| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And then off course there is the EVE online way, from what I have been reading. Some areas are so heavily patrolled, it isn't worth trying to grief in them... but they also don't have much in the way of resources. Lucrative areas don't have as much protection.
So players who are willing to take more risk, get more reward... which, really, is how it should be.
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Agreed. I am not a fan of PvP because I suck at it (and because I feel bad when I kill other players, even if they were trying to kill me). I also tend to find people in game who think like me. However, the inability to kill people who are actively acting against my character or clan (even if they are just jumping and yelling in the middle of my clan meeting) is a major break in my RP immersion. I will gladly suffer the consequences of occasionally being killed over an RP break caused by my inability to act as my character would in a given situation.
Likewise, I agree with kyrt-ryder's earlier statement that there is no practical difference between PvE and PvP. The bigger difference you can see between the two, the dumber the program AI obviously is...and no one likes a dumb AI.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I could be wrong Runnetib, but I believe the Hell thing was for after a griefer dies, while jail is after he is captured. If one successfully avoids both, then he delays his sentence (which is still accumulating.)
Jail sentences could only be applied for things that are known, but things that are unknown would apply to hell trips even after jail time has been served.
True enough. Just making note that to the 'victim' griefer/hired assassin will be indeterminable. Don't want the friendly neighborhood assassin being teleported to Hell or jail just for making the kill. Criminals need to be caught.
Goblinworks Founder
|
I could be wrong Runnetib, but I believe the Hell thing was for after a griefer dies, while jail is after he is captured. If one successfully avoids both, then he delays his sentence (which is still accumulating.)
Jail sentences could only be applied for things that are known, but things that are unknown would apply to hell trips even after jail time has been served.
I still think hell would be more of a reward. I'm not a griefing type player, but I still thoroughly enjoy world pvp, and I also find instanced PvP or battlegrounds deplorable.
I am very interested in seeing an EvE online style of policing and fully lootable PvP though. More because I enjoy the challenge that I could lose everything if I venture into untamed lands. It encourages me to travel light.
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
Bounties clearly wouldn't be a solution in and of themselves.
Going with the Karma deal, if the price of Resurrection (both in money and in skills/xp/whatever) continued to rise as you did progressively more unprovoked assaults (and Karma is NOT cleared by a successful bounty kill, though the bounty itself should be) then it may work out.
Just thought I'd add my thoughts about this as I love pvp and pve but would prefer pvp. Sadly not everyone who has a full time life is able to partake in pvp as I would love too without being victimised to some extent.
So how about a 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 hour timer being placed on that person who just attacked Player A so that they could not continue to grief a player returning to an area to continue their clan/group activities.
For every increment of attacks which that player keeps attacking player A it increases making it far more difficult for someone to grief the same individual continually.
Do you mean that once that particular player has been killed you can no longer kill them again until the timer expires?
I like the sound of it, but it could become complicated when players of opposing cities go to war against one another.
And I'll admit, they do have a point. If somebody is going to lurk in the deep wilderness near a quest spot and try to kill people there needs to be a punishment beyond NPC's that shouldn't know anything about what's going on out there.
Well, in a way I disagree with that. If the quest is going to take you to an area where there is high risk, there needs to be a high reward as well. And those who undertake the quest are accepting that risk for that reward. They are also likely to be the ones who can handle a rogue player, provided you use the same skills and combat mechanics against players as you do high level monsters.
The more I think about it, the more I think there should be NO mechanical penalty for griefing, simply greater rewards for players who don't sit in very safe areas.
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
And I'll admit, they do have a point. If somebody is going to lurk in the deep wilderness near a quest spot and try to kill people there needs to be a punishment beyond NPC's that shouldn't know anything about what's going on out there.Well, in a way I disagree with that. If the quest is going to take you to an area where there is high risk, there needs to be a high reward as well. And those who undertake the quest are accepting that risk for that reward.
The more I think about it, the more I think there should be NO mechanical penalty for griefing, simply greater rewards for players who don't sit in very safe areas.
Which is how EvE online works. But EvE online has the luxury of being freaking enormous. Would PFO be a big enough sandbox to have such frontiers while still giving the low risk players enough content to satisfy their needs?
I know if the high risk areas are visible to low risk players, the temptation will eventually be too much that they will test it out themselves. I was corrupted this way :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Without trying to upset or annoy anyone, surely the person playing as a criminal would like to play his/her alignment how they choose and not how we want them to play. So in their eyes they are not doing anything wrong!From our prospective they are so who is wrong or right? This is what makes games fun to play you can choose to be wrong or right however the game mechanics need to reflect this too and protect both sides to an extent. Glad I'm not creating this game as i'd be pulling my hair out and can now understand why so many games fail in the pvp sense. It will be great if these guys could get this part right off the bat as that is the game everyone would want to be part of for sure.
Certain things, like murder, could be set to have negative character consequences (they did mention alignment shifting) so even if the assassin thinks he's a good guy, murder, as written through alignment, is evil. Hell, the assassin prestige class specifies evil, and killing someone for the sole purpose of gaining the prestige class. Don't see why that couldn't be coded in, and seems like things are already looking at that with the alignment shifting.
*NOTE*- I'm not upset or annoyed by any of the conversation, here or in the other PFO threads I'm frequenting. I'm actually quite enjoying the discussion, as well as the full-offering of debate.
And I'll admit, they do have a point. If somebody is going to lurk in the deep wilderness near a quest spot and try to kill people there needs to be a punishment beyond NPC's that shouldn't know anything about what's going on out there.Well, in a way I disagree with that. If the quest is going to take you to an area where there is high risk, there needs to be a high reward as well. And those who undertake the quest are accepting that risk for that reward.
The more I think about it, the more I think there should be NO mechanical penalty for griefing, simply greater rewards for players who don't sit in very safe areas.
Which is how EvE online works. But EvE online has the luxury of being freaking enormous. Would PFO be a big enough sandbox to have such frontiers while still giving the low risk players enough content to satisfy their needs?
I know if the high risk areas are visible to low risk players, the temptation will eventually be too much that they will test it out themselves. I was corrupted this way :)
Truthfully, I don't know. It depends on the scale the developers use, but I think the River Kingdoms are big enough to wander around in. There is another element to this, though - remember, one of the design goals is the ability to impact the world. If an area is lucrative, some upper-tier players will start to gravitate to the area. Maybe start up a town. That increases security in the area. So lower level players who wander might find things dangerous at first, but those areas will gradually become safer precisely because they are interesting.
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
*NOTE*- I'm not upset or annoyed by any of the conversation, here or in the other PFO threads I'm frequenting. I'm actually quite enjoying the discussion, as well as the full-offering of debate.
Indeed. I'm just enjoying the topic as I can empathize with both sides of the discussion. If I was annoyed I wouldn't be here.
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
Truthfully, I don't know. It depends on the scale the developers use, but I think the River Kingdoms are big enough to wander around in. There is another element to this, though - remember, one of the design goals is the ability to impact the world. If an area is lucrative, some upper-tier players will start to gravitate to the area. Maybe start up a town. That increases security in the area. So lower level players who wander might find things dangerous at first, but those areas will gradually become safer precisely because they are interesting.
That would be assuming the players that are building the city and making the laws aren't a tyrannical society. In any case I think it would make for a very interesting adventure.
That would be assuming the players that are building the city and making the laws aren't a tyrannical society. In any case I think it would make for a very interesting adventure.
Truthfully, I don't know. It depends on the scale the developers use, but I think the River Kingdoms are big enough to wander around in. There is another element to this, though - remember, one of the design goals is the ability to impact the world. If an area is lucrative, some upper-tier players will start to gravitate to the area. Maybe start up a town. That increases security in the area. So lower level players who wander might find things dangerous at first, but those areas will gradually become safer precisely because they are interesting.
Hey, Cheliax is very safe if you follow the rules. :D
Edit: Although that actually serves to further the point. If someone sets up a LE society, a CG character operating on the fringes to throw it down could be considered a griefer just as much as the CE character on the verge of a LG domain.
Without trying to upset or annoy anyone, surely the person playing as a criminal would like to play his/her alignment how they choose and not how we want them to play. So in their eyes they are not doing anything wrong!
From our prospective they are so who is wrong or right? This is what makes games fun to play you can choose to be wrong or right however the game mechanics need to reflect this too and protect both sides to an extent. Glad I'm not creating this game as i'd be pulling my hair out and can now understand why so many games fail in the pvp sense. It will be great if these guys could get this part right off the bat as that is the game everyone would want to be part of for sure.
Well, I reckon it's like Oscar Wylde said: something to the effect of "there is no good or bad, there's just charming and tedious."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And then off course there is the EVE online way, from what I have been reading. Some areas are so heavily patrolled, it isn't worth trying to grief in them... but they also don't have much in the way of resources. Lucrative areas don't have as much protection.
So players who are willing to take more risk, get more reward... which, really, is how it should be.
Search "Suicide ganking".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just added a separate thread advocating lethal and non-lethal damage. I think this in addition to a pretty hefty consequence for actually dieing, such as loss of stats that can only be restored by paying a cleric for divine intervention and/or being lootable, could deter a lot of use of lethal damage between players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, now if I could just open that thread instead of getting redirected to the Pathfinder Online subforum/board :P
I was wondering why no one argued with me...
"How about allowing lethal and non-lethal damage?
This is an idea that came about from our chats about PvP. There are many who do not want open-PvP due to the threat posed by joy gankers; others feel limiting PvP artificially limits a world that is suppose to be immersive and feel real. Both sides have points, but because of my playstyle, I hope to find a group that plays like myself and go build a town somewhere out away from civilization, I need to be able to use the threat of violence to defend myself and/or my friends and our endeavors.
So, even though I fail at PvP, I fall into category asking for open-PvP as I feel the threat of violence can also be used to keep harassers at bay. Someone mentioned that I then am becoming a ganker if I do that by limiting someone elses fun. I agree that technically that may be so, but I feel I am justified not only because the person who I use violence on would have been warned several times before we use violence, after they die they are welcome to come back and get their stuff, and perhaps most importantly, as RP I feel my character would be justified in its actions.
All of this discussion did give me a cool idea though. Why not allow non-lethal combat? This would add a whole new dynamic to the game, one that does not exist in any game currently.
HOW IT WOULD WORK:
Non-Lethal damage would be toggled on the UI and play out exactly like lethal combat. However, the player is not dead. They can be looted and treated as if they were, but they see a cool down that is dependent upon how poorly they loose their CON roll and how much damage beyond zero they took.
At the end of the cool down they would "awake" with all of their HP (minus any lethal damage they took), but no other detrimental effects.
By allowing players to carry corpses or bodies, this allows me to defend our property by non-lethally subduing an intruder and carrying it away from our holdings.
It provides all the threat of violence in the name of defense without the negatives of loosing levels, stats, loot, and/or whatever and the cost of having to pay a priest to restore them. Sometimes you don't want to really hurt people, you only want them to leave you alone."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Read your post, Kit. I see you have already adopted the mentality "anyone that approach my claimed land is an enemy".
Welcome to the NBSI procedure.
Sure, it is perfectly logic in a PVP world, kill them before they attack.
It is possible they hadn't any hostile intention but the risk is too high.
So after you get the fame of a cold blooded killer what you will do?
---
I fail to see how your solution will be better than directly killing your targets.
You make them unconscious, then you loot them of all their stuff and drop them in the middle of a dangerous area without equipment and at a fraction of their hit points.
Killing them with a quick thrust of your sword would be more merciful, at least they would immediately respawn at the starting point, instead of the "fun" of trying to get back without any offensive or defensive capability and being killed by the first creature they encounter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Read your post, Kit. I see you have already adopted the mentality "anyone that approach my claimed land is an enemy".
Welcome to the NBSI procedure.
Sure, it is perfectly logic in a PVP world, kill them before they attack.
It is possible they hadn't any hostile intention but the risk is too high.So after you get the fame of a cold blooded kilelr what you will do?
Sorry, I do not see how "I need to be able to use the threat of violence to defend myself and/or my friends and our endeavors" equates to "anyone that approach my claimed land is an enemy".
That said, a town always has needs, as such many types of individuals and players would be welcome. But if we do the work to clear the monsters from an area and someone comes to hunt all the meat around our village because it is cleared of monsters. You think our village should just go hungry? And yes, I do hope the world is that complex.
And the point is I have no interest in looting their stuff or killing them. This would give us an alternate option.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But, what I want to do with any given mechanic is besides the point. I just use it as an example. Yes, you may find my choices morally lacking, but that does not make the mechanic lacking.
Here is another example of why this lethal and less than lethal choice is a good one. Look at the heroes in today's fantasy stories. Gone are the days where we think our heroes need to be without flaw. Gone are the days where only saints can save the world. Today our heroes are actually anti-heroes: Batman, Riddick, Robin Hood, Wolverine, etc.
So, what if I want to make one of these types of characters; lets look at a relevant one, Robin Hood. Robin Hood is a good character, steals from the evil rich and gives the loot to the starving innocent poor. But, he does steal...as such, how could you do this in game? There is a huge difference between a catpurse and a "cold blooded killer". Especially when that catpurse is only doing what they do to feed their family. Despite this obvious difference, with the current mechanics of any other MMO, the catpurse is realized as a killer.
This mechanic would open new fields and allow for more complex interactions. It would allow a whole gambit of player professions that use violence toward some end without making them all "cold blooded murderers".
If implemented, weapons should be given a lethal/nonlethal rating. Some, like a bow and arrow used as a ranged weapon would have no non-lethal use. Others such as a morningstar would do some lethal damage even when used nonlethally. So, it becomes important to make sure you do not kill your target if you do not want to...maybe even switching weapons to a sap or fighting barehanded to avoid the lethal.
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
I am really enjoying this discussion, I just have to say that.
I love the idea that players might be able to create their own laws and police them to their own preference.
I'm not the kind of player that griefs others in any way, whether it is in a PvP environment (PKing) or a PvE environment (kill stealing or node theft). However, I am a player that would rather play a game where player killing is allowed if there is consequences for their actions.
I don't enjoy games that allow player killing with little or no consequence, this is where lethal/non-lethal mechanics and harsh death penalties are important.
Firstly we need to accept that there will be player killers or griefers regardless of what system is made.
I love the idea of non-lethal damage and incapacitating players. Let us assume we are part of a guild that has created a small little empire on the edges of civilization. The empire has been growing for some time, long enough that we have our own NPC militia as well as PC militia that patrol the borders. We allow foreigners into our borders to trade or adventure on the condition that they follow our laws and customs. This promotes a healthy economy of trade between foreign and local merchants, but also from adventurers that sell unwanted magical items to our merchants that we can then use or trade to other nearby countries. Lets say that this works for 95% of the foreigners that visit our lands, the other 5% might be serial killers (PKers), freedom fighters, terrorists and general law breakers that do not abide by our customs.
With the above example, it would be ideal to have several options on how to deal with these criminals. Non-lethal damage is great, we catch someone poaching in our lands we can capture them and either throw them in jail, fine them, exile them by stripping their items and leaving them at the border.
If we had an ability to mark a criminal as such they would no longer be able to traverse our lands freely. Passing near an NPC whether it is a farmer, hunter or merchant will alert the nearest patrol and any other players in the vicinity. If the exiled player thinks it fun to kill the NPCs, Guards or other friendly players it will only make things worse for the player killer or criminal as their reputation creeps closer and closer to hostile.
For things like pick pocketing, If Goblinworks do implement it (and i hope they do), I hope that it will only allow small items to be stolen. Stealing something to the equivalent of a coin purse would be sufficient. I would hate to see pick pocketing players be able to steal a weapon, clothes or something larger than a potion or an apple for example.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am really enjoying this discussion, I just have to say that.
I love the idea that players might be able to create their own laws and police them to their own preference.
I'm not the kind of player that griefs others in any way, whether it is in a PvP environment (PKing) or a PvE environment (kill stealing or node theft). However, I am a player that would rather play a game where player killing is allowed if there is consequences for their actions.
I don't enjoy games that allow player killing with little or no consequence, this is where lethal/non-lethal mechanics and harsh death penalties are important.Firstly we need to accept that there will be player killers or griefers regardless of what system is made.
I love the idea of non-lethal damage and incapacitating players. Let us assume we are part of a guild that has created a small little empire on the edges of civilization. The empire has been growing for some time, long enough that we have our own NPC militia as well as PC militia that patrol the borders. We allow foreigners into our borders to trade or adventure on the condition that they follow our laws and customs. This promotes a healthy economy of trade between foreign and local merchants, but also from adventurers that sell unwanted magical items to our merchants that we can then use or trade to other nearby countries. Lets say that this works for 95% of the foreigners that visit our lands, the other 5% might be serial killers (PKers), freedom fighters, terrorists and general law breakers that do not abide by our customs.
With the above example, it would be ideal to have several options on how to deal with these criminals. Non-lethal damage is great, we catch someone poaching in our lands we can capture them and either throw them in jail, fine them, exile them by stripping their items and leaving them at the border.
If we had an ability to mark a criminal as such they would no longer be able to traverse our lands freely. Passing near an NPC whether it is a farmer, hunter...
I still fail to see the value of "non lethal" combat. Every instance of it I have seen described equals an issue greater or worse then the largest forms of lethal combat, and thus griefers would be more motivated to use non-lethal combat then defenders. Say you are fighting a monster, just as it dies a griefer rogue comes up behind you, saps you, takes whatever the monster had, then drags you away, loots what he can take, and now you have to wait to wake up? How is that better then him killing you in most situations.
Assuming it isn't worse then death, how will it hinder him from killing people, "oh it's a good nation if I kill them, they will just knock me out instead of killing me, I can probably down 2-3 lowbies before knocked out, then head right back into town afterwards"
If it is worse then death, allows imprisonment etc... then expect kidnappings on a large scale, Knock him out, carry him out of his territory, keep knocking him out until I reach my territory.
To prevent griefing, the penelty for being killed after griefing, must be greater then the reward for killing. Adding a new "good" way to subdue a character, will be just as usable by the griefers.
I still think the best route if PK really has to be done, 1. being PKed Has to cost something significant to your power level, Not enough that 1 death will screw you over, but being enough of an ass that you are hunted, you will be weakened to the point you are too weak to be a nuisance.
2. It should be plausible to continue and thrive in very low danger of PK areas. Maybe not as quickly as if you take the dangerous route in areas where bandits are known to hang out.
One thing I regularly hear is "How is a player killing you different then a monster killing you", the answer is simple. If you are the equivelent of a level 2 character, and you see a purple worm in the distance, you can easily get the heck away from it. In a pathfinder game how often do you have a DM who decides at level 1, that a level 12 CE wizard has set his sights on you and is going to focus on finding a way to destroy you? Nearly never, that is an awful way to have to play when you know a player or even a monster way outside your league, has far better options for pursuing you then you have of getting away.
I do have to question the decision of making the game PVP out of "fear of alienating the players who want PK". In general every game I have seen with servers for both, PVE servers are far more populated then PVP ones.
Just because their server lists are public lets look at WoW
PVE servers 115
PVP Servers 109
First you'd say that is almost even, now lets sort them by population
Low population
PVP 50
PVE 0
Medium Population
PVE 99
PVP 43
High Population
PVP 16
PVE 16
Pretty much right there, shows that there aren't just more PVE servers then PVP servers, but almost half the PVP servers are barely used. IMO many fans of PVP can be satisfied with an arena/wars or other designated PVP area seperate from the PVE world. PVE players that like to quest/explore etc... without worries of a player double their power level popping out of the bushes, will not be satisfied by avoiding 70% of the world to stick with the 30% of "Charted defended territory"
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
... Say you are fighting a monster, just as it dies a griefer rogue comes up behind you, saps you, takes whatever the monster had, then drags you away, loots what he can take, and now you have to wait to wake up? How is that better then him killing you in most situations.
Firstly, it would all depend on where in the game world this is taking place.
- Is it within a highly secure area where criminal activity is possible but easily punished?- Is it within the confines of your own guilds empire?
- Is it in a low sec area?
Secondly, How would this be different from normal, where the player would wait until you killed the mob, then killed you while you had low health? A PKer wouldn't even care about the loot. I've seen it done in Age of Conan.
I'm talking about having an option that basically means you still have to bring that person to zero health, it just doesn't "Kill them".
From a PK point of view, it gives players an option to rob without murder.
From a PKK point of view it gives them the option to arrest without murder.
I'm sure there will be bandits that would rather let someone live than become thieves AND murderers. In either case they will be criminals and subject to punishment. The mention of imprisonment that I suggested is merely a tool used against criminals.. nobody else. It is so a Lawful or other similar aligned community can either Exile the criminal from their land or imprison them.
If a player killer can waste someones time by killing them for no reason, then imprisoning that player killer (with a chance to pay for freedom or escape mind you) should be require a similar waste of time for the offender.
Player driven communities that own land and create the laws of that land should have every right to exile anti-social players from their borders if they do not follow the law. The Security of their land and those within it is their duty, they should be allowed the right to not let anti-social players in their section of the sandbox
Note we are talking about players policing their own corner of the sandbox, not a high sec low risk area of the map.
I completely agree that it should be plausible to thrive in not only low PK areas (or High security areas) but also in the Player driven communities (Empires that players have built for themselves).
With very little information on the game at this time (because it is still just a concept), we have only speculation to go by with that information.
We are not talking about a themepark MMO like world of warcraft, the information we have been given has very much highlighted that. I understand you posted Warcraft numbers because they were easier to find, but it is a moot point because EvE Online is highly successful with it's format. The target audience of a sandbox MMO is very different to that of a themepark. Even a hybrid of the two would never satisfy the instant gratification themepark crowd from WoW.
Edit: I forgot one last thing too. It doesn't take millions of players to make an MMO profitable. EvE Online was making 60M profit from around 350k subscribers, that's after wages and tech costs are taken out. If PFO is going for a subscription/F2P business model from the start they are going to make money. If Goblinworks are here to make a good game that makes a profit that's great. If they are going to sacrifice their integrity for a massive profit (ie Blizzard) they might not get as much support.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've played both PVE and PVP in EQ, DAoC, Warhammer Online and WoW, and found that any PVP system where the PVP occurs in special zones (DAoC, WO and WoW, for the most part) can rock. I *loved* PVPing with my Runemaster, in DAoC, and with all sorts of characters in Warhammer Online.
But open PVP? Where you can't get out of the newbie village to do the quests necessary to reach 2nd level because there are high level people waiting just outside of the guard's aggro radius to gank you and strip you of all your gear?
No thanks. Been there, done that.
I don't much care for farming in MMOs, and I care even less for being farmed.
And I certainly don't care if the Player-Killer gets branded or marked or punished after the fact. I'm not vindictive. I don't want my character to be avenged after being killed by griefing jerks. I want him to not be killed in the first place.
Creating an entire sub-system to punish people who do stuff they shouldn't be doing anyway, when you could just not give them the power to do that in the first place, seems like a trying to patch a hole in a ship by adding more holes.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But Set, you're punishing all the good people who want to roleplay 'real' characters in a 'real' world with 'real' dangers and threats that can happen any time, and the ability to respond to situations in character without running into situations like the following.
I'm not punishing anyone.
A) They can have their own servers.
B) They can RP to their heart's content in the PVP areas.
C) They can RP *with people who want to RP with them* and not spend their evenings making other people's evenings miserable. If they want to do that, they can go post mean things on little kid's Facebook pages or something. It's not like the world is lacking for ways to get one's mean kicks.
D) RVR or PVP zones with level restrictions are *way* more fun, IMO. I have vastly enjoyed PVP with people who were actually threats to me, and never understood the pleasure in ganking people who were grey. Even in PVP zones, if I see a lowbie doing a quest, I just leave them alone. Where's the honor and glory in kicking puppies? Ooh, fear my might, 16 hit point newb in his starting tabard!
I might sound like a 'carebear,' but, cripes, I was in Ebonlore (in EQ, on Erollisi Marr). Our guild got perma-banned en masse after they player-killed that GM and looted her stuff. I'm no stranger to the epic dickishness that bad coding can encourage.
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
Have you guys even read the FAQ for this game?
@Set, Warhammer Online is probably the closest example of a fantasy game that has low security zones within high security zones. I played on the Open RvR realm when WAR Online launch (meaning you could PvP anywhere) and never saw any "Griefers" because they were all smashing faces in middle section of the map or taking keeps later on.
To put into context, I'm imagining the player run cities in PFO to be as secure as a War camp in WAR.
I am imagining roads between Player run cities to be patrolled by similar protection, whether it is by players or NPC's I don't know. In EVE it would be players doing the work.
We are also talking about a skill based game, not a level based game. So in the unfortunate instance a high skilled player killer shows up to gank noobs, the noobs might end up ganking him. If itemisation is done correctly this could very well be the case. I have played skill based MMo's before where it was quite possible to fight back against a player killer much higher than you and win. It all comes down to how the game is balanced. If the game doesn't follow the gear > skill paradigm of themepark MMO's then there shouldn't be the problem of Godlike Player Killers in uber gear, 90 levels of experience and abilities ganking noobs in the lowbie areas.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But, what I want to do with any given mechanic is besides the point. I just use it as an example. Yes, you may find my choices morally lacking, but that does not make the mechanic lacking.
It is not that I find it "morally lacking", it is that when you allow serious PVP with consequences (like looting the corpse/captive), the NBSI policy is mandatory.
You can't take the risk of having someone that is not one of yours in your territory.
You make the example of "them" using your food, but your problem will be that some of "them" will be killing you NPC resource gathering groups. Or your faction PC, of "them" competing in your market, or "them" spying on you and so on.
It simply create a "them" category where you put everyone that is not in the trusted friend category, and they become automatically the enemies. It simply remove the "neutral" category from the game, there is only friend or foe.
The griefers will then find some way to exploit that system even in supposedly safe zones, but that is a different matter. The game system has already decide that everyone that is not a friend is a foe.
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
For one, how the hell is it going to be Pathfinder without levels?For another, even if progression is completely flat, you end up with gangs of gankers hanging out in areas with completely asymmetric opposition and stomping them flat for cheap laughs, even if there's no other reward in it. This has happened in every single game since UO and it's even happening right now in EVE in highsec space despite the fact that you're heavily penalized for doing it.
Players won't protect everyone, players can't protect everyone, and frankly, if you set up a system where players are expected to protect everyone, all you're doing is creating a game where the lucky players are trapped in protection rackets and the unlucky players get conned and then ganked.
People who do not remember the lessons of pre-Trammel UO are doomed to repeat them.
How the hell should I know how it's going to be pathfinder without levels? They own the license they make the rules. We have been given the parameters of the game. We can either discuss ideas on how they are created or pout like children. I'm not pouting.
If Goblinworks intend on making a skill based game as a fantasy evolution of the EVE system, that is their choice, again, they have payed the money for the licensing.
Ryan has mentioned on these message boards that he is targeting the sandbox community. Click on Ryans avatar and read his posts.
I think about 30% of the MMO player community wants a game that is primarily a sandbox. That's my primary audience. That figure is derived from market research I have read.
To put some numbers on that:
The MMO market is projected to be a $14 billion segment by 2015, growing at a compound annual growth of 12.8%.
Surprisingly enough, I feel that I am one of those people he is targeting. I am part of that 30%.
Maybe as the game development churns along they might cater to a PvE server style of play, they did mention this will be a sandbox game with themepark elements. We just don't know.
All I know is I am happy with the direction. Both as a Player of Pathfinder AND as part of that 30% of MMO players that want a sandbox MMO. I'm not even one of the goons from a big clan or corporation, I'm just a casual player that will probably play somewhere from 30 minutes - 3 hours a day, I might play the economy, I might start a thieves guild, I might just be a mangy pickpocket paying some other corporation a percentage of my take for the priviledge to steal in his city. Denying me the opportunity to do so is griefing just as much as a player killer would you.
Ryan Dancey's words on the matter.
I wonder if he left that post openly ambiguous, because I'm not really seeing him saying definite there. And of course, like I might have stated earlier around here, anything can happen since this game is not even close to being finished and a mere few (if any) final decisions on it's designs have been made.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan Dancey's words on the matter.I wonder if he left that post openly ambiguous, because I'm not really seeing him saying definite there. And of course, like I might have stated earlier around here, anything can happen since this game is not even close to being finished and a mere few (if any) final decisions on it's designs have been made.
I think you are correct in your interpretation. It is probably way to early in development to say anything concretely. I argue for open-PvP, but I am excited about the game with our without PvP limitations, as it is the building, not destroying I am looking forward to.
Well, I think we should take into consideration the consequences of dying before we go to the consequences of griefing. There are games where you lose all your stuff on death (Runescape), there are games where your gear takes a hit for you (World of Warcraft) and other examples. But Runescape and WoW have very different ways to engage in PvP, the former having a PvP-only area with clear warnings and such, while the other has varying levels of it that you have limited control over with the whole "enable/disable PvP" options and PvP servers.
Also, I know this is off-topic but I need to apologize for my earlier outbursts on that other thread, Kyrt-Rider. We both (and probably most of the players we play with) have different ways of playing D&D and different perceptions on what is "acceptable" at a game table (in the end, it's a matter of opinion/taste after all), so I kinda jumped the gun on that one discussion (a friend of mine told me I have a tendency to be like that at times).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Onishi, it's already been made pretty clear that 'double their power level' isn't going to be something you really see in this game, especially once you get past the first week or two of 'serious play' or the first month or two of 'casual play.'
But you will see:
"Geared for killing players and not monsters""Grouped on trade routes to kill people as soon as they leave the safe area"
"Camped on the route to the monster lair"
if possible
"camped in the monster lair so they can kill it as soon as it respawn and kill anyone trying to get to it"
I should add "Gate camp" to the dictionary in the other thread.
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
Click on Ryans avatar and read his posts.I've read his posts. He's talking about a sandbox PVP game, but hasn't yet addressed how this game will keep from being a gang warfare simulator, like every other sandbox PVP MMO before it.
....
That is what we have been discussing in this thread. I'm not even saying "THiS IS HOW IT SHOULD BE DONE", I am merely having a discussion with others on ideas that may or may not work.
Here's a thought. What you see as a gang warfare simulator, others see it as a empire building simulator. I hope the game doesn't digress into a NBSI (Not Blue Shoot it) sandbox. I am hoping that trading between empires is such an important part of the game that people that are not part of the clan would be free to venture there to trade under the protection of the clan. I am also hoping that there would be an incentive to let adventurers that aren't a member of the clan be free to travel as long as they don't break the law.
Say one of these Clans (or Guilds) has built a city and within their borders is a dungeon that I might really want to investigate. Wouldn't it be cool if there was an incentive for the clan to hire non-clan or allied adventurers to investigate the dungeon or just keep the monster numbers low. The clan might have an ability to set a Tithe, completely invisible to the player, that allows a portion of the monetary treasure to go straight into their coffers. Sure they can handle the problem themselves, but they can also make money from commissioning or outsourcing the problem.
The limit to a sandbox game with good financial backing is actually quite exciting for me. You forget that Ultima Online Pre-Trammel was the first true MMO. I am confident that Ryan has analyzed the mistakes made and has a plan in place.
What if there was an incentive to the clan
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We are not talking about a themepark MMO like world of warcraft, the information we have been given has very much highlighted that. I understand you posted Warcraft numbers because they were easier to find, but it is a moot point because EvE Online is highly successful with it's format. The target audience of a sandbox MMO is very different to that of a themepark. Even a hybrid of the two would never satisfy the instant gratification themepark crowd from WoW.
EVE numbers:
Type Population Q3 2010 Population Q4 2010 Q3 % of Total Q4 % of Total
High Sec 553502 611732 79.56% 79.61%
Low sec 48346 51342 6.95% 6.68%
Null sec 76999 86487 11.07% 11.26%
Wormhole
Space 16846 18812 2.42% 2.45%
I.e. 79% of the characters are in the safeish (it is not safe, only more safe than the other areas) high sec.
21% in territories where might make right.
EDIT:
To add the other half of the equation:
total system is around 6.000 and something, high sec systems are around 1.500.
i.e. 79% of the characters is packed in 25% of the space.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Onishi, it's already been made pretty clear that 'double their power level' isn't going to be something you really see in this game, especially once you get past the first week or two of 'serious play' or the first month or two of 'casual play.'But you will see:
"Geared for killing players and not monsters"
"Grouped on trade routes to kill people as soon as they leave the safe area"
"Camped on the route to the monster lair"
if possible
"camped in the monster lair so they can kill it as soon as it respawn and kill anyone trying to get to it"I should add "Gate camp" to the dictionary in the other thread.
Wow, all four of these sound like valid RP paths for a story in early medieval Europe.
- Geared for killing people and not animals...aka bandits
- Yeah, if they want to rob people with money (or things they can sell), they hit the trade routes where the nations do not patrol. That is why caravans hired additional guards...what you call a problem, I see as an employment opportunity.
- Camped on the route to the a holy site or other popular site. Once again, this is the reason for groups such as the Knights Templars.
- Camped in a monster lair? Yeah...that is how you hunt something when it is not in its den, you stake out the den.
I fail to see the problem with any of these actions. In fact, by doing these, they are RPing whether they realize they are RPing or not. And, I think the error with someone repeatedly doing the last one is a fault of the AI, not the players. AI that repeatedly gets killed in a given spot should migrate.