Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... what do you raise as a deterrent for bandits?To me, the whole point is that a deterrent would be counter-productive.
It will be a net positive for the game environment that there are bandits. They are my content. Why would I want to deter them? No, much better for me to consume them...
Then you remove the point of caravans to bandit bait. Which removes the point of bandits. Which removes bandits. Which removes your content.
The risk / reward ratio needs to be even for bandits and "legitimate citizens".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
an easy way to prevent a mookswarm from ending all caravans evar.
/shortform/ make combat effective guards that can wade through mooks like a Paladin through a shallow pond
/longform/ although we want fighting to be a high parity prospective, meaning a 6 monther can stand up adequately to a 2 year vet, there's nothing saying you shouldn't at least devote more than 30 minutes to a character to make them at least potentially viable for combat. a caravan guarded by 5 Nihimons should easily be able to manage a mookswarm of fresh off the presses 20 minute characters. Some aoe cleaves, a few fireballs, some sort of 20 yard knockback, and you've got an hour of enjoyable gameplay for precisely 1/2 of that engagement. throw in soul binding to a limited number of locations (mie the 3 starting towns) and you've the advantage of forcing the mookswarm to run potentially exceptional distances to get to the caravan. Nothing kills aberrant behavior faster than boredom. Claiming the mookswarm has nothing to lose is inaccurate. they lose control of the where and when of their mook. they lose the time it takes to reattempt a futile tarpit around a happy caravan with happy interested and energized guards. As I presented earlier, where there's a conflict, there's an opportunity for profit, and in just this narrow example i've detailed it quite well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't want to give the impression that I'd go to those extremes for just any reason. If I felt that I was seriously being harassed, I would take this course just as I would in any other situation involving harassment.
People have beef all the time in multiple forums. That's not harassment. Modifying a picture and telling others that someone did something when they didn't is just as extreme as taking legal action for something that happened on the internet.
I tend to not take people impersonating me lying down. Save that s@%* for WoW.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... what do you raise as a deterrent for bandits?To me, the whole point is that a deterrent would be counter-productive.
It will be a net positive for the game environment that there are bandits. They are my content. Why would I want to deter them? No, much better for me to consume them...
Then you remove the point of caravans to bandit bait. Which removes the point of bandits. Which removes bandits. Which removes your content.
The risk / reward ratio needs to be even for bandits and "legitimate citizens".
I'm not sure I follow your meaning.
The way I see it, part of the fun in transporting a wagon load of mithril from my harvesting camp to the market in town is that I might be attacked by bandits. Being the prudent man I am, I have every intention of ensuring that, if I am attacked, I have the best chance of success possible by bringing with me enough friends to make any attempt on my wagon a risky proposition indeed.
The possibility of attack, and the opportunity for planning it raises, makes the game enjoyable by creating stakes.
If you're suggesting that, by being prepared, and operating in a force sufficient to deter most banditry attempts, I am removing the very thing which I am saying makes the game fun, then you are misreading me. It is not the attack itself which makes the game fun, it is the possibility of attack. For that is what gives me the incentive to plan, and to execute.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Blaeringr - Libel/Slander you may be correct about as I did first encounter this when my wife's real estate career was being bad-mouthed by the ex-husbands new wife.
I wonder if it would be defined slander/libel the case of my town's ex police chief...
He got arrested for luring over the internet. Some cop in New York had baited him. They had to drop all the charges though when they found out sex with a 16 year old without parental consent is actually legal in my country/region. Technically he did nothing illegal. Immoral: that's definitely another question. But it cost him his career and his marriage because some meddling cop didn't bother to check the laws where she was sticking her nose. I don't feel sorry for him, but still wonder whether he'd have a case. I mean, we do have laws for a reason ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would say he has no case. His own actions were the cause of the entire incident. He still is guilty of misconduct which for most public offices is grounds for relief. Divorce is strictly personal and holds no weight especially since he did in fact commit adultery. The investigating officer probably got reprimanded for failing to check with local authorities, but he's more than likely protected from *significant* legal action since he was in the line of duty.
Ironically, 8 years ago I found myself in a similar situation. I was a 20 years old in the Army. I started dating a 15 year old under false pretenses as she claimed she was 17. She was a junior so it wasn't suspicious at all. She turned 16 before we actually slept together. Her mother found out and called my command. They tried to put me in jail over it, but we were from the same state and like yours, age of consent is 16.
Misconduct is a very broad term and can pretty much be used as a catch all.
But enough highjacking.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So... I am out harvesting/adventuring and collect a nice bunch of stuff. Someone comes along, murders me, and loots my body. I lose everything and he gets some random something. I am then supposed to, or have the option to, place a bounty on his head. So not only do I lose my stuff, but he gains something of mine and I lose even more by paying someone to kill him. I am not going to get back what I lost and he is still going to have my something. What are his consequences if I don't put the bounty on him?
Also, the wagons in the caravan...aren't they considered like an item in your inventory? Or just a container with many items? Someone that kills me will only get one of the items in the wagon or wagons? Or do they run off with the whole friggin thing? That hardly seems fair to me. Its like full loot pvp and not something I like at all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
More importantly, what are the consequences if you do put a bounty on him? If he's smart, he'll have quickly stashed your loot somewhere. If he's really smart, a neutral mule character will then transport that loot to a lawful settlement. As soon as he learns he can't fast travel, he'll know there's a bounty on his head. If he's in a hurry for some reason to clear that bounty, he'll go somewhere really populated. Otherwise he'll just keep robbing people and stashing their stuff quickly. Risk is pretty low of him losing anything, and if he does, what are the chances the bounty hunter will hand it over to you?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Misere, my hope is that, if the bandits are successful in driving me away or killing me, that they gain control of my wagons and all the goods therein.
This may not seem fair, and in truth it is not. But it is necessary.
If there is no reward for banditry, then there is no risk in transporting goods, which would mean that transporting goods is merely a boring grind.
With the risk of banditry, transporting goods becomes a game, with stakes that make it interesting and fun.
But don't fret, as a member of The Seventh Veil, you will be able to call upon dedicated defenders to help you see your goods delivered safely to market.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me it is a dynamic systems question...I don't really care about individual examples or counter-examples. The individual agents can be assumed to act "rationally", which means they will act to maximize their utility or reward. The system is comprised of a multitudes of agents each acting rationally. The dynamics of the overall system will be shaped by the masses acting such.
This being said, I would prefer to exist in a system in which agents actively attempt to minimize their deaths. The only way to do that is to make death have a more than nominal hit to their awarded utility. Dying should be expensive in some commodity, be it social, economic, spiritual, personal development...whatever.
I still like the idea that we proposed in an earlier discussion, rezzing would occur at the whim of the gods. When you rez, you should owe your god in some form...this debt is cumulative and the god keeps some increasing percentage of your attributes, skills, or even future awarded experience until you pay it back. Once you pay it back, you get what the god held in collateral back.
What you must do to repay your debt to the god depends upon the god and should reflect the goals of the particular god.
Oh...and what if instead of raising at a graveyard...you become an incorporeal at your place of death and have to run to a shrine belonging to your god to be rezzed? You can rez anywhere, but the further from a shrine you decide to rez...the more divine "debt" you incur. This would make people defending their regions be able to rez faster and cheaper...invasions would be relatively expensive for the invaders.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...invasions would be relatively expensive for the invaders.
Unless the invaders can succeed in the lengthy process of setting up their own shrine nearby. That of course becomes a strategic point for them to defend and a chance for the defenders to hit them somewhere sensitive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For me it is a dynamic systems question...I don't really care about individual examples or counter-examples. The individual agents can be assumed to act "rationally", which means they will act to maximize their utility or reward. The system is comprised of a multitudes of agents each acting rationally. The dynamics of the overall system will be shaped by the masses acting such.
This being said, I would prefer to exist in a system in which agents actively attempt to minimize their deaths. The only way to do that is to make death have a more than nominal hit to their awarded utility. Dying should be expensive in some commodity, be it social, economic, spiritual, personal development...whatever.
I still like the idea that we proposed in an earlier discussion, rezzing would occur at the whim of the gods. When you rez, you should owe your god in some form...this debt is cumulative and the god keeps some increasing percentage of your attributes, skills, or even future awarded experience until you pay it back. Once you pay it back, you get what the god held in collateral back.
What you must do to repay your debt to the god depends upon the god and should reflect the goals of the particular god.
Oh...and what if instead of raising at a graveyard...you become an incorporeal at your place of death and have to run to a shrine belonging to your god to be rezzed? You can rez anywhere, but the further from a shrine you decide to rez...the more divine "debt" you incur. This would make people defending their regions be able to rez faster and cheaper...invasions would be relatively expensive for the invaders.
I LOVE this idea! I REALLY love this idea!
I like the idea that as a cleric of Sarenrae I might have to go out and heal people or redeem evil doers to remove my death penalty, or a follower of an evil god might have to make blood sacrifices. Or either of us could donate some gold to the temple or perhaps do things like pray or do favors or quests for that temple.
Tying religion into resurrection so deeply really gives it a place in PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh...and what if instead of raising at a graveyard...you become an incorporeal at your place of death and have to run to a shrine belonging to your god to be rezzed? You can rez anywhere, but the further from a shrine you decide to rez...the more divine "debt" you incur. This would make people defending their regions be able to rez faster and cheaper...invasions would be relatively expensive for the invaders.
This. Thanks for making me take a second look at it, Blaeringr.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A "neutral mule character" should become tarred with the same brush if he trades with the murderer, imo. That would put a bit of a damper on the running the ill gotten goods to a safe spot. Without meaningful consequences for the murderer it becomes too easy to just steal whatever you want instead of producing your own stuff. So what if they become outcasts of the NPC settlements. Not a big deal if they can make their own where they are allowed to buy and sell at will or deal with the law abiding settlements through proxies.
And thank you Nihimon. =) I am surely going to need protecting I am sure.
So glad to be connected to a solid company!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess i'll just stand alone by my little flag that says no unduly severe penalties for death. Aside from the affection for religious flavor = mechanical disadvantage, I'm not really sure of what fun is served by some of these proposed systems. Death in this game won't be just about how much you owe a god (what if you don't choose one), or whether or not another player nuked you and took a slice of your stuff (for reasons you can't imagine but it must have been bad, right?). It also means if you explore into an encampment of monsters you can't defeat, you die. It also means if you screw up a key stroke and idiotically leap from a bridge to a slab of rock... or wear plate while trying to take a dip... etc etc.
The scale and breadth of such an ubiquitous mechanic really will make or break the gameplay for a lot of people. A number of people are heavily turned off by the limited looting as described. To add layer and layer of penalty on top of this... I just don't see the upside.
You're not alone.
I maintain the proposed death penalties are harsher than necessary.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
if your rewards have no risks, its not worth dedicating MMO kind of time to it.
This is the argument for harsher death penalties. If someone tries to jump a caravan, and loses, they keep all their gear and lose nothing. But if they succeed, they make off with a pile of cash. Large gain (reward), no possible loss (risk), it sounds like a problem to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So what? The point of a "neutral mule character" is being disposable. If he isn't discreet enough and gets a bad rep, a smart player won't use him for anything else and won't waste skill time on him, so he can just delete him and make a new one to serve the same purpose.
Meaning the mule can't fast travel to a safe place and dump the goods and better than the murderer can.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
if your rewards have no risks, its not worth dedicating MMO kind of time to it.This is the argument for harsher death penalties. If someone tries to jump a caravan, and loses, they keep all their gear and lose nothing. But if they succeed, they make off with a pile of cash. Large gain (reward), no possible loss (risk), it sounds like a problem to me.
That was exactly my point. Thank you. =)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This article is quite convenient on several things about making players play intelligently:
Emergent Gameplay and Persistent Worlds: The Day Z Interview:
http://gamersushi.com/2012/05/10/emergent-gameplay-and-persistent-worlds-th e-day-z-interview/
1. Emergent gameplay: "the game features a humanity meter to chart your interactions with other survivors. Malevolent players can earn a “Bandit” ranking that changes their outward appearance and makes them a target for frontier justice."
2. Permadeath -> every corner counts: "4Hrs is average life" of player character.
3. Blank "map" at start = blank screen for "m" = map button!
4. You have to keep your character's survival options supplied: "you need to keep yourself fed, watered and breathing all while contending not only with hordes of roaming undead but also other players."
Now not saying it is perfect like-for-like to MMO, but it demonstrates the power of emergent gameplay allowing "players in an online space to make the game their own": They need to be induced to play in a way that they find intelligible to themselves beyond too many elaborate rules about "how players should play" is the gist of the article.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While in general I like GW's approach to death--a penalty that is meaningful but not crippling, and most importantly, a penalty that doesn't take you "out of the fight" and waste play time--I am not so sure about one aspect.
I don't understand the rationale behind the husk-looting mechanic. Someone corpse loots you, and they get a single item while you lose everything, poof, instantly. What does that do for behavior?
Let's compare two proposed mechanisms:
A) 1 Touch Poof! (current)
B) Persistent Lootable Husk (variant: looter can take one random item only, while husk with remaining items persists)
Looter behavior: I think my behavior as the looter is the same either way. Under both systems, if I come across a dead corpse, my direct economic incentive is unchanged: me gets one item.
Dead Guy behavior: I have an increased incentive to get back to my corpse most ricky-tick--the marginal utility of a corpse run is now more likely to result in return >0.
To the best of my understanding, the current 1 Touch Poof system is fairly harsh, and may under-incentive getting back to your bod, because there's a relatively higher chance it's gone poof. The Persistent Lootable Corpse is less punitive--relatively higher chance of getting some of my stuff back, but also a corresponding incentive to get back to your bod.
So the question is which behaviors are more desirable to incentivize: risk-minimization to avoid the steeper penalty of A, or fighting back to your bod, as in B. Anyways, I'd be interested to hear what GW's rationale for the A system is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While in general I like GW's approach to death--a penalty that is meaningful but not crippling, and most importantly, a penalty that doesn't take you "out of the fight" and waste play time--I am not so sure about one aspect.
I don't understand the rationale behind the husk-looting mechanic. Someone corpse loots you, and they get a single item while you lose everything, poof, instantly. What does that do for behavior?
Let's compare two proposed mechanisms:
A) 1 Touch Poof! (current)
B) Persistent Lootable Husk (variant: looter can take one random item only, while husk with remaining items persists)Looter behavior: I think my behavior as the looter is the same either way. Under both systems, if I come across a dead corpse, my direct economic incentive is unchanged: me gets one item.
Dead Guy behavior: I have an increased incentive to get back to my corpse most ricky-tick--the marginal utility of a corpse run is now more likely to result in return >0.
To the best of my understanding, the current 1 Touch Poof system is fairly harsh, and may under-incentive getting back to your bod, because there's a relatively higher chance it's gone poof. The Persistent Lootable Corpse is less punitive--relatively higher chance of getting some of my stuff back, but also a corresponding incentive to get back to your bod.
So the question is which behaviors are more desirable to incentivize: risk-minimization to avoid the steeper penalty of A, or fighting back to your bod, as in B. Anyways, I'd be interested to hear what GW's rationale for the A system is.
Like you I was nodding my head to GW's ideas for death, till I read the part about the rest of your inventory is deleted after a single looting. I'd much prefer your Persistent body system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So what? The point of a "neutral mule character" is being disposable. If he isn't discreet enough and gets a bad rep, a smart player won't use him for anything else and won't waste skill time on him, so he can just delete him and make a new one to serve the same purpose.Meaning the mule can't fast travel to a safe place and dump the goods and better than the murderer can.
Hold on, "murderer"? Now you've gone and changed the paramaters. Banditry is generally done in lawless areas. Thus none of them will be flagged as murderers and will be able to fast travel. And if the bandits can fast travel, I simply don't see how you can conclude that a character that has done n o killing at all cannot.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Anyways, I'd be interested to hear what GW's rationale for the A system is.
I think Ryan explained it in his post inside the "To Live and Die..." thread, Jan 18. If someone loots your husk, you lose all the unequipped stuff. They intend that death is to be a setback and meaningful. You keep your equipped items, because death is a setback, not total destruction.
He also mentions that PvP content is driving the PvE economy. When items are lost, that means crafters have work to replace those items. I think that means there might not be any item wear - that part of a normal game economy will be covered by the loss of items through PvP and other deaths where we don't recover our bodies.
He talks of the possibility that players can recover items if their party is strong, or if the fight was PvE. So it is intended that the risks of PvP are greater than PvE. I think that also hints that a body might not be lootable for a few minutes - if your friends can protect it, they might be able to prevent your body being looted.
And the fact that the bandit only gets a random selection from the loot is intended to make such looting less profitable, less a source of great wealth. So GW's calculation might be that less people will do random killing if they are going to get slim pickings from many fights.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Urman, my question wasn't what the mechanic was--I'm referencing that blog post when I describe the proposed mechanic. My question is about the rationale behind the mechanic--why that particular setback (i.e. all), and not another (i.e. partial)? Your suggestion that it is meant to drive a UO-style of item consumption sounds very possible, but I'm not sure exactly what part of the blog you are referencing--could you be more specific?
Also, the issue at hand isn't banditry--it's death. PVP is one of the ways you can end up a husk, but this mechanic applies to PVE deaths as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
-snip-And the fact that the bandit only gets a random selection from the loot is intended to make such looting less profitable, less a source of great wealth. So GW's calculation might be that less people will do random killing if they are going to get slim pickings from many fights.
Thanks for explaining this bit. There I was thinking bandits were too far under the cosh already: A life of crime really doesn't pay, but it sure is fun. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ah, didn't realize that the blog post and his post in the resulting thread were the same day. I think he explains his rationale inside the forum thread, the 8:07 pm post.
My comments in this thread have been mostly about death *and* banditry, because the death risk for player-killers seems comparatively low (assuming minimal equipment loads). Re-reading his blog and thread posts, I think GW estimates that the rewards for random PK action will also be low, and that might/should keep the PK population manageable. Targeted PvP action (raiding wagon trains?) might pay better, but that isn't clear. PvP might be mostly about destroying enemy settlement structures, resources, hope, and dreams. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks for explaining this bit. There I was thinking bandits were too far under the cosh already: A life of crime really doesn't pay, but it sure is fun. ;)
Yeah, re-reading Ryan's post made me rethink it a little. I was previously looking at the PvP concepts from the victim side, but from the winner side, I see loot drops of one, or maybe 1-3 items. A lot of PvP lootings might end up being 40 arrows and a loaf of bread.
A lot of PvP lootings might end up being 40 arrows and a loaf of bread.
This is exactly why I don't see the point of the death penalty.
Bandit's perspective: Looting adventurers won't pay. Raiding caravans will pay.
Adventurer's perspective: My near-empty bag means I won't lose much if I die. But my loaded caravan would be a terrible loss.
It's also why I don't see the point of fast travel triggering ambushes instead of slow travel.
Bandit: I want to attack caravans, not solo adventurers.
Adventurer: I want my hands-free travel to actually be hands free, not hands-free-but-you-still-have-to-sit-there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hold on, "murderer"? Now you've gone and changed the paramaters. Banditry is generally done in lawless areas. Thus none of them will be flagged as murderers and will be able to fast travel. And if the bandits can fast travel, I simply don't see how you can conclude that a character that has done n o killing at all cannot.So what? The point of a "neutral mule character" is being disposable. If he isn't discreet enough and gets a bad rep, a smart player won't use him for anything else and won't waste skill time on him, so he can just delete him and make a new one to serve the same purpose.Meaning the mule can't fast travel to a safe place and dump the goods and better than the murderer can.
Guilty by association?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What guilt? You have to kill someone in a lawful area to be flagged as a murderer and thus all the other consequences. Even then, the only guilt by association is characters who helped in the murder, either doing direct damage, or buffing/healing the culprits. Picking up loot left in their hideout and taking it somewhere safe is not enough, even for someone dumb enough to kill in lawful areas.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks for explaining this bit. There I was thinking bandits were too far under the cosh already: A life of crime really doesn't pay, but it sure is fun. ;)Yeah, re-reading Ryan's post made me rethink it a little. I was previously looking at the PvP concepts from the victim side, but from the winner side, I see loot drops of one, or maybe 1-3 items. A lot of PvP lootings might end up being 40 arrows and a loaf of bread.
Now if that was the case would you go around randomly attacking people if say.... you could lose your primary weapon? Or breast plate?
I think that may be the kicker... if you are the aggressor, you should have more to lose if you have more to gain.
Perhaps different levels of penalty for different things? Attacking a character to kill them should hold different weight than trying to raid a caravan... its a tough one to call but I think it may be an acceptable solution.
People are still going to raid caravans... the possible profit is too great to simply ignore. People are still going to randomly murder... well that's half the fun of PvP. Finding balance for these things may mean finding two different balances... one for each.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if, by killing a bandit who struck from a hideout, you had a set percent chance of finding a scrap of paper on the bandit that reveals the location of said hideout? Suddenly, running away might not be a bad tactic for a bandit. It matters if they die, they have something to lose. But, at the same time, it does not adversely affect those who aren't involved in PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks for explaining this bit. There I was thinking bandits were too far under the cosh already: A life of crime really doesn't pay, but it sure is fun. ;)Yeah, re-reading Ryan's post made me rethink it a little. I was previously looking at the PvP concepts from the victim side, but from the winner side, I see loot drops of one, or maybe 1-3 items. A lot of PvP lootings might end up being 40 arrows and a loaf of bread.Now if that was the case would you go around randomly attacking people if say.... you could lose your primary weapon? Or breast plate?
I think that may be the kicker... if you are the aggressor, you should have more to lose if you have more to gain.
Perhaps different levels of penalty for different things? Attacking a character to kill them should hold different weight than trying to raid a caravan... its a tough one to call but I think it may be an acceptable solution.
People are still going to raid caravans... the possible profit is too great to simply ignore. People are still going to randomly murder... well that's half the fun of PvP. Finding balance for these things may mean finding two different balances... one for each.
I think as Urman points out the random loot basically means randomly pk'ing is not profitable, so reduces the incidence of this. Also if in the lawless zones, then a pvp encounter is working as intended by increasing the danger level of that area as well as making a pk in a lawful area an awful decision! So really it already works to reduce the frequency and assuming combat will have various scenarios of likely outcome, it's no forgone conclusion that a bandit pvp'ing will win anyway.
Whereas caravan pvp fights is intentionally party vs party for resource capture. Less valuable resources nearer lawful areas vs more valuable in the lawless areas... where the bandits will be waiting.
Sounds good.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't understand the rationale behind the husk-looting mechanic...
Not claiming I have that answer, but a thought did occur to me.
How many people out there have been ruthlessly killed over and over again by the same person? What were you trying to do when that happened?
I may be off, but my hunch is that the most over-the-top griefing occurs when the griefer corpse-camps their victim, waits for them to come back, and then kills them again.
It may very well be that GW is trying to minimize this situation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't understand the rationale behind the husk-looting mechanic...Not claiming I have that answer, but a thought did occur to me.
How many people out there have been ruthlessly killed over and over again by the same person? What were you trying to do when that happened?
I may be off, but my hunch is that the most over-the-top griefing occurs when the griefer corpse-camps their victim, waits for them to come back, and then kills them again.
It may very well be that GW is trying to minimize this situation.
The problem is, if its looted you lose everything. If there is no husk looting, and they camp your body, you lose everything. So, if there is no looting, and they corpse camp, you could just not go back for your stuff. Same results.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What I was referring to was the psychological impact. When someone knows they have a bunch of their stuff sitting on one of their corpses somewhere, they may be compelled to try to get it back even if they know it's going to turn out bad.
If instead they know for certain that there's nothing they can recover, then they'll simply accept that and go somewhere else.
Again, I'm not saying this is Goblinworks' idea, or that it's even a good idea, it's just a dynamic that occurred to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Anyways, I'd be interested to hear what GW's rationale for the A system is....He also mentions that PvP content is driving the PvE economy. When items are lost, that means crafters have work to replace those items. I think that means there might not be any item wear - that part of a normal game economy will be covered by the loss of items through PvP and other deaths where we don't recover our bodies...
One of my favorite parts of Star Wars Galaxies was the permanent damage that could only be healed by seeing a doctor (in a hospital) or by recuperating in a bar by watching entertainment (dancers/musicians). This created an entire economy for doctors and entertainers; characters that could spend their entire gaming lifetime never entering battle but still have fun mastering their crafts.
The point being, an item degradation system, whether by item use or by death penalty, would give crafting characters much more to do, as would loosing more items on death. It is systems like this and those implemented in SWG that create fun to play non-combat roles within the games economy.