Ideas for mechanics in an open PvP system that discourage griefing.


Pathfinder Online

251 to 300 of 389 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

polo!

Just kidding.

Goblin Squad Member

Diego Rossi wrote:
As already pointed out in another post in this section of the board, the skill system probably will go something like this:

we'll be talking more about skills in a future blog but I wanted to jump in here and say that while the ideas Diego posted are not completely incorrect, the system is something we think is pretty new and innovative in the sense that it assembles a lot of battle tested concepts in a new configuration.

Goblin Squad Member

The act of identifying a character as a "griefer" does little to limit the activities of a griefing player. Managing multiplle light side / dark side accounts is trivial, ensuring there's no economic penalty for the griefing character.

In my observation the effect of "if you pick on me I'll hire someone to pick on you" doesn't work. The griefer just leaves the area, or worse, triggers a counterattack from ambushing buddies that kills the "protector" and ends up dealing folks a huge setback.

"Harassment" griefing doesn't involve game mechanics at all, except in the cases of ninja looting and physically blocking access to some game space, or training mobs into victims - none of which would tend to make a character change status (it's mighty hard to tell the difference between an accidental train and a grief).

Remember that a lot of griefing comes from disposable characters. They strike, do the harm they can do, and get banned. So what? That (anonymous, multiple IP, multiple payment method, untraceable) player doesn't care. He's got a dozen more characters ready to deploy, and might have dozens (or hundreds or thousands) of like-minded buddies on call to keep the pain train rolling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:


Remember that a lot of griefing comes from disposable characters. They strike, do the harm they can do, and get banned. So what? That (anonymous, multiple IP, multiple payment method, untraceable) player doesn't care. He's got a dozen more characters ready to deploy, and might have dozens (or hundreds or thousands) of like-minded buddies on call to keep the pain train rolling.

I sense you have an idea in mind for how to handle this. Is it aggressive community management? Or is it to make the characters less disposable?

Frankly, I like the idea of less disposable characters. I like knowing my actions have consequences that will follow me for months or years to come. I like seeing that my character has a long tail of history behind them that would be difficult to recreate. If this also reduces griefing, so much the better.

Goblin Squad Member

Viga Doom wrote:
I sense you have an idea in mind for how to handle this. Is it aggressive community management? Or is it to make the characters less disposable?

I wish I had a magic bullet. If I did, I'd probably be making patent royalties instead of a new MMO. :)

We do have a few tricks up our sleeves. At some point we'll talk more about them.

Goblin Squad Member

Viga Doom wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:


Remember that a lot of griefing comes from disposable characters. They strike, do the harm they can do, and get banned. So what? That (anonymous, multiple IP, multiple payment method, untraceable) player doesn't care. He's got a dozen more characters ready to deploy, and might have dozens (or hundreds or thousands) of like-minded buddies on call to keep the pain train rolling.

I sense you have an idea in mind for how to handle this. Is it aggressive community management? Or is it to make the characters less disposable?

Frankly, I like the idea of less disposable characters. I like knowing my actions have consequences that will follow me for months or years to come. I like seeing that my character has a long tail of history behind them that would be difficult to recreate. If this also reduces griefing, so much the better.

+1

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
Viga Doom wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:


Remember that a lot of griefing comes from disposable characters. They strike, do the harm they can do, and get banned. So what? That (anonymous, multiple IP, multiple payment method, untraceable) player doesn't care. He's got a dozen more characters ready to deploy, and might have dozens (or hundreds or thousands) of like-minded buddies on call to keep the pain train rolling.

I sense you have an idea in mind for how to handle this. Is it aggressive community management? Or is it to make the characters less disposable?

Frankly, I like the idea of less disposable characters. I like knowing my actions have consequences that will follow me for months or years to come. I like seeing that my character has a long tail of history behind them that would be difficult to recreate. If this also reduces griefing, so much the better.

+1

I also second the less disposable character idea. If say HP goes up faster then damage goes up. IE low level/skilled characters are more or less very non-threatening to other players (as well as likely to get killed by their own mob-trains, in addition to failing most attacks). Then a disposable character will be more work for less griefing.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
As already pointed out in another post in this section of the board, the skill system probably will go something like this:
we'll be talking more about skills in a future blog but I wanted to jump in here and say that while the ideas Diego posted are not completely incorrect, the system is something we think is pretty new and innovative in the sense that it assembles a lot of battle tested concepts in a new configuration.

Jump around, saying "When, when when we will see that blog?!" ;-)

This is the torture of a thousand drops.

Onishi wrote:
KitNyx wrote:
Viga Doom wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:


Remember that a lot of griefing comes from disposable characters. They strike, do the harm they can do, and get banned. So what? That (anonymous, multiple IP, multiple payment method, untraceable) player doesn't care. He's got a dozen more characters ready to deploy, and might have dozens (or hundreds or thousands) of like-minded buddies on call to keep the pain train rolling.

I sense you have an idea in mind for how to handle this. Is it aggressive community management? Or is it to make the characters less disposable?

Frankly, I like the idea of less disposable characters. I like knowing my actions have consequences that will follow me for months or years to come. I like seeing that my character has a long tail of history behind them that would be difficult to recreate. If this also reduces griefing, so much the better.

+1
I also second the less disposable character idea. If say HP goes up faster then damage goes up. IE low level/skilled characters are more or less very non-threatening to other players (as well as likely to get killed by their own mob-trains, in addition to failing most attacks). Then a disposable character will be more work for less griefing.

I absolutely like the less disposable characters idea, I love characters with long background and contacts both with in game entities (NPC) and other players.

The only problem with Onishi suggestion is that one of the goals is not to marginalize new players, so the developers need to find a balance between "out of the box" character not being usable for harassing and they being useful to play.

In a game where PvE is a secondary concern a character need to be viable for PvP (not necessarily combat PvP, but market PvP, crafting PvP or whatever other form of activity we could do into the game).

Maybe the solution could be an entertaining but long creation process? If I have to spend an evening creating my character, deciding his aspect, background and so on, maybe doing one of a large number of micro adventures to generate the background I would be less interested in making him useless in the next few hours.

To make a simplistic example of the kind of small adventures and how they could change depending on other choices:
Two players want to make two different rogue character.
- Player A want to make a poor character (maybe he get a bonus in initial skills doing that)
* he get a adventure where he has to use stealth to raid a hen-house to eat
* at the end of the adventure he get 2 rank in stealth

- Player B want to make a rich character
* He get an adventure where he has to use stealth to rob a merchant
* at the end of the adventure he get 1 rank in stealth and 50 gp

Then both characters what to learn how to use a melee weapon
- Player A would be introduced into a street gang and has to fight one of the members to join them
- Player B would go to a fencing academy and learn from a instructor fighting with him.

The only problem I see with this kind of approach is that the capacity to stop the creation procedure, log off and return at a later date become mandatory.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Responding to the OP, read the first and last page:

We aren't trying to determine a 'reputation system' for NPCs to use.

We are trying to minimize the amount of griefing that 'open PvP' creates.
Here's one simple solution: Participation in open PvP is automatically suspended on an open PvP death. Get ganked once, respawn, and then you have 24 hours where you cannot engage in open PvP. Want to raid another player faction's headquarters? Go ahead, but you can't spawnrush it, you get one life each.

Open PvP deaths are defined as those for which an opposing player got credit, but not any instanced PvP which is intended to be repeatable (any matchmaking instance, like CTF)


How about your character being in the game all the time. Your character will be an NPC when you are not logged in and actively playing. He/ She could obey some simple rules about behavior to automate the actions when you are not playing. The game could be set up to allow all characters to do this.

Hence if you are actively playing the game and causing trouble others will keep track of your characters and what they see you doing. Then when you are not actively runnnig your character there is always the potential that things could happen when you are not ready for them.

This would mimic some of how the modern world deals with these problems. You can get away with things for a while yet when you try to rest you have no where left to go.

This would also be interesting in general as your character could do things when you are not there. If you have not logged in for a while it would be interesting to check in and see what your character has accomplished.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Vorp wrote:

How about your character being in the game all the time. Your character will be an NPC when you are not logged in and actively playing. He/ She could obey some simple rules about behavior to automate the actions when you are not playing. The game could be set up to allow all characters to do this.

Hence if you are actively playing the game and causing trouble others will keep track of your characters and what they see you doing. Then when you are not actively runnnig your character there is always the potential that things could happen when you are not ready for them.

This would mimic some of how the modern world deals with these problems. You can get away with things for a while yet when you try to rest you have no where left to go.

This would also be interesting in general as your character could do things when you are not there. If you have not logged in for a while it would be interesting to check in and see what your character has accomplished.

Great idea, but implementing it would require a reasonably smart AI run on the server, constantly. It also doesn't do anything to prevent griefing, it only allows for retaliatory griefing.


Kill someone within your own faction and you lose a small percentage of your XP. Simple and brutal, but more importantly: instant and unavoidable. There is no strategy you could use to avoid the XP loss. It happens automatically. Do it enough and you will lose levels.

It discourages me from just ganking anybody, but I still have the freedom to kill someone if I really, really hate them.

Then what about people who want to play a dedicated bandit or murderer? Well, what if they make a choice to become an "outlaw" for a determined time? A month at a time, maybe. An outlaw can get xp from killing PCs in any faction, but vendors will not trade with him and guards attack on sight. Now he can't go into town without a disguise. He has to live in the woods and trade with other outlaws, who can of course kill and rob each other, too. It's a dangerous life. At the end of the time period he gets the option to rejoin society (maybe for a fee and a temporary charisma penalty) or remain an outlaw for another period.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaaarg wrote:


Kill someone within your own faction and you lose a small percentage of your XP. Simple and brutal, but more importantly: instant and unavoidable. There is no strategy you could use to avoid the XP loss. It happens automatically. Do it enough and you will lose levels.

It discourages me from just ganking anybody, but I still have the freedom to kill someone if I really, really hate them.

Then what about people who want to play a dedicated bandit or murderer? Well, what if they make a choice to become an "outlaw" for a determined time? A month at a time, maybe. An outlaw can get xp from killing PCs in any faction, but vendors will not trade with him and guards attack on sight. Now he can't go into town without a disguise. He has to live in the woods and trade with other outlaws, who can of course kill and rob each other, too. It's a dangerous life. At the end of the time period he gets the option to rejoin society (maybe for a fee and a temporary charisma penalty) or remain an outlaw for another period.

Not a bad idea, though I also think it does need to be noted, the set faction vs faction idea also needs to go away. At least the concept of factions that are perpetually at war with each-other for a non-changable non-avertable reason. That just leads to traveling griefers who feel "Justified" for meaningless slaughter, who then run back behind their own faction lines for safety.

I still think one of the best solutions is war itself being costly for all involved, a psycopath on faction X, attacks and kills many beginners on faction Y, then runs behind faction X's doors, faction Y, may threaten faction X to war if they do not either expel the murderer from their protection, or ensure that he does not repeat his actions.

Now both factions may declare certain areas blind spots in their own justice if there is something they both want and know their members will fight over, treaties etc... Politics, trade etc... There is a reason why the real world does not have endless murder or even beatings and muggings, and it is not because of some divine being that prevents it from happening, it is because there are solid consequences to it, even when your government (faction) supports it there are consequences for the government for supporting it.


Onishi wrote:


Not a bad idea, though I also think it does need to be noted, the set faction vs faction idea also needs to go away. At least the concept of factions that are perpetually at war with each-other for a non-changable non-avertable reason. That just leads to traveling griefers who feel "Justified" for meaningless slaughter, who then run back behind their own faction lines for safety.

I agree. My aim is mostly to make murder possible, but not trivial. So everyone will know that even though I'm free to attack the guy who just emoted that he spit on me, the winner of the fight will lose xp no matter what (and maybe it's worth it, the spitting bastard). People don't just attack each other randomly. They hesitate, because there is a cost. You don't just get to ride through the newbie zone and swat three guys on your way home with no consequence.

As for factions, I envisioned them as a way to "legitimize" warfare, so if guild A is at war with guild B, they don't lose XP from killing each other, but they lose it from killing anybody else. You're absolutely right, they should not be static. My character may decide to be at peace with everyone else. I can still PvP, but not for free. It encourages me to remain peaceful without tying my hands completely. It brings a little order to the world because you know who is more likely to attack, outlaws and factions that are at war with your faction. Everyone else *might* get violent with you but you'll have to do something to provoke them, because murder costs them xp.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaaarg wrote:


I agree. My aim is mostly to make murder possible, but not trivial. So everyone will know that even though I'm free to attack the guy who just emoted that he spit on me, the winner of the fight will lose xp no matter what (and maybe it's worth it, the spitting bastard). People don't just attack each other randomly. They hesitate, because there is a cost. You don't just get to ride through the newbie zone and swat three guys on your way home with no consequence.

I agree, though I don't think the XP loss should be inevitable, but highly probable. I'm even in favor of the winner gaining some, but have to expect the victims side to want vengeance and for him to have a high probability of losing more then he gained, if said vengeance is carried out, and for the victims side, to have tools needed to carry this out. If the murderer is behind a "friendly" faction, then the faction may pay his debt in some form, or he may be killed by his own side for a bounty.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Viga Doom wrote:
I sense you have an idea in mind for how to handle this. Is it aggressive community management? Or is it to make the characters less disposable?

I wish I had a magic bullet. If I did, I'd probably be making patent royalties instead of a new MMO. :)

We do have a few tricks up our sleeves. At some point we'll talk more about them.

At least during the ramp up phase of the game where you are letting a limited number of people in each month, accounts should be a bit less disposable?

Get an account banned, it's not like you'll be able to jump into the game right away with a fresh one, if there isn't a slot availble for it that month. That can help set the right tone with the initial community.

The real question, IMO, is what happens after that initial ramp up...when presumably there isn't a mechanism in place limiting someone from jumping back in with a fresh account after they've been kicked out for harrassment.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Blaaarg wrote:
Onishi wrote:


Not a bad idea, though I also think it does need to be noted, the set faction vs faction idea also needs to go away. At least the concept of factions that are perpetually at war with each-other for a non-changable non-avertable reason. That just leads to traveling griefers who feel "Justified" for meaningless slaughter, who then run back behind their own faction lines for safety.

I agree. My aim is mostly to make murder possible, but not trivial. So everyone will know that even though I'm free to attack the guy who just emoted that he spit on me, the winner of the fight will lose xp no matter what (and maybe it's worth it, the spitting bastard). People don't just attack each other randomly. They hesitate, because there is a cost. You don't just get to ride through the newbie zone and swat three guys on your way home with no consequence.

As for factions, I envisioned them as a way to "legitimize" warfare, so if guild A is at war with guild B, they don't lose XP from killing each other, but they lose it from killing anybody else. You're absolutely right, they should not be static. My character may decide to be at peace with everyone else. I can still PvP, but not for free. It encourages me to remain peaceful without tying my hands completely. It brings a little order to the world because you know who is more likely to attack, outlaws and factions that are at war with your faction. Everyone else *might* get violent with you but you'll have to do something to provoke them, because murder costs them xp.

Why do we need to assume that infractions less than murder are trivial and deserve no punishment? People shouldn't spit on each other randomly unless that behavior is acceptable in that culture. There needs to be some way between inaction and homicide to handle these cases.

I like the idea of declared grudges and wars, with the added caveat that everybody needs clear feedback as to when they are subject to sanctioned violence, and how to remove those sanctions (which might include disavowing a player organization, or surrendering a claim to a wilderness resource.)

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Daniel Powell 318 wrote:

Responding to the OP, read the first and last page:

We aren't trying to determine a 'reputation system' for NPCs to use.

We are trying to minimize the amount of griefing that 'open PvP' creates.
Here's one simple solution: Participation in open PvP is automatically suspended on an open PvP death. Get ganked once, respawn, and then you have 24 hours where you cannot engage in open PvP. Want to raid another player faction's headquarters? Go ahead, but you can't spawnrush it, you get one life each.

Open PvP deaths are defined as those for which an opposing player got credit, but not any instanced PvP which is intended to be repeatable (any matchmaking instance, like CTF)

This can work backwards for a Griefer. A Griefer can spam multiple disposable accounts at honest Open PvPers to disable them from PvP. Thus they get their disruption kick.

Griefers will find the ways to cause the most amount of disruption

Speaking as a mostly Carebear EVE player, I actually like HalfOrcHeavyMetal's flagging suggestion. Call it more of an Opt-Out. While this may not appeal to PvP enthusiast this seems a good solution, turning carebears into effectively walking and player controlled Mobs in otherwise unprotected zones has its appeal.

The point of a greifer is to disrupt and to get the most disruption possible. By taking much of the "loss" out of the equation it lowers the incentive to disrupt. While under such a system a greifer could follow someone and attack them every 20 minutes but the reward/loss isn't there and such activity can be logged and tracked for a GM ticket. "Has attacked X player Y number of times, for Z length of time, for B amount of reward." Patterns of deliberate harassment shows up fairly quick when that happens, along with backing chat/combat logs.

Issues with farming, again because of its more mechanical/nature things like actions per minute, DPS, etc. Can be tracked. The point of giving rewards for Mob kills is the effort and danger involved in killing/dealing with them. The danger one character has presented to another can be tracked by methods as detailed above. Meaning that mechanically there would be very little difference between a Mob and a Non-PvP Flagged Player. To keep from incentivising bot farming, make the rewards based on the danger, a bot that just stands there gives little to nothing, ditto a real player who just "goes limp".

Now my example would be of say someone in a Full PvP zone, even EVE has zones with different levels of PvP. A Non-PvPer in a Full PvP zone is still a legit target for attack (and for fighting back).

Outside if Griefing and Botting this creates 3 kinds of conflict:

On-PvP vs On-PvP; full looting, high risk high reward, understood and accepted consequences.

On-PvP vs Off-PvP; Risk of inconvenience on par with dying to a Mob (on both sides), rewards on par with that of a Mob by difficulty.

Result, brings bodies into full PvP zones and creates impromptu random encounters of dedicated.
=====

As an EVE survivor, I'll use that term, I am 100% against global free-for-all style PvP. Sorry, but it does encourage protect casual players and can cause burn-out. Having to always watch over your shoulder for a resource shattering gank, Flag abuser, and High-Sec wars take their toll. There has to be protection for those who don't want to play that aggressively or for those who've burned out from that level of hyperawareness IN A GAME! An MMO should not be on par with tournament level FPS/RTS play 24/7, which EVE can be.

I used to run around Null-Sec and was part of a few Low-sec groups, with my share of high-sec warfare. In a system as I say above I'd have no issue being a Non-PvP and going to "Null-Sec" to be a tougher "Mob" for full on PvPers who like that kind of stuff, while doing my own "Mission/Quests" in those areas. Delay and a good fight (even losing) is better then total loss to one sided gank.

I would have run way more low-sec mining ops if it wasn't a total loss scenario. Even if we ended up the whipping boys every 20, 30, 40 (whatever game economics dictates) minutes. Who knows, in an odd chance maybe our PvE guard ships would turn the tables one in a blue-moon. In a fantasy theme these are the random caravans, wedding parties, string of hapless singing dwarven miners that would normally be AI controlled.

=====

I guess in short, let me the Carebear miner/fisher/trapper/smith/mechant be the Theme Park for other people. But don't make it super painful to be such, or cut to hard into my Carebear activities.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Dorje Sylas wrote:
Daniel Powell 318 wrote:

Responding to the OP, read the first and last page:

We aren't trying to determine a 'reputation system' for NPCs to use.

We are trying to minimize the amount of griefing that 'open PvP' creates.
Here's one simple solution: Participation in open PvP is automatically suspended on an open PvP death. Get ganked once, respawn, and then you have 24 hours where you cannot engage in open PvP. Want to raid another player faction's headquarters? Go ahead, but you can't spawnrush it, you get one life each.

Open PvP deaths are defined as those for which an opposing player got credit, but not any instanced PvP which is intended to be repeatable (any matchmaking instance, like CTF)

This can work backwards for a Griefer. A Griefer can spam multiple disposable accounts at honest Open PvPers to disable them from PvP. Thus they get their disruption kick.

How many characters can a griefer spam at and beat an honest PvP player? At some point it stops being griefing and becomes PvP play, and if one player has built and equipped several characters for the purpose of chain-spawn-rushing, that's a valid technique on par with bringing friends to the fight.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Daniel Powell 318 wrote:
Dorje Sylas wrote:
Daniel Powell 318 wrote:

Responding to the OP, read the first and last page:

We aren't trying to determine a 'reputation system' for NPCs to use.

We are trying to minimize the amount of griefing that 'open PvP' creates.
Here's one simple solution: Participation in open PvP is automatically suspended on an open PvP death. Get ganked once, respawn, and then you have 24 hours where you cannot engage in open PvP. Want to raid another player faction's headquarters? Go ahead, but you can't spawnrush it, you get one life each.

Open PvP deaths are defined as those for which an opposing player got credit, but not any instanced PvP which is intended to be repeatable (any matchmaking instance, like CTF)

This can work backwards for a Griefer. A Griefer can spam multiple disposable accounts at honest Open PvPers to disable them from PvP. Thus they get their disruption kick.

How many characters can a griefer spam at and beat an honest PvP player? At some point it stops being griefing and becomes PvP play, and if one player has built and equipped several characters for the purpose of chain-spawn-rushing, that's a valid technique on par with bringing friends to the fight.

How many Freemium accounts will GoblinWorks allow to work off one IP address at time? How many instances of Pathfinder Online can they get to run at once (and I include inside virtual machines if GoblinWorks hard codes a limit of 1 instance per machine)? Those are the limits. That also doesn't include group ganks as have been demonstrated in EVE with things like Hulkageddon. Which is functionally the same only spamming throw away ships. If I was a griefer and I (and my group) could take out a top level or even mid level PvPer by just spamming him out of fights, then its a done deal.

This is different then brining true friends to the fight because it requires no coordination. It can be one guy, streaming high DPS glass cannons at you until you run out of resources and die or are forced to run away and do something else. Either way it's little effort on the griefer's part and lots of disruption to the guy he'd be spamming.

Knocking people out of PvP isn't the answer, especially not such a long time limit. Open PvP is only a real problem when non-PvPers are prevented from doing non-PvP things. This is where most Griefing happens because the non-PvPs are the most vulnerable (easy to kill) target. Which is why I think a system that changes the dynamic between those who want to PvP and those who don't is a better system then trying to somehow impose odd rules on PvP itself.


Seeing how the developers have taken some inspiration from EVE, I hope they do what they can to strongly discourage alt-griefing - that is to create an alt solely for the purpose of some griefing while your main character remains unaffected. It's somewhat RP-breaking to utilize multiple characters in this fashion (using one to benefit another) and I'd like to see some minimum required amount of character progress before one can join in on PVP - meaning that you'd have to be very dedicated if you'd like to use an alt in order to grief someone.


Griefing and sandbox games is an age old dilemma. PVP is an integral part of a sandbox environment, without PVP it takes away a huge chunk of the freedom involved in a sandbox world. However there are some things that will need to be done to curb people from killing anyone they come across.

1. Don't make it very profitable. If there will be loot drops let it be based on a formula via value and character level vs opponenet level.

2. New player areas and Major cities should be protected areas.

3. Aiding and abetting must be discouraged. How often has a 'red' secretly or openly been in cahoots with a blue to grief the other blues?

4. Social repercussions are mandatory.

I am in favor of open world PVP but it has to be designed with these basic precepts and others I am probably unaware of to make it a fulfilling experience for everyone involved.

Goblin Squad Member

This is not a fully-fleshed out idea, as will be obvious :)

Any system designed to discourage Griefplay in Open World PvP should probably function like a market, where Player A (not Account A, not Character A, but actually Player A) has their own stock, which they can "invest" in Player B, by betting that Player B's stock will either rise or fall in the future. Player B's stock ultimately rises or falls based on how many Player C's, etc. make positive or negative bets on them.

Additionally, Player B's stock may rise or fall as the stock of those who have invested in them either way rises or falls. This will require social-network data that can also be used to devalue the "circle jerk" phenomenon.

There should never be any investment by the system; it should all be player-based, otherwise it will inevitably be ruthlessly gamed.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Dorje Sylas wrote:

How many Freemium accounts will GoblinWorks allow to work off one IP address at time? How many instances of Pathfinder Online can they get to run at once (and I include inside virtual machines if GoblinWorks hard codes a limit of 1 instance per machine)? Those are the limits. That also doesn't include group ganks as have been demonstrated in EVE with things like Hulkageddon. Which is functionally the same only spamming throw away ships. If I was a griefer and I (and my group) could take out a top level or even mid level PvPer by just spamming him out of fights, then its a done deal.

This is different then brining true friends to the fight because it requires no coordination. It can be one guy, streaming high DPS glass cannons at you until you run out of resources and die or are forced to run away and do something else. Either way it's little effort on the griefer's part and lots of disruption to the guy he'd be spamming.

Knocking people out of PvP isn't the answer, especially not such a long time limit. Open PvP is only a real problem when non-PvPers are prevented from doing non-PvP things. This is where most Griefing happens because the non-PvPs are the most vulnerable (easy to kill) target. Which is why I think a system that changes the dynamic between those who want to PvP and those who don't is a better system then trying to somehow impose odd rules on PvP itself.

Multiboxing is a valid play style. It does involve spreading the most precious resource: attention. If someone develops lots of powerfull PvP characters, they should be allowed to use them within whatever the regular PvP context is: if it is acceptable to group, and acceptable to have more than one account per person, then it is acceptable to group your multiple accounts. If multiple glass cannon characters can be that disruptive, then balance needs to be addressed somewhere: EVERY character build should be easily beaten by at least one other build. Glass cannon, meet the stealth surgeon. No need to say anything, as he has already harvested your vital organs. Enjoy your time-out.

I expect that there will be faction-vs-faction cases, where both groups battle in an area to decide what happens there. In such a case, I expect each group to attack their enemies not just in that area, but along the approaches to that area. Rear-line defense and securing lines of medical supplies and war material should be important elements of mass combat. Blockading a supply line is basically indistinguishable from ganking people for using a road. Neutrality MAY be respected by the belligerents, but need not.

One way to resolve that might be to have warnings: In order to blockade this road and attack anyone on it, you must set a flag which indicates that the road is a battlefield and anyone on it is subject to open PvP. Anyone not already in the fight is given the option to remain out of it, but take a different road; alternately, after the declaration of hostilities is finalized, nobody in the area who is not a belligerent may interact with anyone who is: If you want to trade with the armies involved, you must declare yourself as a supplier, then enter the area and sell your supplies. Such suppliers would be subject to attack, since they are actively participating in the open PvP.

Goblin Squad Member

Daniel Powell 318 wrote:
One way to resolve that might be to have warnings: In order to blockade this road and attack anyone on it, you must set a flag which indicates that the road is a battlefield and anyone on it is subject to open PvP. Anyone not already in the fight is given the option to remain out of it, but take a different road; alternately, after the declaration of hostilities is finalized, nobody in the area who is not a belligerent may interact with anyone who is: If you want to trade with the armies involved, you must declare yourself as a supplier, then enter the area and sell your supplies. Such suppliers would be subject to attack, since they are actively participating in the open PvP.

This is perhaps one of the best ideas I have heard yet and is in line with the devs EVE love. In EVE, you can avoid systems in which podkilling has recently occurred. I would love to see red "circles" on your map where PKing (griefing or otherwise does not matter...may have only been a duel) has recently occured. The circle would fade as time goes by and would grow with the number of killings. The "RP" rationale is "a disturbance in the force" in the way of animals fleeing an area, battle noises, people screaming, people whispering, whatever...

This helps enable people to not only avoid PKers by going around, but also move away or set up a defense when PKers are incoming (you would see a trail of red as the PKers come closer).


KitNyx wrote:


This is perhaps one of the best ideas I have heard yet and is in line with the devs EVE love. In EVE, you can avoid systems in which podkilling has recently occurred. I would love to see red "circles" on your map where PKing (griefing or otherwise does not matter...may have only been a duel) has recently occured. The circle would fade as time goes by and would grow with the number of killings. The "RP" rationale is "a disturbance in the force" in the way of animals fleeing an area, battle noises, people screaming, people whispering, whatever...

This helps enable people to not only avoid PKers by going around, but also move away or set up a defense when PKers are incoming (you would see a trail of red as the PKers come closer).

Red circle, meh. Dot the area with circling vultures and crows. On the ground, spawn bleached bones and discarded, rusting armor and rising columns of smoke. The more people have died, the more of these lingering effects pop in until it looks like a charred battlefield.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaaarg wrote:
KitNyx wrote:


This is perhaps one of the best ideas I have heard yet and is in line with the devs EVE love. In EVE, you can avoid systems in which podkilling has recently occurred. I would love to see red "circles" on your map where PKing (griefing or otherwise does not matter...may have only been a duel) has recently occured. The circle would fade as time goes by and would grow with the number of killings. The "RP" rationale is "a disturbance in the force" in the way of animals fleeing an area, battle noises, people screaming, people whispering, whatever...

This helps enable people to not only avoid PKers by going around, but also move away or set up a defense when PKers are incoming (you would see a trail of red as the PKers come closer).

Red circle, meh. Dot the area with circling vultures and crows. On the ground, spawn bleached bones and discarded, rusting armor and rising columns of smoke. The more people have died, the more of these lingering effects pop in until it looks like a charred battlefield.

I love the idea, but the point is to be able to avoid the area (or more specifically the people) before getting into it.


I'd find it easier to just avoid everyone my settlement is at war with, or whose name has changed to "Murderous outlaw"

Goblin Squad Member

I agree again, but that requires you to get close enough to see their name/clan/title. I am hoping to think of a way to maximize the chances of those who have no interest in PvP to get out of the way when PvP comes their way.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

KitNyx wrote:
I agree again, but that requires you to get close enough to see their name/clan/title. I am hoping to think of a way to maximize the chances of those who have no interest in PvP to get out of the way when PvP comes their way.

Both an indication that a given character has murdered, ever, and an indication that murders have occurred recently in an area that you are in or are considering going into.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
The act of identifying a character as a "griefer" does little to limit the activities of a griefing player. Managing multiplle light side / dark side accounts is trivial, ensuring there's no economic penalty for the griefing character.

This is exactly right, and is why the only way to preemptively stop the griefing is to remove this anonymity. This may be unfeasible, but it's worth discussing what it would take.

I've often wondered if there's a market for kiosks at malls or even online with web-video interviews, where a person could register with a company that verifies that the person involved is not already registered with them under a different username. Any company that wanted to remove anonymity from their user base could require their users to register with one of these verification companies, and those could share their data if the customer is already verified with another.

I'm not saying this is something that players would be willing to do. I would, but I'm weird :)

I'm also not saying this would make any kind of economic sense at all, I simply don't know.

I'm just saying that this is a potential solution to the problem.

On the other hand, identifying griefers after the fact can be a viable system if the cost of creating a character capable of griefing is high enough that it simply outweighs the benefit of getting away with griefing once on a disposable character. I haven't given that much thought...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think some version of the EvE system does it best ...

A single server type with everyone on it ....

Zones with increasing levels of security. High security zones have substantial military patrol presence. In these zones, an attack on a player not flagged for PvP is met with instant and decisive response from patrols. Effectively, you cannot attack an unflagged player and survive.

Non Flagged players may venture into lower security zones. The lower the security, the less NPC support is recieved.

The 'frontier zones' are zones where players are auto flagged for PvP upon entrance. There is no NPC Support.

The lower the zone security, the greater the rewards or materials. However, it is important to note that players may choose to continue to advance in level and power in safe high security zones....albeit at a somewhat slower pace simply because the rewards and value of the materials they collect is less. However, they still have access to the very best equipment since they can either craft it, or buy it off the market.

It should be noted that in EvE, things you collect are not bound and can always be sold. However, since there is full loot in EvE, there is an ongoing demand for virtually every item in the game.

Where griefing comes into play in an MMO is when games create PvP zones that players MUST go into in order to advance. The player that wishes to move ahead has no choice. He must venture into the PvP to advance. IMO this is a game mechanic to be avoided at all costs.

I think the EvE system creates a couple very cool things ... First, there is a symbiotic relationship between PvP players and PvE players. PvE players do much of the gathering and crafting. If they choose to do this in low or no security zones, they develop relationships with PvP players that protect them and provide security.

The second thing the EvE system does is create a veritable crucible for PvP players by allowing PvE players to skill up and gear up in the relative saftey of high security zones. I believe there is a PvP player in everyone ... it is simply a matter of allowing the players to hit their personal comfort zone in terms of bankroll, gear, and skill before they choose to do it.

In EvE, I have seen the most diehard PvE players become rambo hardcore PvP players once they are ready. Might take a year .... but it does not matter ... most PvP eventually ... or at least start venturing into PvP zones.


A thought occurred to me. Why not have things set-up that you have the option as the player, when first creating your character to elect whether or not you will participate in PvP. It stays this way from the get go. You can't do anything to other players and nothing can befall you. Maybe once a week, the option to switch from participating in PvP and not participating in PvP pops up when you log in. If you elect to participate in PvP, well then it's something you chose along with EVERYTHING that comes with it...you have assumed the risk of being attacked by other players, don't like it, don't elect to participate in PvP. This way the responsibility is on you for electing to participate in PvP.

Goblin Squad Member

Gendo wrote:
A thought occurred to me. Why not have things set-up that you have the option as the player, when first creating your character to elect whether or not you will participate in PvP. It stays this way from the get go. You can't do anything to other players and nothing can befall you. Maybe once a week, the option to switch from participating in PvP and not participating in PvP pops up when you log in. If you elect to participate in PvP, well then it's something you chose along with EVERYTHING that comes with it...you have assumed the risk of being attacked by other players, don't like it, don't elect to participate in PvP. This way the responsibility is on you for electing to participate in PvP.

Well more or less that should be possible in the safe areas anyway, if you stick to high security areas, you should almost never have to PVP. If you do not PVP you cannot be permitted to take the resources in the PVP areas, the idea is that people can guard the resources in that area, if the people guarding can't kill you, then you can't be allowed to collect what they are guarding either, If you have no interest in collecting the resources guarding a kingdom etc... then you never need to leave the high security territory, and thus should never be in danger.

Shadow Lodge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Viga Doom wrote:
I sense you have an idea in mind for how to handle this. Is it aggressive community management? Or is it to make the characters less disposable?

I wish I had a magic bullet. :)

We do have a few tricks up our sleeves. At some point we'll talk more about them.

Since EvE seems to be looked at pretty heavily AND EvE has a large amount of griefing (not that *I* am complaining) I thought I would mention something that I think EvE is missing that you could add early on that could address this, and promote player interaction.

In EVE and here I think the answer would be a good bounty system. In EVE, to me that would mean that if someone sets a $100m ISK Bounty on a criminal that they have to lose 100m ISK in ships (at market value). That would keep people from gaming the system. In PFO... I don't know what that would mean really since we lack ships.

However the point is if you give us the ability to police ourselves that is not easy or profitable to exploit, I think we will.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Daniel Powell 318 wrote:
Multiboxing is a valid play style. It does involve spreading the most precious resource: attention. If someone develops lots of powerfull PvP characters, they should be allowed to use them within whatever the regular PvP context is: if it is acceptable to group, and acceptable to have more than one account per person, then it is acceptable to group your multiple accounts. If multiple glass cannon characters can be that disruptive, then balance needs to be addressed somewhere: EVERY character build should be easily beaten by at least one other build. Glass cannon, meet the stealth surgeon. No need to say...

So you say no-limit them. Okay so I bring 2 macro'ed alpha strike toons and jump you from ambush when you are one or more of the following 1) at your weakest, 2) distracted, 3) tired, and knock you out of PvP for the 24 hours you suggested.

If I can't alpha-strike because I know your build resists alpha strike I don't jump you with those, instead I log-in and attack you with one of my stable of other toons that is your counter.

My original point, to make it a bit clearer, is that punishing the loser of a fight gives a loop hole for Griefers to exploit.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Tetrix wrote:
In EVE and here I think the answer would be a good bounty system. In EVE, to me that would mean that if someone sets a $100m ISK Bounty on a criminal that they have to lose 100m ISK in ships (at market value). That would keep people from gaming the system. In PFO... I don't know what that would mean really since we lack ships.

I am a wealthy troll with a full PC kingdoms resources. I put a 1,000,000,000 bounty on you at the first opportunity. You now lose all your accumulated gear and are levied for basically the rest of your time playing. I have now reversed gamed the system and knocked you out of ever playing that character again.

Self-policing does not work. It will inevitably used as a Mafia style shake down scheme for those not *in* the family.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Cosian wrote:
Where griefing comes into play in an MMO is when games create PvP zones that players MUST go into in order to advance. The player that wishes to move ahead has no choice. He must venture into the PvP to advance. IMO this is a game mechanic to be avoided at all costs.

Which EVE still fosters by putting higher level (a.k.a actually fun) missions in Low and Null sec space where the PvE can be interrupted by griefing without any protection.

While I agree that the EVE zoning is helpful it doesn't go far enough. As I've been suggesting for a while now. If you set up the system to treat non-consenting PvEers to be "looted" like Mobs instead of a full loss situation, that would create an added layer of protection of people who don't want to PvP. It also lessens the incentive for greifing such players (the ones who are likely the weakest defense wise).

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Dorje Sylas wrote:
Daniel Powell 318 wrote:
Multiboxing is a valid play style. It does involve spreading the most precious resource: attention. If someone develops lots of powerfull PvP characters, they should be allowed to use them within whatever the regular PvP context is: if it is acceptable to group, and acceptable to have more than one account per person, then it is acceptable to group your multiple accounts. If multiple glass cannon characters can be that disruptive, then balance needs to be addressed somewhere: EVERY character build should be easily beaten by at least one other build. Glass cannon, meet the stealth surgeon. No need to say...

So you say no-limit them. Okay so I bring 2 macro'ed alpha strike toons and jump you from ambush when you are one or more of the following 1) at your weakest, 2) distracted, 3) tired, and knock you out of PvP for the 24 hours you suggested.

If I can't alpha-strike because I know your build resists alpha strike I don't jump you with those, instead I log-in and attack you with one of my stable of other toons that is your counter.

My original point, to make it a bit clearer, is that punishing the loser of a fight gives a loop hole for Griefers to exploit.

Congratulations! You just described a guerrilla action. You sent a small force to an area that the enemy considers safe, and picked soft targets in that area to gradually reduce the enemy's ability to wage war. The only effect you have is to knock the enemy out of PvP, so you have zero effect on people who don't want to PvP. Either you are in an area that PvP players frequent, or you are ineffective. Finally, you have found an area where you have enough targets to hunt, but not so many that they can come to mutual defense. Meanwhile, you have leveled a number of characters to the point where they are a threat, but you aren't using them directly in the contested areas. Once you are found and defeated (by the friends/alts of your targets), you can't continue to harass them for a known time period.

That's not griefing, that's strategy. If you are attacking people when you aren't a principle in their engagement, it's banditry. If you are being paid or equipped by their opponent, it's mercenary. If you are allied with their opponent, it's a behind-the-lines action.

Goblin Squad Member

Daniel Powell 318 wrote:


Congratulations! You just described a guerrilla action. You sent a small force to an area that the enemy considers safe, and picked soft targets in that area to gradually reduce the enemy's ability to wage war. The only effect you have is to knock the enemy out of PvP, so you have zero effect on people who don't want to PvP. Either you are in an area that PvP players frequent, or you are ineffective. Finally, you have found an area where you have enough targets to hunt, but not so many that they can come to mutual defense. Meanwhile, you have leveled a number of characters to the point where they are a threat, but you aren't using them directly in the contested areas. Once you are found and defeated (by the friends/alts of your targets), you can't continue to harass them for a known...

This works for war concepts, and it works for random grifing PVP, but what about the non-combatant miner trying to gain materials from a mine that is in regular contention between 2 sides, he gets killed while attempting to harvest from that mine. Does the PVE primary character

1. Have no option to defend himself when he returns to the mine.
2. Become invincible when he returns to the mine
3. Become unable to go anywhere near the mine via an invisible wall?

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:

This works for war concepts, and it works for random grifing PVP, but what about the non-combatant miner trying to gain materials from a mine that is in regular contention between 2 sides, he gets killed while attempting to harvest from that mine. Does the PVE primary character

1. Have no option to defend himself when he returns to the mine.
2. Become invincible when he returns to the mine
3. Become unable to go anywhere near the mine via an invisible wall?

If GW allows certain mechanics, then the non-combatant miner becomes a "quest giver" for lack of a better term. He can either offer a reward to a group that will protect him while he mines, or he pays a miner that can defend himself to bring him back ore.

Goblin Squad Member

Mogloth wrote:
Onishi wrote:

This works for war concepts, and it works for random grifing PVP, but what about the non-combatant miner trying to gain materials from a mine that is in regular contention between 2 sides, he gets killed while attempting to harvest from that mine. Does the PVE primary character

1. Have no option to defend himself when he returns to the mine.
2. Become invincible when he returns to the mine
3. Become unable to go anywhere near the mine via an invisible wall?

If GW allows certain mechanics, then the non-combatant miner becomes a "quest giver" for lack of a better term. He can either offer a reward to a group that will protect him while he mines, or he pays a miner that can defend himself to bring him back ore.

OK so we are talking scenrio 1. where the person killed then has no way to defend himself, how does that prevent griefing in that case? The person who was killed now is a free target for anyone else, beyond his friends, which would have been the case anyway, as he would have recruited friends to assist and protect him anyway.

Dorje Sylas wrote:

While I agree that the EVE zoning is helpful it doesn't go far enough. As I've been suggesting for a while now. If you set up the system to treat non-consenting PvEers to be "looted" like Mobs instead of a full loss situation, that would create an added layer of protection of people who don't want to PvP. It also lessens the incentive for greifing such players (the ones who are likely the weakest defense wise).

I still fail to see the reason why magically generating loot, losing nothing for dying philosophy is going to help "Prevent" massive griefing. It only encorages people to kill with no motive or fear of retribution at all. Look at WoW, the PVP servers are generally flooded with high level players ganking lowbies. Why, because even if they greatly upset everyone, and are hunted down and killed 500 times for their actions, they still lose nothing when they die, gain nothing lose nothing = inconsequential. I would say the best route to go would be if more total is lost from a PK, than is gained. IE rather then most of the gear being looted, more of it can be flat out destroyed/damaged badly. The PKer should be able to get something, but the total gains should be lower than the total losses held by both players combined. Thus when the PKer kills one guy, then gets killed himself, he is at a loss.

Being a killer should be more difficult than any other role, killing shouldn't be the hard part, but running for your life after ticking off a large alliance and if you are caught you should lose more than you gained.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi I just posted this idea in another PvP thread:

To me, straight PvP is not griefing. Griefing occurs when one side continually attacks and kills the other side's character. Typically upon the "resurrection". I am not aware of how Goblinworks will handle this aspect of MMOs. If we will be allowed to rez at the location, then maybe you could put a timer on. Say, you were just defeated, you cannot be targeted for the next 15 minutes or something.

Now, some people would say: Why do this to the person who just wanted to mine some ore? Well, based on the way events unfolded, you went to this location without enough protection. You lost the encounter. Come back with more bodies and you can claim the ore.

With the timer I propose you have enough time to leave the area and get back to a "safer" area. Maybe you can use a quick travel option, if we get those.

Goblin Squad Member

Mogloth wrote:

Onishi I just posted this idea in another PvP thread:

To me, straight PvP is not griefing. Griefing occurs when one side continually attacks and kills the other side's character. Typically upon the "resurrection". I am not aware of how Goblinworks will handle this aspect of MMOs. If we will be allowed to rez at the location, then maybe you could put a timer on. Say, you were just defeated, you cannot be targeted for the next 15 minutes or something.

Now, some people would say: Why do this to the person who just wanted to mine some ore? Well, based on the way events unfolded, you went to this location without enough protection. You lost the encounter. Come back with more bodies and you can claim the ore.

With the timer I propose you have enough time to leave the area and get back to a "safer" area. Maybe you can use a quick travel option, if we get those.

Wouldn't the same also be accomplished by spawning at your hometown? IE where your friends and defenses should be?

Even an option to spawn at the closest area controlled by your alliance or in your home area which is likely in the center of your controlled area.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:

Wouldn't the same also be accomplished by spawning at your hometown? IE where your friends and defenses should be?

Even an option to spawn at the closest area controlled by your alliance or in your home area which is likely in the center of your controlled area.

It could, but putting a debuff on the defeated character and letting them rez where they are allows them to retreat back a ways, but still stay near where they where.

They can then either head back to their home city or put in a call for help. This is helpful if you are not near your home city.

Another thought could be that if you engage in an activity while "wearing" the debuff such as mining then the debuff goes away and you are free to be engaged. But, eating food, summoning your mount would not make the debuff go away.

Mind you,I am not a fan of PvP. So, I am merely trying to spitball ideas.

Shadow Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Dorje Sylas wrote:
Self-policing does not work. It will inevitably used as a Mafia style shake down scheme for those not *in* the family.

I believe in EVE a player has to be flagged as a criminal before they can have a bounty put on them. Also I believe the person that was 'injuried' has to be the one that puts the bounty on to the other person. There may be other restrictions that I am not aware of.

In EVE the system does not currently work because if you put a bounty on me I just have a friend shoot me and we split the bounty. I believe it could be made so that it causes real pain and thus making it much harder to exploit.

Here in PFO since we don't have ships I think things would be harder to give teeth with out making it crippling for newer players that do something stupid. Harder, no impossible however. Saying "X will never work" is not productive or constructive. I am just trying to provide ideas and discussion to help figure things out.

Thanks for your feedback.

Goblin Squad Member

Mogloth wrote:


They can then either head back to their home city or put in a call for help. This is helpful if you are not near your home city.

Another thought could be that if you engage in an activity while "wearing" the debuff such as mining then the debuff goes away and you are free to be engaged. But, eating food, summoning your mount would not make the debuff go away.

Mind you,I am not a fan of PvP. So, I am merely trying to spitball ideas.

Yeah not bad concepts, though I still am missing the overall purpose. Spawning back where you died opens more windows for griefers. IE the ease of continuing to be a royal pain in an area that is a few hours away from his hometown, in other words a location that does not effect his group politically at all. Going back to your territory or nuetural territory offers more towards defenders, aka the people who own the area in question and people who are closer to it, while invaders from a distance need to work harder as they can't get back into the action as quickly or easily. This is also why taken land has it's own solid shape rather than a bunch of random speckles on the map.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Onishi wrote:
Daniel Powell 318 wrote:


Congratulations! You just described a guerrilla action. You sent a small force to an area that the enemy considers safe, and picked soft targets in that area to gradually reduce the enemy's ability to wage war. The only effect you have is to knock the enemy out of PvP, so you have zero effect on people who don't want to PvP. Either you are in an area that PvP players frequent, or you are ineffective. Finally, you have found an area where you have enough targets to hunt, but not so many that they can come to mutual defense. Meanwhile, you have leveled a number of characters to the point where they are a threat, but you aren't using them directly in the contested areas. Once you are found and defeated (by the friends/alts of your targets), you can't continue to harass them for a known...

This works for war concepts, and it works for random grifing PVP, but what about the non-combatant miner trying to gain materials from a mine that is in regular contention between 2 sides, he gets killed while attempting to harvest from that mine. Does the PVE primary character

1. Have no option to defend himself when he returns to the mine.
2. Become invincible when he returns to the mine
3. Become unable to go anywhere near the mine via an invisible wall?

1. Pay tribute to the faction that controls the mine in order to mine there.

2. Join the faction that controls the mine in order to mine there.

If the mine is controlled, then mining is a PvP activity. That's the point of controlling the mine, to decide who gets access to it.
I can see a miner proactively paying tribute/rent/percentage/vic to both sides, in order to secure protection during the fight and uninterrupted mining rights. It's the bladed rule- he who has the blades, makes the rules.

Respawns should only be permitted in allied areas. I can't imagine why it would be reasonable to get back up where you were just defeated, even if you wanted to.

Goblin Squad Member

Or, we could think about this RP-wise. Resurrection is something offered and given by divinity. Players (except for maybe "clerics" or those who buy a related feat) should only be able to rez at a (previously visited temple to whom they have paid tithes) temple of their chosen divinity...and they in turn should be required to do some missions for the deity in return.

To enforce this, make the player rez with -5% stats per death, until they complete the mission for the deity...at which time the deity fully restores them. Die 3 times without doing missions and your stats are at 85.7% (100-5%-5%-5%) and you have 3 times the missions to do until you are fully restored.

The missions would be related to the goals of your chosen deity and there should be an abundance of options/missions to choose.

This is related to the factional comments/suggestions because certain factions will always be aligned with certain deities.

Unaligned characters (who do not follow a deity) should have options based upon whatever happens to those people when they die (normally in the campaign world). Maybe a neutral deity rezs them and demands nonreligious missions...

OPTION: One mission may be as simple as donating sums of money to the temple. This makes sense but perhaps should only result in a slow steady recovery of stats over a given period of time (say 2-3% stats recovered per hour).

OPTION: The ability to place an idol at some spot in the world to create a rez point. This requires you carry the idol (has weight) until you do so, and it is at the place you put it until you either reclaim it or purchase another at your deity's temple...in which case your previous one is destroyed.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

KitNyx wrote:

Or, we could think about this RP-wise. Resurrection is something offered and given by divinity. Players (except for maybe "clerics" or those who buy a related feat) should only be able to rez at a (previously visited temple to whom they have paid tithes) temple of their chosen divinity...and they in turn should be required to do some missions for the deity in return.

To enforce this, make the player rez with -5% stats per death, until they complete the mission for the deity...at which time the deity fully restores them. Die 3 times without doing missions and your stats are at 85.7% (100-5%-5%-5%) and you have 3 times the missions to do until you are fully restored.

The missions would be related to the goals of your chosen deity and there should be an abundance of options/missions to choose.

This is related to the factional comments/suggestions because certain factions will always be aligned with certain deities.

Unaligned characters (who do not follow a deity) should have options based upon whatever happens to those people when they die (normally in the campaign world). Maybe a neutral deity rezs them and demands nonreligious missions...

OPTION: One mission may be as simple as donating sums of money to the temple. This makes sense but perhaps should only result in a slow steady recovery of stats over a given period of time (say 2-3% stats recovered per hour).

OPTION: The ability to place an idol at some spot in the world to create a rez point. This requires you carry the idol (has weight) until you do so, and it is at the place you put it until you either reclaim it or purchase another at your deity's temple...in which case your previous one is destroyed.

Temples are good respawn points. Cash, or cash surrogate, death costs are industry standard, so considering other options is preferred. I like the option of the temple quest. "Show devotion" might work as a quest: meditating/praying for a period of time, or tithing, or performing pro bono work could all show sufficient devotion. If all three options are available, there is no chance for someone to enter a deadlock condition where they can't do the quest to remove the death penalty without dying.

Player-owned temples or shrines should also be valid respawns- while the player controls them.

A final solution would be to eliminate respawning completely- if your corpse rots before someone raises it, go back to character creation. I don't consider this acceptable, since it will disproportionately apply to new players, who have neither the support to get raised nor the skills to stay alive. It would make player wars very vicious affairs, and the final treaty would be mostly about the exchange of corpses to be raised. There's a certain... aesthetic to buying territory literally with the dead bodies of the former owners, but I don't think it is the right one for an online game.

251 to 300 of 389 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Ideas for mechanics in an open PvP system that discourage griefing. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.