerics to resurrect you. Your base constitution is now 13. You lose 1 health per level permanently. Boosting base ability scores might be possible just like many other games (I think SW TOR does it via holocrons)
That is a pretty good incentive to carefully consider player killing because the penalty for failure is very high.
From the game design:
CONFLICT
Non-Consensual PvP
Most areas of the game world will permit one character to attack another. Parties may come into conflict regularly. Characters may take the role of bandits, spies, or advance scouts; they may be opposed by guards, armed merchants, and opposing armies. Some areas held by strong NPC Factions will generate swift and almost certainly deadly response to unprovoked aggression.
Warfare
Occasionally matters will escalate to a state of declared war between Settlements and/or Player Nations. Once war is declared, NPC Factions will cease enforcing the peace and allow the combatants to have at one another without restriction.
Territorial Control
Ultimately, characters will struggle to take and hold territory from other Settlements and Player Nations. Control of rich resources, military strongpoints, trade routes, and other sources of value will drive the players into conflict. The battles for control of territory will feature the largest possible armies using sophisticated tactics, maneuvers, logistics and support to achieve their objectives.
And a bit more:
The law enforcement situation in the River Kingdoms varies depending how far one travels from the more civilized areas and is typically a function of NPC Factions. There are islands of law enforcement in the interior near the NPC Settlements of the River Kings but the lands between are filled with danger.
Consequences
If a character attacks another (assuming the two are not at War), several things happen:
* The attacking character's Alignment may shift
* If the victim dies from the attack, the attacker may be assigned a Bounty
* The attacker will be Flagged as a Criminal
* The members of the victim's Party, Settlement and Player Nation will be alerted to the attack if they are in the same Region and will be able to use Fast Travel to get to the battle site to render assistance quickly
* If the attack takes place in territory protected by a...
Two things to note: One, the PvP portion of the design document is the part that I am personally the least happy with the current state of. Frankly, at this point, it comes awfully close to describing a game *I* don't much want to play either. If players feel like the only way to not get their asses kicked is to stay at home and farm, we have not done our job to my satisfaction. If you're an adventurer, I want you to be more afraid of the dangers *in* the dungeon than of the dangers in getting *to* the dungeon.
Two, note the implication that there are territories that *don't* enforce laws against murder. Players will build territories and devise their own laws, with their own ways to enforce those laws. I suspect that may actually be where we might be able to partly solve the issue to my liking. I want to ensure that I can choose a place to live where the penalties for being an asshat can be strong enough that people simply won't find asshattery worthwhile.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree, I just reckon there would be a lot of people attracted to the concept of a game mechanic that let them show what a 'bad a$$' they were by giving them an indicator.
Griefers are the sort of clowns that love stuff like that, lets not encourage them :p
I actually have no problem with griefers if they hang out with and kill each other. A system like this would help insure what you propose would only happen in "lawless" areas.
More I think about it,....
any troll worth his salt will figure out a way to work the loopholes in such a way as to poke you in the forehead over and over again, so I guess trying to figure out a bunch of "laws of the game" to control them is futile.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
More I think about it,....
any troll worth his salt will figure out a way to work the loopholes in such a way as to poke you in the forehead over and over again, so I guess trying to figure out a bunch of "laws of the game" to control them is futile.
This.
All the other 'limitations' (like gear transfer limitations) simply reduce amenity and enjoyment of legit players and have them want to leave.
Griefers are a canny bunch, and the best way to keep them in line is by having PVP an opt in/out system, and a good GM system you can /petition or /report problem children to.
Personally I am not a huge fan of PVP in MMO's, though I didn't mind Age of Conan, and frankly the PVP in Warhammer was a hoot (instanced PVP battlefields) though in most other games (especially LoTRo) it was kind of sucktastic.
When I want some hardcore killing I will go play Battlefield etc. where I can rack up a kill count all day with likeminded people.
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
Assuming permadeath is out, I think the only effective punishment will be time.
If you have a system where bounties get generated for griefers, presumably someone will eventually kill or capture them*. When that happens, their character either ends up in prison or in "hell". The character (or maybe the account) gets a countdown timer. The length depends on the severity of your crimes. You can't use the character at all until that timer has expired. Once it does, you can log in but must complete some task/quest in prison/hell before you can get out. Ideally, they won't get to use any of their fancy gear until they get out, either -- they can do the prison escape quest with a broken bottle rather than their +57 sword of player slaying. And this can be in addition to any other penalties, like getting looted. Hey, maybe they don't get to keep their gear until they do some kind of quest to steal it back or something (if they can force players who want to do PvE into PvP, I don't see why they can't be forced into PvE...)
Basically, it's an automatic suspension. The idea being that these guys can't just respawn and go right back to killing characters without some kind of real penalty.
Yes, they can still log in to a different account so it isn't foolproof, but at least it deprives the griefers of their optimized characters.
* If spells like sleep and things like paralytic or sleep poisons exist in the game, it may be possible to capture someone without killing them. You could even increase the penalty time and the bounty if a character is taken alive and brought back for trial.
Funcom had this with Age of Conan but removed it prior to launch because it just didn't work.
Personally I think fighting my way out of hell would be a rewarding experience. As a player that generally enjoys exploring and finding hidden puzzles and secret locations, I would find myself griefing specifically to experience the hell level. Which I think would be counter productive.
I do like the idea of sleep/paralysis poison and other non-lethal ways to capture the player killer. If I can use Skyrim as a modern example, where you get the choice to pay a fine, a bribe or go to jail. Going to jail would benefit both sides, the player that was griefed would be free to continue doing what he was doing without fear from that particular player, and the player killer would be thrown in jail for 30m real time (for example) but with an option to "break out" by picking the lock and escape (which could take 30 minutes or more to do).
Another thing could be a combat mechanic that leaves the player at deaths door when he reaches zero health, giving an attacker the option of coup de grace, capture or loot and leave.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Honestly the more I see people shaking in their boots in fear of PvP, the more I get the impression we will need two entirely separate worlds.
It's not at all fair for the players playing in the real game with the real risk and the real challenge to be playing alongside people who can just close their eyes and pretend the world is a safe place.
You and I, sir or ma'am, appear to be on the very same page when it comes to all this. Maybe the two worlds could be Lethal Damage, and Non-Lethal Damage.
*EDIT*-To replace unknown gender specification.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually, I really like that suggestion Max! An adventure in hell with simple steel (or maybe bone?) weapons to fight their way out. Adjust the time period required and difficulty based on the number and severity of their crimes in accordance with their power level/skill rank or whatnot, and don't give them anything in exchange.
Add a reduction to xp and skills based on the level of 'griefing' they had done, and boom.
The idea of capturing aggressors to stand trial and face judgement time locked up in an anti-magic prison cell sounds pretty cool too.
Thank you!
I think time is really the best solution if world PvP is going to be allowed. I really thing time penalties are the best penalties we can assess for griefing. I like the idea of increasing the difficulty of the task to get out based on the severity of the crimes!
This can work, however, it'd need to be a blanket thing, covering the 'griefers' as well as the people who are simply playing a character, to avoid griefers using the character excuse. To even the playing field between the two, just the act itself couldn't bring down the GM hammer, but the character would be able to avoid/hide in regards to the law (this ties in with my suggestion of not auto-knowing everyone's name). Griefers are a pain, but hired assassins shouldn't teleport to Hell/jail just for fulfilling a contract.