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?The same way it works in every other MMO. When someone is exploiting a bug, harassing other players, griefing, or otherwise violating the terms of service of the game, you put in a ticket. GMs go down the ticket queue, investigate each one, and mete out a response as necessary.
I was griefed by a notorious hacking gnome in Everquest that stayed at level 14 to attack the noobs, he would always log off for a couple days before any tickets were resolved. Over and over this one player did this for well over two years...
Disappearing while running away was definitely not one of the powers...
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
Agreed, I would love for clerics to be able to create and run PC-run temples to their deity in player cities.
In fact, this opens a lot of interesting politicking. Players who create a city may endorse a god or subset of gods that can have temples in their city, specifically making it easier for them to rez in their city. Other players, not aligned with their deities would also want to rez in this city and hence may have to open "underground" temples. To illustrate, the city owners would officially rent space to open churches for their preferred gods, and forbid other gods. Yet, I as an unapproved god follower could rent a house and set up a little church in/underneath...we would have to be careful not to get caught though...or we may get evicted.
Hmmm, hope that made sense...
Oh, and I love the idea of praying being an option. simply sitting before the temple idol for x time in the temple as you take a short RL break may be enough. But, it is a "consequence" to have to spend that time.
I can see huts turning into churches into cathedrals really quick with this type system, tithing will always be the easiest route for those with money.
As to the missions, I think it is also very important to make them god specific. druids who follow green gods should have to go nurture nature. Players who worship gods of destruction and/or war should have to go kill members of opposing factions. But, 100% agree that a variety of options should always be available.
OPTION: "Clerics" can create consecrated ground to their deity, making a temporary restore point any follower of the deity can use. This would be useful for guilds aligned with a specific deity to have at least one dedicated cleric even if this and a little healing is all they can provide.
|
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?The same way it works in every other MMO. When someone is exploiting a bug, harassing other players, griefing, or otherwise violating the terms of service of the game, you put in a ticket. GMs go down the ticket queue, investigate each one, and mete out a response as necessary.I was griefed by a notorious hacking gnome in Everquest that stayed at level 14 to attack the noobs, he would always log off for a couple days before any tickets were resolved. Over and over this one player did this for well over two years...
Disappearing while running away was definitely not one of the powers...
Actually I do think this should be something strongly considered, perhaps a rule where a character cannot log out within 15 minutes of a PK (and if they alt F4 or force exit the game, their character stands vulnerable for 15 minutes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
In EVE you can put a bounty on a character with a negative security standing and anyone can do that.
Getting a negative security standing has a very lose relation participating in a criminal activity. One of my characters has a negative security status for having engaged some pirate in low sec. They were engaging friendly forces in another corporation and I helped my friends. thanks to the fairly complicated engagement rules I ended with a criminal mark.As the negative standing was never erased anyone can put a bounty on me.
It is hard to see a way to make a bounty system meaningful without making it crippling for the target.
If the bounty payout is higher than the cost of resurrection or damage the bounty target will ask a friend or get a alt to kill him.
If it is lower and the death cost is moderate it will be meaningless.
If it is lower than the death cost but the death cost is high it will be much more relevant for the targets of PvP than for the attacker. People that love to attack soft targets will have a happy time. almost no chance of failure and meaningful damage to the target (and yes, when you attack someone simply to hurt him, without any real gain fro you I consider it griefing).
Some suggestion to overcome this kind of problem?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If it is lower than the death cost but the death cost is high it will be much more relevant for the targets of PvP than for the attacker. People that...
IMO the 4th one here is workable. If the death cost is stronger the higher level you are... than it is far more significant to a stronger person than to a weaker person. IE a newbie on day 1 gets killed by a 2 year veteran, the newbie loses something that takes 5 minutes to regain, if someone kills the vet in revenge it costs him something that takes hours to days to regain.
Most likely this would translate into skills, though I'm not quite sure how to balance or chose what skills to lose in a game of this style. Perhaps if say there is a skill base for max HP or something along those lines, it could go down by 5% of what has been added to it. We'd need far more details on how many/what type skills plan to be implimented to really balance an idea like this, but the raw concept of it I think is logical.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If it is lower than the death cost but the death cost is high it will be much more relevant for the targets of PvP than for the attacker. People that...IMO the 4th one here is workable. If the death cost is stronger the higher level you are... than it is far more significant to a stronger person than to a weaker person. IE a newbie on day 1 gets killed by a 2 year veteran, the newbie loses something that takes 5 minutes to regain, if someone kills the vet in revenge it costs him something that takes hours to days to regain.
Most likely this would translate into skills, though I'm not quite sure how to balance or chose what skills to lose in a game of this style. Perhaps if say there is a skill base for max HP or something along those lines, it could go down by 5% of what has been added to it. We'd need far more details on how many/what type skills plan to be implimented to really balance an idea like this, but the raw concept of it I think is logical.
Saga of Ryzom does something like this, but instead of loosing what you have already gained, you get an experience deficit. So any experience you would have gained up to x amount is instead diverted to reducing the DP (death penalty). Likewise, the DP you get is based to the total number of skill points you have acquired...so it works out just as you suggested. Someone with many skill points (even if they are spread evenly to keep levels low) will have a higher DP than someone with low number of skill points. Then the "high level" player takes 2 days of grinding to get rid of the DP whereas the "low level" character can do it in 25 minutes.
DP also accumulates if you repeatedly die.
DP slowly wears away even if you do not grind it off.
You can also only rez in major cities/temples owned by your faction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Saga of Ryzom does something like this, but instead of loosing what you have already gained, you get an experience deficit. So any experience you would have gained up to x amount is instead diverted to reducing the DP (death penalty). Likewise, the DP you get is based to the total number of skill points you have acquired...so it works out just as you suggested. Someone with many skill points (even if they are spread evenly to keep levels low) will have a higher DP than someone with low number of skill points. Then the "high level" player takes 2 days of grinding to get rid of the DP whereas the "low level" character can do it in 25 minutes.
DP also accumulates if you repeatedly die.
DP slowly wears away even if you do not grind it off.
You can also only rez in major cities/temples owned by your faction.
That's not a bad system, though I do have to say it's primary weakness is, if someone makes a character, and gets it high enough to be a major pain as a griefer. There is nothing to stop him from continuing to grief, even working himself into a defecate that will take years to wear off, because while he may never get stronger, he's also not getting any weaker.
I do agree the you can only res in your own territory idea, that turns travel time into a huge hindrance for a true griefer.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... that turns travel time into a huge hindrance for a true griefer.
My buddy at work is always talking about how he wants it take a day or two to walk across a huge area, with no fast-travel options. Something somewhere gave me the impression that PFO will likely make travel a significant hindrance, too.
I've also seen someone mention leaving characters in game even when they're logged out. I actually think that's a great idea, and if a character is marked as a criminal, they won't be able to log out in High Security areas, meaning they'll be vulnerable while they're not online.
And merrily following my stream-of-consciousness right along, I also think it would be great if our characters could work for us while we're offline. For example, I set up a workshop and define what I'd like my stock to be. I make a bunch of raw materials available, and over time my character creates the various finished pieces until my stock wish list is complete. If I sell an item, or someone from my guild/faction comes in and reduces my stock, I go back to work replenishing.
Oh here's an idea, For players with black marks, they get a bad reputation score, the only way to log out is at an inn or your own fortification. The more black marks you have the more money it costs to stay at the inn, because no one likes you...Now, having a high disguise skill might help there as well...also this would prevent Charisma dump stating if the game is played that way.
Reputation Feedback in PvP could be handled anytime someone initiaites combat with a LOWER level combatant. Initiating combat with higher level combatants would not suffer the reputation penalty, and might actually make your rep go up. If you are attacked by lower levels you could defend yourself without repercussion as well.
Edit: With an appropriate knowledge roll, other players would be able to find out who a fortress belongs to, and what their reputation is...Camping a bad guys fortress...also one you reach a reputation low enough for a bounty, there would be no repercussions from killing you...no matter what level you are...thus high level bounty hunters can cash in on your evil ways...(and you would have your rep lowered slightly by your head being collected.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do want to stress that PFO is suppose to have many legitimate forms of PvP including territory wars. If my faction is under attack, I hope all members, new and old will feel the need to defend their holdings...and most importantly - can contribute to the outcome of the conflict.
This means low level persons will be killed by high powered individuals, and hopefully...depending on who plays smarter, the opposite will occur. All of this should be legitimate fair PvP.
I also hope there is the possibility that these battles can be spontaneous (perhaps not if resources are in contention). This means the area and players should not need to be flagged "in a war" in order to fight for a cause (player driven or PvE driven content/causes).
If the above is allowed for, there is perhaps no way for the game to determine legitimate versus non-legitimate PvP. Therefore I think it is most rational to enable players to police themselves and make death non-trivial, increasing the consequences of "stupid" or non-rational decisions/play-styles.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do agree the you can only res in your own territory idea, that turns travel time into a huge hindrance for a true griefer.
I'm not as certain of that, I can more easily imagine of griefers being incredibly annoying threats outside of one's claimed territory. If the purpose is to cause grief, then I would say that forcing a player to run all the way back to their faction location after every death, if that is what is being suggested, would be a good tool for providing that.
How would it be a larger hindrance for a griefer than a normal player?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do agree the you can only res in your own territory idea, that turns travel time into a huge hindrance for a true griefer.I'm not as certain of that, I can more easily imagine of griefers being incredibly annoying threats outside of one's claimed territory. If the purpose is to cause grief, then I would say that forcing a player to run all the way back to their faction location after every death, if that is what is being suggested, would be a good tool for providing that.
How would it be a larger hindrance for a griefer than a normal player?
Because a normal player would be mostly sticking near their own territory without a large group. The biggest reason to travel miles away from your own territory would be to attempt to attack with lower odds of repercussions (IE the enemies you make aren't the next door neighbors that see you every day, because ticking off your neighbors could get painful fast). Players of any kind will need to be on their guard when traveling far outside of their own territory, thar be bandits, dragons etc... Complaining about being ganked in the middle of the wilderness miles from your own territory, is like complaining about getting in a fight with a dragon, after you intentionally entered its lair.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am not positive, but I believe distance and travel are intended to be significant considerations; it might take several real-time hours of play to move from one area to another. If you are forced to return to your home town when you die, or to a temple in a city where you've invested enough time to raise your faction, then it is much less fun for a griefer to run off to the opposite faction's newbie area and gank lowbies for a few hours.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I do agree the you can only res in your own territory idea, that turns travel time into a huge hindrance for a true griefer.I'm not as certain of that, I can more easily imagine of griefers being incredibly annoying threats outside of one's claimed territory. If the purpose is to cause grief, then I would say that forcing a player to run all the way back to their faction location after every death, if that is what is being suggested, would be a good tool for providing that.
How would it be a larger hindrance for a griefer than a normal player?
If you're outside your own territory and engaged by someone who declares war on you, that's war, not griefing.
If you're INSIDE your own territory and engaged by someone who declares war on you, that's war, not griefing.If you're paying rent/protection to a group to stay in their territory, and they fail to protect you from their declared enemies, leave. Attacking the holdings of an enemy is part of war, and you are part of their holdings.
If you aren't paying protection to anybody, then you are claiming that you can handle yourself just fine. Don't carry more valuables than you can defend.
Maybe we can have an NPC location that is strong but not aggressive, and has lenient rules about who may reside there, but charges high rent and has strict building and zoning codes? You CAN craft here in high safety, but it costs 80% or so of your gross, and you can't have any tier 3 buildings at all. It would have to be literally unassailable, otherwise it would just be a challenge and some group would figure out how to do it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It would have to be literally unassailable...
I'm torn on this.
One the one hand, I think it would be utterly awesome for it to be possible for a faction to become powerful enough in-game to actually take over the main NPC kingdom that controls "high security" zones.
On the other hand, I really don't want to be subject to them :)
I think they've said they're considering making "high security" areas actually be consensual-only. I'm actually fine with that.
More and more the design of this game sounds less and less something I want to play. But considering my life, perhaps that's for the best, between freelance work, my blog and family, I don't have massive amounts of time these days.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If it is lower than the death cost but the death cost is high it will be much more relevant for the targets of PvP than for the attacker. People that...IMO the 4th one here is workable. If the death cost is stronger the higher level you are... than it is far more significant to a stronger person than to a weaker person. IE a newbie on day 1 gets killed by a 2 year veteran, the newbie loses something that takes 5 minutes to regain, if someone kills the vet in revenge it costs him something that takes hours to days to regain.
Most likely this would translate into skills, though I'm not quite sure how to balance or chose what skills to lose in a game of this style. Perhaps if say there is a skill base for max HP or something along those lines, it could go down by 5% of what has been added to it. We'd need far more details on how many/what type skills plan to be implimented to really balance an idea like this, but the raw concept of it I think is logical.
If it will work as hinted, with the difference in power between low level characters and high level characters being relatively small, it will work horrendously.
It was hinted that a group of low level characters will be capable to kill a single high level character. So a scaling high penalty on death will minimally affect a starting character while a experienced character will be heavily penalized.Enter the zerg griefing tactic.
I think think it was drawback was pointed out enough times that there was no need to explain it again.
My error.
You guys come from WoW where, from what I get, the difference in power is great and that tactic will not work.
I come from EVE where that difference is relatively small and it work perfectly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh here's an idea, For players with black marks, they get a bad reputation score, the only way to log out is at an inn or your own fortification. The more black marks you have the more money it costs to stay at the inn, because no one likes you...Now, having a high disguise skill might help there as well...also this would prevent Charisma dump stating if the game is played that way.
I get it right? You are suggesting that we will be allowed to log off only in inns or fortresses (and our own houses, I suppose)?
This is a MMORPG, not our home game. We will suffer from internet connection problems, discovering that the location we are exploring is larger than predicted, real life interruptions and plenty of other reasons why we will not be able to return to a spawning point to log off. As we will not be capable to save our progress and then restart the game from a earlier save I don't see how your idea could work.More and more the design of this game sounds less and less something I want to play. But considering my life, perhaps that's for the best, between freelance work, my blog and family, I don't have massive amounts of time these days.
These are players comments, not the game design. For the few things we know about the game read the Goblinworks blog and Ryan Dancey posts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
More and more the design of this game sounds less and less something I want to play. But considering my life, perhaps that's for the best, between freelance work, my blog and family, I don't have massive amounts of time these days.
I hope you're not making a decision like that based on what a bunch of folks who know next to nothing about the actual design of the game are saying they'd like to see.
PFO has released very little information about the design. These forums are just to gather input from a bunch of people who all want different things, and most of whom (myself certainly included) don't even begin to understand all the considerations that they must keep in mind.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I get it right? You are suggesting that we will be allowed to log off only in inns or fortresses (and our own houses, I suppose)?
This is a MMORPG, not our home game. We will suffer from internet connection problems, discovering that the location we are exploring is larger than predicted, real life interruptions and plenty of other reasons why we will not be able to return to a spawning point to log off. As we will not be capable to save our progress and then restart the game from a earlier save I don't see how your idea could work.
I would say there should be a balance, something like 15-20 mins of a PK you should not be able to sign off without reaching your hometown. What does need to be prevented is "Pop, Pop, Pop" killing 5 people in a row, seeing the people come back after you who you know are going to crush you, and than "poof I'm safe, I'll sign back on in 30 mins when they are gone". If you want to plan the attack go for it, but you should be required to have a legitimate escape plan. If you know you gotta run or have a risk of being called away, then now is not the time for you to join in the PK spree. Lag/DCs will kill you in PVP/PK situations no matter what you do about it, You hit a huge lag spike where attacking happens 20 seconds after you swing your sword, you realize it just after charging an equal skilled opponent, you are going to die, no mechanic can protect you from that. You DC right after hitting point blank range with a foe, the game is going to take at least 15 seconds to know you aren't there. so dead again that is inevitable.
Since the lag/DC is inevitable no matter what, and pulled away from keyboard is easy to plan around, I would say the cost of leaving those as an issue Specifically as a within X minutes of PKing, is fair to prevent the random vanishing right after killing someone. I'm all for allowing random murder, but you should have to work to get away with it, not have your escape handed to you in a single alt+F4.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If it will work as hinted, with the difference in power between low level characters and high level characters being relatively small, it will work horrendously.
It was hinted that a group of low level characters will be capable to kill a single high level character. So a scaling high penalty on death will minimally affect a starting character while a experienced character will be heavily penalized.
Enter the zerg griefing tactic.I think think it was drawback was pointed out enough times that there was no need to explain it again.
My error.
You guys come from WoW where, from what I get, the difference in power is great and that tactic will not work.
I come from EVE where that difference is relatively small and it work perfectly.
That's true actually, probably the death penalty being more of a what you have equipped thing and being purely financial makes more sense. In eve I actually thought the swarming the titan thing probably wound up good for the community. Mainly because it taught the lesson that just because you have the most powerful scary item in the game, that doesn't always make it a good idea to casually fly it around. Choosing your equipment wisely and measuring the risk/reward, makes sense.
While for skills/HP etc... it would not work well simply due to the fact that you can't chose to scale down your HP, you are stuck with having what you spent on you at all times, so it isn't fair to punish someone for having it on them in the wrong place.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like this:
1. You flag for PvP as in most games:
a. You can turn on the flag.
b. Walking into certain zones will automatically turn on the flag.
c. Killing anyone will turn on the flag.
d. It takes some times for the flag to actually wear off after it's turned off.
2. You can kill people who aren't flagged, but this will flag you as a killer.
a. This flag takes 30 minutes to wear off.
b. While flagged, you can't log off or enter high security zones (unless they're controlled by your faction and approve of your killing).
c. You can't do anything that would remove any of the gear you had equipped or in your inventory when you killed. (No stripping naked so the retaliation can't hurt you).
3. Killing someone who is already flagged carries no penalty.
4. Maybe a slight reward for killing someone flagged as a killer. Nothing too serious though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Perhaps there could even be a way to Challenge another Player, that basically gave them a little time (10-15 minutes) to get out of Dodge, or they would become flagged. This should only be usable when the one doing the Challenge is significantly more attuned to the local faction than the one being Challenged.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Would it limit griefing if you limited what could be looted from a corpse?
If you knew there was no full loot would that make a difference?
I seriously doubt it. I think a lot of griefers are more after causing the other player to feel the pain of losing. I don't think they're all that interested in profiting.
That's not to say there won't be a lot of Player Killing for profit. I just don't count that as griefing. To me, Griefing is taking a high level Character into an area that is known to be the earliest lower security zone that most Characters from another faction will usually enter, and killing them just for kicks. Kicking someone off a mine that you're claiming as part of your own territory is an entirely different beast.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would it limit griefing if you limited what could be looted from a corpse?
If you knew there was no full loot would that make a difference?
Lowering penelty of dying will never do anything to "Limit Griefing", griefing is in general killing without motive. The absolute worse cases of griefing I have seen in any game is WoW, in which there is absolutely no reward whatsoever for killing, yet players will stick around for hours and kill you again and again. IMO having absolutely nothing to lose when you fail, does far more to encourage griefing than gaining a reward when you win.
Personally I would think an interesting compromise might be 1/4 loot and serious damage, Lets say a PKer could kill you and take your stuff, or maybe just your carried items/resources and 1 random piece of gear, On top of that, all of your gear takes 10% unrepairable damage (or repairable for at least 5% of the resource cost it took to make the weapon to begin with), and the stolen item takes 25% permanent (or fixable with 15% base resources) damage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I seriously doubt it. I think a lot of griefers are more after causing the other player to feel the pain of losing. I don't think they're all that interested in profiting.
That's not to say there won't be a lot of Player Killing for profit. I just don't count that as griefing. To me, Griefing is taking a high level Character into an area that is known to be the earliest lower security zone that most Characters from another faction will usually enter, and killing them just for kicks. Kicking someone off a mine that you're claiming as part of your own territory is an entirely different beast.
Would it be feasible or logical to put a debuff on someone if they kill the same character within a set timeframe? Assuming of course they initiate both fights?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Would it be feasible or logical to put a debuff on someone if they kill the same character within a set timeframe? Assuming of course they initiate both fights?
In an open PVP world "initiate fights" is very relative.
Lets say Player X is Guild X's guard. His responsibility is to protect the mithral mine.
Player Y approaches the mine, Player X warns him that this mine is under protection and he will be killed if he comes any closer. Player Y ignores the warning, gets killed by player X.
Player Y returns, walks right back to the same mine, and attempts to harvest it again. Is player X at fault for "Initiating" a battle? and if not how does he go about defining that.
If you don't agree that player X's guild has the right to hold the mine, lets say player X is guarding a merchant, and player X is killing someone who is trying to assassinate his chosen merchant. Is player X still at fault for "Initiating"?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Would it be feasible or logical to put a debuff on someone if they kill the same character within a set timeframe? Assuming of course they initiate both fights?
It's certainly technically feasible. I'm not sure it would accomplish anything worthwhile.
One thing you need to keep in mind is that there are entirely valid, just, righteous even, reasons for killing an unflagged Character. One such reason is if they're following you around basically just being obnoxious, telling Chuck Norris jokes or some such. And if they insist on coming back and bugging you again after the first time you've killed them, I'm not sure you'd want to make it too painful to kill them a second time.
In fact, this makes me want to slightly reconsider my points above. Namely, killing an unflagged player should only flag you as a killer if you have less standing with the local faction than they do. Maybe the flag is not even boolean, but an actual measure of the difference in your respective standings with the local faction. This makes it easy to shoo away obnoxious jerks, but still makes it costly to go into someone else's territory and kill them.
Get rid of the consider system, ala previous MMOs like everyquest, or DOAC, so you never know who you are going to run into (know the general level of a player). And secondly, make damage scale, but don't allow high level characters to be untouchable via AC, resistances, or anything else. That will booster lower level characters grouping together to keep the high level griefers in check, and foster a community at the same time. However, that goes against the grain of D&D or Pathfinder in regards to saving throws, AC, etc. All that works great in PvE, but it adds to the griefing in PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you don't agree that player X's guild has the right to hold the mine, lets say player X is guarding a merchant, and player X is killing someone who is trying to assassinate his chosen merchant. Is player X still at fault for "Initiating"?
In the case of guarding a merchant, it should be easy enough to wait for an attacker to actually attack the merchant caravan before engaging, in which case they are the initiator.
In the case of guarding a mine, making the "flag" actually be a value based on the relative standing with the local faction fixes this. If your faction has more control over the territory, then you're justified in protecting it, for whatever reason. If you're trying to invade another faction and take over their mine, then you will bear the consequences of killing someone from that faction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Get rid of the consider system, ala previous MMOs like everyquest, or DOAC, so you never know who you are going to run into (know the general level of a player). And secondly, make damage scale, but don't allow high level characters to be untouchable via AC, resistances, or anything else. That will booster lower level characters grouping together to keep the high level griefers in check, and foster a community at the same time. However, that goes against the grain of D&D or Pathfinder in regards to saving throws, AC, etc. All that works great in PvE, but it adds to the griefing in PvP.
This is right. Also, make it possible for Players to "pose" as NPCs, or as other Archetypes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you don't agree that player X's guild has the right to hold the mine, lets say player X is guarding a merchant, and player X is killing someone who is trying to assassinate his chosen merchant. Is player X still at fault for "Initiating"?In the case of guarding a merchant, it should be easy enough to wait for an attacker to actually attack the merchant caravan before engaging, in which case they are the initiator.
In the case of guarding a mine, making the "flag" actually be a value based on the relative standing with the local faction fixes this. If your faction has more control over the territory, then you're justified in protecting it, for whatever reason. If you're trying to invade another faction and take over their mine, then you will bear the consequences of killing someone from that faction.
While I am for defense having advantages over the offenders. (Knowlege of terrain, traps, defensive structures/towers, NPCs, walls etc... Penalizing the attacking force for successfully killing, seems a bit much, essentially that idea makes the attacker get weaker the more they succeed, where IMO the offense should start with a big disadvantage, and be wearing it down (I.E tearing down defensive towers etc... Disarming/setting off traps) and slowly but at a high cost working themselves towards even ground.
and in either case, unless the respawn time for the defenders is very high, mounting a succesful offense is going to involve killing the same person multiple times as a standard, I fail to see what this system adds and I see much of what it takes away.
Simply having people respawn back at the nearest neutral or owned by their ally's side base (or a further one if he chooses) to me accomplishes all of the goals. If the greifer is far from home, when he is killed he gets sent back, the victim is sent to the safety of his own territory, or a neutral high security town, at which he can either recruit people to deal with the problem, or can head out in a completely different direction to avoid the person.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Penalizing the attacking force for successfully killing, seems a bit much...
I don't favor doing this at all, and I hope I didn't come across as supporting that.
What I'm talking about, with flagging a "killer" when they kill a non-flagged-for-PvP Character, works just fine when the "killer" is really an attacking faction trying to take control of an area. So what if they all get flagged as "killers" (or maybe "aggressor" is a better word?)
The only thing the "killer" flag does is force you to remain in a state where you can be retaliated against. If you're aware of that, and willing to bear those consequences because you're actively engaged in taking over new territory, I don't see any reason that you would feel punished.
|
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?The same way it works in every other MMO. When someone is exploiting a bug, harassing other players, griefing, or otherwise violating the terms of service of the game, you put in a ticket. GMs go down the ticket queue, investigate each one, and mete out a response as necessary.I was griefed by a notorious hacking gnome in Everquest that stayed at level 14 to attack the noobs, he would always log off for a couple days before any tickets were resolved. Over and over this one player did this for well over two years...
Disappearing while running away was definitely not one of the powers...
That's just bad mechanics on part the GM/Game Design. A well designed game will create log entries for certain types of POTENTIALY problematic activities which people with GM or CSR type access can check to see if there is evidence of potential abuse.
Once abuse is found there are numerous options availble....the account can be temporarly banned until the user places a phone call to customer service to resolve the issue.... the character can be placed in a "penalty box" which they can't leave from without GM assistance... the character can be flagged to send an alert to "on duty" GM's to silently and invisibly observe it's behavior when it next logs in. The account can be set to "verbosely log" all activity by the character...so that there is an audit trail for abusive behavior.
Obviously an MMO can't afford the resources for GM's to play baby-sitter for every single player to make sure they are playing nice....but there are ALOT of mechanisms that can be built into a system that can be used to help GM's deal with serious and persistant abuse issues.
The idea that some-one is impervious because they are logged out for a couple of days by the time a trouble ticket comes around....just speaks to sloppy customer service efforts and poor design of support tools.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...the account can be temporarly banned until the user places a phone call to customer service to resolve the issue....
Seriously? an intercontinental call to a support service where the people don't speak my native language and possibly speak English with one of several different accents?
No, thanks.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would say there should be a balance, something like 15-20 mins of a PK you should not be able to sign off without reaching your hometown.
As far as I know that is standard. so if that is what he meant I have no problem with it.
My problem was with the "log off only in inns" idea as absolute rule.Get rid of the consider system, ala previous MMOs like everyquest, or DOAC, so you never know who you are going to run into (know the general level of a player). And secondly, make damage scale, but don't allow high level characters to be untouchable via AC, resistances, or anything else. That will booster lower level characters grouping together to keep the high level griefers in check, and foster a community at the same time. However, that goes against the grain of D&D or Pathfinder in regards to saving throws, AC, etc. All that works great in PvE, but it adds to the griefing in PvP.
As I already pointed out this solution don't remove the problem, it only change its parameters. instead of 1 high level character griefing other players you will have a group of characters griefing other players.
The griefers will not be keep in check. They will simply have a easier time using low experience characters to grief.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... instead of 1 high level character griefing other players you will have a group of characters griefing other players.
I actually think it might mitigate the problem quite a bit.
In my experience, most (certainly not all, but most) griefers are lone troublemakers. It might very well be that they're doing it because they're bored and don't have anything else to do, or anyone to do it with. If it's difficult for them to grief by themselves, thus making it necessary for them to find a group, they might very well do something much more constructive once they've found that group.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... instead of 1 high level character griefing other players you will have a group of characters griefing other players.I actually think it might mitigate the problem quite a bit.
In my experience, most (certainly not all, but most) griefers are lone troublemakers. It might very well be that they're doing it because they're bored and don't have anything else to do, or anyone to do it with. If it's difficult for them to grief by themselves, thus making it necessary for them to find a group, they might very well do something much more constructive once they've found that group.
I do agree, while it is not unheard of (see goonswarm), in general it is far less frequent, and the time of griefing is far less common. Sure you had the 1 time goon swarm group that took out a titan, but even that was more politically motivated/protest focused. Griefing will never be eliminated, but I would say the threat of 1 lone superpowered psycopath, is far more frequent of a problem than teams of 5 psycopaths working together.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...the account can be temporarly banned until the user places a phone call to customer service to resolve the issue....Seriously? an intercontinental call to a support service where the people don't speak my native language and possibly speak English with one of several different accents?
No, thanks.Generally that level of discipline is limited to RMT or other major TOS infractions.
In any case are you planning on running so close to the limits of what is acceptable to have it actually be an issue? In a dozen years of MMOs I have never had to deal with a GM for anything other then bugs.
Same here. Point is that a player doesn't neccesarly need to "be around" by the time someone can respond to a "trouble ticket" regarding them in order for the GM to do something about addressing the complaint. Most games have tools or mechanisms in place that allow the staff to address harrasment complaints even if the person doing the harrasment has already logged off.
Staff who's response to a legitimate harrassment complain is "I'm sorry, X isn't logged on right now, there is nothing I can do. Have a nice day". Just plain aren't doing thier job. period.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So I didn't read through everyone’s posts - I'm just focusing on topic:
This is an Idea I have had to support an open world PvP system which is friendly to everyone. No one has to participate – they just can if they want to.
This is very seperate from the goals of the game. The idea is for the PVP to have impact on shaping the world. If it is opt out then either, 1. with a flagging system you need to autoflag people for going to, anything either side will want to protect, which pretty much automatically is how the high sec/no sec idea of eve is, only flaw is that eve has too many exploits that allow people to kill in high sec, something ryan wishes to combat and either make very uncommon or just flat out eliminate it.
As far as factions permanantly at war, please no. Now we are talking endless pointless griefing. There needs to be reasons for the wars, and ways to strive towards peace. There is no meaningful PVP that does not work towards treaties, delays, gain and loss of items/territory/resources etc... That is the difference between a sandbox war, and an instanced arena pvp
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So I didn't read through everyone’s posts - I'm just focusing on topic...
I find the idea interesting, and you've obviously given it a lot of thought, but your idea for a "Mechanic in an Open PvP system that discourages griefing" is actually for it not to be Open PvP. I don't think that's viable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Griefing in OPvP is a hard topic to cover, there are so many variables that need to be considered so it doesn't turn out like copyright protection, causing more trouble for the people who act within the "rules"
For one you have to have harsh punishments for killing sprees
The punishments can't be permanent.
The punishments can't be cheap to remove.
From a logical standpoint I would expect some sort of revival system involving magic, where something like: a summoner/seer summons your wounded body and revitalizes you, and you have some sort of small skill loss or debuff.
The seer knows if you where killed under "unlawful" circumstances and sends a curse to the offending player.
Earthrise had the right idea, where you need to initiate OPvP by doing a button combination while attacking, to prevent accidents.
The biggest deterrent to OPvP griefing is NOT having a body loot & insurance system.
As for what happens when you kill a person outside of the "rules"
1. A single Kill makes you attack-able and clearly flags you (hovering rune?) as "a bad boy". This would be permanent until your next death, and then you must pay a fine that would make a dent in your wallet but not hurt to badly.
The fine should be a % of your current money from all sources.
2. Multiple Kills increase your penalty exponentially, so the amount of deaths required to remove the mark, and the cost increases heavily.
3. In the event you can't pay the fine you are flagged as attack-able until your next death.
4. Every time you kill a player you get a debuff that stacks with every unlawful kill. The debuff would reduce armor/resistance deductions, and increase incoming damage from player attacks. I would say after 5 stacks a starting player should be able to one shot the most developed character in the game. This makes it so the bad player can go make money but is an easy target.
5. A fine would be a minimum value, with an added percentage of your current wealth from all sources, and measures need to be taken to prevent banking/pawn like services. The killer flag should make you unable to receive money. So just as an example, lets say someone has 1 kill mark, they pay a 200 gold baseline and 10% of their wealth, so if they had 2000 gold, they pay 400 gold. And if they have 5 kill marks, they pay a 5000 gold base line and 90% of their wealth. So they need to have at least 50,000 gold to pay off the fine and have nothing left, otherwise they have to play while under constant attack that pretty much kills them every time.
6. Money collected from the fine is paid back to the players that where affected. So if a player kills one person twice and three people once, the one gets 40% and the three get 20% each.
So basically, 1 kill, not a big deal, if you kill more, significant inconvenience.
The biggest thing here is making it so there is no benefit for killing players that you shouldn't be. And the death penalty shouldn't be null when it comes from unlawful actions.
IMO OPvP should be a faction based thing, like in SWG, where you are never forced, but if you are flagged for a faction, you should be attack-able by opposing factions, or if you flag your self for hostility towards everyone(anyone can initiate and attack on you, but not the other way around)
Some people like the "always looking over your shoulder" games, but we have to face that that is the smallest niche in the market, and there really is no good money in it.
This post is kind of a shotgun of ideas, but i hope my basic ideas got through.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For one you have to have harsh punishments for killing sprees...
Absolutely not. The whole point of Open PvP is to allow legitimate turf wars to happen. If you're going to declare that killing an unflagged player is *always* going to be punished like this, why not just make it impossible to kill an unflagged player?
Any system that punishes people for "unlawful" PvP activity will be gamed by griefers who trick/force people into engaging in "unlawful" PvP.
And that. The last thing I want is a system that's going to punish me for delivering righteous justice.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Frankly, it should be possible for a faction to be flat-out bandits, exacting tolls or extracting tribute or extorting protection from 'legitimate' PLAYERS.
They might even use the same territory control system as everyone else, only their camp is defended by hiding and moving it, rather than making it strong enough to repel attackers. I'm not quite sure what benefits controlling a territory would provide them, but the mechanical benefits of having a secluded camp should be similar to that of a keep.
Of course, now we've just taken the players who want to grief and given them a valid role. I'm sure that there will be players who want to go and wipe out all bandits, everywhere.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...the account can be temporarly banned until the user places a phone call to customer service to resolve the issue....Seriously? an intercontinental call to a support service where the people don't speak my native language and possibly speak English with one of several different accents?
No, thanks.Generally that level of discipline is limited to RMT or other major TOS infractions.
In any case are you planning on running so close to the limits of what is acceptable to have it actually be an issue? In a dozen years of MMOs I have never had to deal with a GM for anything other then bugs.
Nice attempt. Have you stopped beating your wife? Your question is on the same tune.
I have heard enough stories about problems with bans that I don't want to depend on a international telephone call to resolve a problem. E-mails or a petition system in the game forum work perfectly.