Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a modified version of another thread which has devolved into a PvP vs, non-PvP discussion.
Axioms of Discussion:
1. Open world PvP
2. Griefing (Wikipedia) is the act of causing grief to other members of an online community, or more specifically, intentionally disrupting the immersion of another player in their gameplay.
3. Griefers, and hence griefing, can be reduced through mechanics.
4. Goblinworks has not finalized the mechanics they will implement except those listed as axioms.
5. Reducing Griefing is a good thing for the community as a whole.
The topic of discussion is how a game with open-PvP can be designed to minimize griefing. Specifically, what mechanics can be used to discourage or punish griefing.
Open discussion and even disagreement is welcome, but any debate which violates or denies of one of the axioms will hopefully be ignored (once it is pointed out as such). If you do not agree with the axioms, please start your own discussion based upon different definitions.
So far I have seen outlines of:
- Reputation/karma systems which affect social interactions.
- More severe penalties upon death for those who are flagged as a griefer.
The object of the first idea is obviously to dissuade griefing behavior, while the second punishes griefing behavior. We would want to minimize the overlap in some of these systems between some alignments and griefing. Can evil characters have a good karma? It does make sense they would be able to have good reputations, especially among other evil characters.
Another idea to discuss is something someone else mentioned. Is the source of griefing anonymity? If so, can anonymity be reduced?
Toward this end, both the Reputation/karma system and slow travel offer solutions. Without the ability to teleport at whim, players are forced to build their local reputation and in the local community if they want positive interactions. Granted, there may be a community of griefers, but their prey are then welcome to get up and move...settling in a distant land.
Any other ideas about the causes of griefing? And/or, ideas about how those causes can be addressed? It may very well be that griefers are inherently evil and that the problem cannot be addressed, but that would violate axiom 3, so not worth discussing.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer,
and......never forget a favor.
The ability to toggle PVP off. Perhaps have different play style toggles such as, PVP, Story mode, and something that combines the two. The greatest reward (XP probably) comes from the combination type play style. However if someone is getting grieved they can just turn to story mode and go about their business.
I will favorite you on that one.Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer,
and......never forget a favor.
It's a Sicilian message.....it says, "tonite the griefer sleeps with the fishes."
I think that WoW has PVE AND PVP servers, so this game'll probably end up like that too. I'm seeing a lot of people say they don't want to jack around with the PVP, and Paizo or Goblinworks or whoever has gotta try to grab their money too.
And, to leave you with another one from Goodfellas,
"everybody's got to take a beating sometime."
You get griefed, you dust yourself off, get more stuff, and come at it again.
And....practice right now by tuning out the windbaggy types......
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
People keep bringing up the hypothetical "GM" in reference to this game, and I honestly want to know, how in the blue hell does anyone expect a GMing mechanic to work in an MMO?
I hope the holistic system is designed to minimize "GM" interaction and necessity. For instance: Tough penalties for deaths will make people not want to die. Reputations systems will make players have to deal with the long term effects of their actions. The lack of autofilled name plates makes naming conventions not necessary because if someone tells me their name is "l33tOnU", I am putting jackass down for their name and I need not worry about future interactions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope the holistic system is designed to minimize "GM" interaction and necessity.It doesn't. It so doesn't.
We know very little about the holistic system and absolutely nothing about many components of it...so I am not sure how you can make this statement or what it would mean with no information to base it on.
Bah, I guess I am the stupid one for feeding it.
We know very little about the holistic system and absolutely nothing about many components of it...so I am not sure how you can make this statement or what it would mean with no information to base it on.
Bah, I guess I am the stupid one for feeding it.
As long as people get stuck in terrain, you will need a GM. As long as people tell you to type in your password because it comes out as stars, you will need a GM. As long as people can spam racial slurs or viagra ads (and sometimes both) in every town square, you will need a GM. All the reputations, bounties, and player driven guard patrols in the world aren't going to change that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What worked in past systems are band aids over flaws in their core mechanics. New core mechanics is what I hoped we could brainstorm and discuss here.
I don't think griefplay (I like your term) is preventable. It even occurs in RL. But, I think systems can be designed with human behavior and motivations in mind that with keep people too busy to grief, give most griefers other, more desirable options for play, or even make griefing less fun than not griefing.
For instance, the previously discussed reputations system had a feature which "bled" bad reputation upon those who interacted (including trading) with players who had a bad reputation. The rationale is that you are seen as associating with a known criminal. Many NPCs would outright refuse to trade with criminals and PC can if they are willing to take the rep hit...Being unable to interact with society would suck in an MMO.
But, this system had reputation as localized, so if you accidentally wrecked your reputation, or did it purposely but decided to turn over a new leaf, you could grind quests for the local authority, or just move to a new area...but then this system also requires that travel be not quick. So mechanics are all intertwined.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As long as people get stuck in terrain, you will need a GM. As long as people tell you to type in your password because it comes out as stars, you will need a GM. As long as people can spam racial slurs or viagra ads (and sometimes both) in every town square, you will need a GM. All the reputations, bounties, and player driven guard patrols in the world aren't going to change that.
/stuck is mostly automated in most MMOs now. And spamming can be limited with /ignore and /report and by limiting all chats channels to local ones.
But, your point is taken, I am not suggesting CSRs be removed or entirely unreachable. Only that the mechanics built in a way that makes players feel as if they do not have to appeal to the CSRs. Some situations, it will be inevitable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I honestly don't see how any Open-PvP game can discourage griefing at all short of it not being Open-PvP. The best solution would be a limited PvP system, where you can only attack players within a certain 'level' range, or those you're at war with. In which case it is no longer Open-PvP.
Barring that, have a murder system in place where people who 'grief' are marked as such and are no longer allowed near towns for fear of guard death. The argument against that is to have an alternate character head into town, but there could be some form of account-wide flag.
Have multiple servers with different rule-sets. One that is actual Open-PvP, one that is limited open, one that is carebear safe.
Then, there's always what UO did for a time. Probably the worst option, but an option. People who were griefers (aka: murderers in UO) had a special penalty when they died. They were given stat-loss. Basically, all of their stats and skills would drop by x amount whenever they died. It's probably one of the ultimate penalties to that sort of gameplay, and not something that I support in the least, but the option is out there.
But, your point is taken, I am not suggesting CSRs be removed or entirely unreachable. Only that the mechanics built in a way that makes players feel as if they do not have to appeal to the CSRs. Some situations, it will be inevitable.
This would be awesome. It really would. I'd love a game where the reason people don't run (or, lets face it, jump) around screaming whatever the chat filter will let through because of in-world repercussions. I just don't think any such system can exist.
I used to have a neat article by an MMO designer bookmarked, about how players will find a way around any system. I wish I could find it. The examples he gave were from kids games, where they created elaborate systems to keep kids from giving away personal information, only to have them circumvented in minutes.
For example, reputation. Bleeding reputation is a really cool idea, but people will invariably find ways to game it. Instead of using a trade interface, they will drop items on the ground to avoid "bleed." If you don't let them drop items, you'll have suicide-multis who can be killed and looted to make the exchange. People are clever, and constant patching of whatever holes they poke in clever new systems will, in my experience, just lead to new holes or (worse yet) incredible annoyance for normal people just trying to play the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And that is exactly why I started this thread, I had not even considered the option of just dropping stuff to get around the reputation system. Thank you.
And so...as a solution, how about allowing players to flag other people who are behaving badly and it is these flags that add into the reputation system. So, if I see a person interacting with a criminal, I can right-click and -Rep Flag the person (or if the system is more specific, you can specify for trading with a criminal). If someone kills another person in public, everyone will flag them a murderer. This is actually a better rep system in my mind because it allows you to do crimes covertly and no take the rep hit.
It even fits what happens in RL when someone starts rumors because they do not like you...
And so...as a solution, how about allowing players to flag other people who are behaving badly and it is these flags that add into the reputation system. So, if I see a person interacting with a criminal, I can right-click and -Rep Flag the person (or if the system is more specific, you can specify for trading with a criminal). If someone kills another person in public, everyone will flag them a murderer. This is actually a better rep system in my mind because it allows you to do crimes covertly and no take the rep hit.
It even fits what happens in RL when someone starts rumors because they do not like you...
The problem is, as in real life, people also start rumours because they are jerks. My internet gang is going to group -Rep flag you until nobody will talk to you, because it is funny. When members of my gang burn, pillage and otherwise cause havoc I'll not only not flag them, but threaten anyone who even thinks of doing it.
I think the issue that will continue to exist is that you have not lost your faith in humanity. Your ideas would work quite well in a reasonable game where everyone wanted to progress towards goals, and none of those goals was "ruin other peoples playtime so I can feed upon their sweet, sweet tears." I prescribe forty-five minutes of Encyclopedia Dramatica.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I personally prefer PVE to PVP, but PVP appeals to many people and the game needs to cater for it.
In my own experience, most PVP enthusiasts are decent people who don't want to ruin everybody's fun. Griefers are a small minority of the PVP players out there, but they have the potential to ruin the game experience for the majority of people. It's one thing if you occasionally get defeated by another player who has a clever PVP build. It's another thing entirely to get repeatedly ganked by the same group of griefers over and over using exploits (such as ambushing players as they move from one zone to another while they are stuck behind a loading sreen). The first type of PVP player is an asset to the game; the second is a pain who drives people away from the game.
At the moment, the methods proposed for controlling PVP abuse in PFO look very weak. I know that it's early days, but this is a critical issue for the devs to get right. Failure to do so will drive a lot of people away from the game - myself included. Griefers are such a major issue in some MMOs that they effectively sink the game.
The game needs to have a clear vision of what is legitimate PVP and what is not from the outset and use every method available to discorage griefing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The problem is, as in real life, people also start rumours because they are jerks. My internet gang is going to group -Rep flag you until nobody will talk to you, because it is funny. When members of my gang burn, pillage and otherwise cause havoc I'll not only not flag them, but threaten anyone who even thinks of doing it.This happened in The Sims Online. It was also a common thread of protection rackets in TSO.
The fact that it happened in Sims Online does not equate to it should not occur in PFO. In fact, that it occurred in Sims, a game which specialized in simulated social interactions, shows that it might very well be a step in the right direction in a game that tries to build social interaction. Not all of them will be "good" or positive.
I hope the social interactions are complex enough to account for rumors and the spreading of. Some people enjoy these interactions as much as the classical hack and slash interactions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Perhaps players who hit a certain negative reputation threshold should become lootable upon death? Or perhaps the person who wins the bounty on a wanted murderer gets to choose one of the murderer's items as part of their reward for serving justice. Maybe griefers won't be so keen to cause havoc when their cool toys are at risk.
Okay, I wasn't going to post on the topic anymore, but I can't help myself. :)
I don't think all player killing falls into the category of griefing. But any system developed to combat griefing will likely also restrict the legitimate PvP to some extent. Therefore, I think any mechanics should be in-game, and roleplay related.
I think the reputation system may be the best bet here, but properly implemented. First, people should have a separate reputation for each faction. Second, only players in that faction should be able to add or subtract reputation for that faction. An act may lower your reputation in one and raise it in another. You may well gain rep among the Red Mantis Assassins for taking a contract on someone else, but lose rep from whoever you killed. A free agent thief stealing stuff might lose rep among both the Watch and the Thieves' Guild. A guild thief doing the same thing would gain rep in the Guild but still lose it in the Watch.
Since the reputation system would be entirely player driven, it couldn't be circumvented nearly as easily. And since it would be limited to faction members (or even high ranking faction members) and would only affect your dealings with that faction, it couldn't be abused nearly as easily.
Griefers would likely have three options, then. One, join a faction that actually allows their play style - in which case they are not griefing any more, but RPing; two, join specifically created griefer factions - in which case they are basically bandit gangs, and thus RPing again; three, go it alone and eventually have no safe haven because they have s~&!ty rep with everyone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Expanding the Player-driven reputation system. Players should be able to bestow positive and negative rep, and the amount of power your flags have are directly proportional to the amount of rep you have. People with high positive rep therefore, would gain it by doing "good" deeds for others...or just being a friendly person. As such, they are well trusted and their word carries more power than someone who has a negative reputation.
This also keeps people with negative rep trying to raise theirs by bestowing positive rep on each other.
Actually the result of such a system would be the creation of societies with the people with the highest rep being those who do what that society respects. If people respect kindness, they will reward acts of kindness with + Rep. The person with the strongest voice would end up being the person who was most kind. A different society may respect strength of arms, as such, the person who demonstrates the best skill in battle would have the highest + Rep.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think all player killing falls into the category of griefing. But any system developed to combat griefing will likely also restrict the legitimate PvP to some extent. Therefore, I think any mechanics should be in-game, and roleplay related.I think the reputation system may be the best bet here, but properly implemented. First, people should have a separate reputation for each faction. Second, only players in that faction should be able to add or subtract reputation for that faction. An act may lower your reputation in one and raise it in another. You may well gain rep among the Red Mantis Assassins for taking a contract on someone else, but lose rep from whoever you killed. A free agent thief stealing stuff might lose rep among both the Watch and the Thieves' Guild. A guild thief doing the same thing would gain rep in the Guild but still lose it in the Watch.
Agreed concerning the first paragraph, and most players know the difference when the see it between legitimate world PvP and griefing. But, even if some do not, a few -Rep reports could easily be counteracted and would have little effect anyways. For instance, no one would report players involved in a war action.
To the second, I had not considered it per faction and that is an option to explore. I had only considered it as something that exists locally. The range of your rep is proportional to "strength" of the fame, for better or worse. Outside this range you would just look neutral to people.
Expanding the Player-driven reputation system. Players should be able to bestow positive and negative rep, and the amount of power your flags have are directly proportional to the amount of rep you have. People with high positive rep therefore, would gain it by doing "good" deeds for others...or just being a friendly person. As such, they are well trusted and their word carries more power than someone who has a negative reputation.
Some would. We on Team Mort are going to just go around in a circle, increasing each others rep. We'd do it to others for money, too. If you try to rep us down, even for burning your farm and doing terrible, terrible things with your garden implements, our collectively inflated rep will crush you like a bug.
You can make this every more complicated, weighting the rep you see based on who you have repped up and down and whatnot. Basically, Ryan could create The [word that apparently is still too bad for the filter] Society and Whuffie.
Wait, shoot. People gamed that too.
This also keeps people with negative rep trying to raise theirs by bestowing positive rep on each other.
Not if we up our rep BEFORE going on our international murder spree. The good sociopath thinks ahead.
Actually the result of such a system would be the creation of societies with the people with the highest rep being those who do what that society respects. If people respect kindness, they will reward acts of kindness with + Rep. The person with the strongest voice would end up being the person who was most kind. A different society may respect strength of arms, as such, the person who demonstrates the best skill in battle would have the highest + Rep.
You know what, I'm just going to leave this here and stop shooting down ideas. Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom.
A respect based society is wonderful utopian idea. And, like all utopian ideas, it will be crushed under the heel of human nature.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Kit, you're proposing a rep system that is so hopelessly complex that nobody could possibly implement it and no player could possibly understand it and no interface could possibly communicate it meaningfully. Not only that, it would be such a massively overdesigned trainwreck that it would be full of loopholes to abuse.
On top of this, you're saying naive, misguided, or just plain flat out wrong things about player conduct.
What are you trying to do?
I could not implement the GUI, but I could do the back-end. And how is it overly complex to the user, someone does something that pisses you off you tag them with -Rep, someone does something kind you tag them with +Rep. Then, when you look at people you see something as simple as a color coded dot over them that tells you their current rep. It is your choice to interact with them.
But, to answer your question...what I am trying to do is discuss ideas. I appreciate Mort's responses for example because he provides specific ways he sees it can be broken. Although I feel bad the discussion is obviously distressing him. Since he presented examples, I or others can try to address them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I could not implement the GUI, but I could do the back-end. And how is it overly complex to the user, someone does something that pisses you off you tag them with -Rep, someone does something kind you tag them with +Rep. Then, when you look at people you see something as simple as a color coded dot over them that tells you their current rep. It is your choice to interact with them.You're going to develop a robust reputation system that people can't game? Good luck! If you've got any actual credentials to back that up, bookmark this and get your resume ready!
No, I could implement what we have so far discussed, mentioned faults and all.
The major problem I see with your player driven scenario, is this
A guild of griefers wait by a start zone, and then all flag someone as soon as they begin. Now this new player has not even started, yet somehow has horrific reputation. Then the griefers (or others if so inclined) could 'charge' in a sense to undo the damage
I think the option should be out of the player's hands, because all it takes is one grudge, and the Paladin of Iomedae just beginning can't buy a longsword, because the guild of Paladin's of Torag are all people who grief by spamming bad rep.
I think an automated system should be in place, but as one said before with the whole evil basis... yet not base it off evil.
Like a social karma. You don't lose points for being evil, or attacking NPC's necessarily.
You lose it by ganking greycon's
or by killing someone in their set revive window (as in a certain amount of time after coming to life.
Or even being the aggressor of a faction you are not at war with, nor has a bounty on them.
These points add up, or better yet take away from a score, that hits players where they care. In the gear.
If gear has a value that requires a certan social karma score to use, then you lose use of it when you act out. The idea being why reward the players that cause grief by letting them use stuff intended for people actually playing the game as intended.
Set the PvP tag tha needs to be turned on.... but not that you are safe from PvP, but when you turn the flag on, you declare you are at war. When turned on, yu have to declare which faction you're at war with
Each player belongs to whichever faction they have the most rep in. Now, if you flag yourself as at war to the faction of the person you intend to grief, anyone of the faction has free reign to fight you without losing social karma. And once you 'declare war' on a faction, you are at war with them until 24hrs after you last attacked one of their members. Seems convoluted whe I read back over it, but it's like a ramble so I won't try to clean it up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
KitNyx, I don't know if you're fooling with me or not.
If you're not: developing reputation systems is an actual field of study. By contrast, you come off as, "Man, those chemists? I've seen them with their beakers, that's not so hard. I bet I could do that and make a ton of discoveries, no sweat. Just call me the next...uh...who's a chemistry guy...Einstein!"
I hope you will forgive me for not justifying this thinly veiled attack with a response other than to inform you I am returning to a discussion of IDEAS for mechanics that MIGHT dissuade griefers. You are welcome to stick around and participate or not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree that a reputation/karma system should be separate than alignment. A person might end up with a really negative reputation in an evil society...because they are good in alignment.
And making it hit gear is definitely a new suggestion. But I hope PFO in not just a gear grind. I will be really disappointed if it is all about the best gear. But, even if it was, in Darkfall people played naked instead of risking gear. So, I am not sure this would be a deterrent.
I'll try to clarify
Certain number of Social Karma points are required to use certain nice gear, or low Social Karma causes lowered capabilities.
PvP is open
When about to attack someone PvP, you declare war on their faction (click button, select dropdown, or what have you), you can now attack them without losing Social Karma.
When you declare war, it is for 24 (or more as required) hours, and during that time you may be attacked by anyone of that faction without them losing Social Karma.
The countdown for how long you are at war begins after your last attack of someone of that faction.
Attacking someone either greycon or without declaring war on their faction (to include NPC's) loses Social Karma points, and the loss can be greater by the difference in level (not that they said it will be level based, but there has to be some way to establish how much more powerful someone is. Maybe their total skill value.)
Will this remove griefing, no, but it will make it a lot harder for the griefers to succeed if all they are able to use is the lowest of gear.
If gear is not as relevant in PFO as it is in PFRPG (you can't deny the christmas tree effect is very foundational to the game.)
Then have lower Social Karma result in lowered combat effectiveness, skill successes.
That way Kyrt, and RunnitB (sp) can still RP attacking whoever they want as an evil character by saying, I am at war with the faction this person belongs to and willing to accept that by attacking one of its members.
It will also build up stronger in game factional ties. So, you have a faction of each religion that tends to band together. Or even don't make the at war dropdown a list they have to scroll through, make it a part of the other player's title.
<Jimbob>
Death's Marauders
Follower of Zon-Kuthon
You click on the guild name, click the at war option, your done. Click on the Religious title, click the at war option, your done.
This way RP PvP is not hindered, but PKing still is.
MIB, you missed the part where I said player driven voting doesn't work
Stop attacking Kit for a minute and read what I said.
Managed by the system, probably as easily as rep and PvP flags already are in other games that have them.
But they can only be SO successful with a bunch of throwaways
The best griefers are the ones that can effectively be a threat. or just as simply, have social karma be an account score, not a character score.
What's a redlink or reciprocal redlink?
The person attacked when not at war doesn't get lowered Karma, only the non-at war aggressor.
So what if a bunch of 1st or 2nd lvl (lvl used for purpose of discussion) keep nit picking. They become marked as fair game, no bad karma, no at war as soon as they aggress without declaring war.
Heck tie it to an account, and as soon as they spawn a new PC, they start in aggresive territory and are guard killed. The only way to undo it is by bringing their social karma back up. Via quests, or over time, or some such.
Aardvark Barbarian, Man in Black, I would be very interested in hearing y'all's analysis of my idea. It is player driven, yet not amenable to abuse by throwaway alts.
As for the idea of flagging yourself at war with certain factions... what is to stop someone from flagging themselves such, then removing the flag when the griefing is done? And is the flag readily visible? Because if I'm playing a Red Mantis Assassin, I shouldn't necessarily be openly declaring myself at war with all of a given target's buddies in order to fulfill a contract.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Aardvark Barbarian, Man in Black, I would be very interested in hearing y'all's analysis of my idea. It is player driven, yet not amenable to abuse by throwaway alts.
As for the idea of flagging yourself at war with certain factions... what is to stop someone from flagging themselves such, then removing the flag when the griefing is done? And is the flag readily visible? Because if I'm playing a Red Mantis Assassin, I shouldn't necessarily be openly declaring myself at war with all of a given target's buddies in order to fulfill a contract.
I think you idea has some valid strengths, especially since deities in this world are active. As such, you may not only align with factions, but also by deity...and they do have certain codes of honor.
EDIT: On the other hand, as with your point above with the Red Mantis Assassin. Most people in society would not really know the factional or religious associations of other people. I am also one of those who was proposing not knowing more about another character that what they told you...and even then they could have given incorrect information.
Th flag doesn't go away, as I said above, until a set time period after the last attack (24 or more hours).
When you declare war,they don't just give up on you just because you said "Just kidding"
As far as visibility, I would have to say it would have to be some sort of mouseover option or somesuch.
If you have a contract or a Bounty, then you are not at war, therefore it's a legal kill. AS LONG AS there are rules for who and or how often a contract or bounty can be created.
Maybe a guild or faction can only create a certain number of contracts in a set period. There is a big difference bewteen assassinating the head of a rival group, and just wanting permission to take them out one at a time without being at war.
And bounties would only be automated by maybe NPC factions for the highest ba rep against them, maybe contracts too.
So you declare war with a faction, each member you kill drops your rep. They may not be at war when the flag drops, but they aren't friendly either
Having faction tags that affect in game mechanics in PvP style may see a lot of politicing, and religion battles, and guilds being more than just gangs.
Goblinworks Founder
|
I was going to stay out of this discussion because of how the other thread ended up but I cannot help myself.
@A Man in Black.
You have criticized everyone else across multiple threads now but I have not seen you offer any suggestions at all. Please enlighten us how you would deal with things? If you cannot offer anything then I will be satisfied that you are nothing but a troll. I may be coming across as singling you out, and in all honesty I am because I have read nothing but negative criticism in your posts with absolutely nothing constructive.
So please, enlighten us.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please don't as I'm sure he and I agree
Only PvP by choice, or have seperate servers. Which does not contribute to the discussion, but instead restarts the "To PvP or Not To PvP, that is the question."
I HATE PvP, and see it as a detractor from any game.
BUT I am willing to try and add a solution to remove the aspects of it I hate, for those that do like it.
I would rather have a discussion on the merits or issues with the system I proposed than why PvP is or isn't good or bad.
If the people want to PvP because it's in character, or RP, then make it tied to factions. Because "if you attack one of my own, you are dead to us" is Rp-PvP.