Goblin Squad Member
|
@zetesofos if you're hoping war will be the only PvP they envision, then you should read Ryan's posts that outright encourage players to attempt banditry.
Don't worry though, just read Tony's blog and you'll see we've got this all straightened out with a player made solution that requires no changes from GW that will allow people attacked in non-consensual PvP to place bounties, but not let them overdo it if the attacker wasn't legitimately griefing them (and to reiterate: plain banditry is not considered by goblinworks to be griefing).
Forgive me, I made that first comment after only reading the first page or so (more informed currently).
I think overall, there are some general problems that prevent people from reaching a solution. We need working definitions for the concepts of a0 'Griefing' and PvP
On the topic of griefing, this (as was mentioned above) is a subjective term. As such, it's definition will not be decided by the player base (at least inially), it will be decided by GW. From there, the effects will be measured, and adjusted.
As for PvP in General, let's break this down: PvP stands for Player vs. Player (duh of course, but...)
What situations can result in a combative player vs player sitation
Faction War, Mercenary War, Assassination, Criminal Robbery, Retribution (Bounty, or just lawfully allowed revenge killing), and consensual duel/brawl (however that may or may not be allowed).
Of those, they can be broken down further. My question to everyone in general is....of those types of PvP, is there some experience you see MISSING?
It's still all irrelevant. Players have found a way around it already. So let GW do what they want.
Untill GW hands out bans for the player made solution because they feel it is in violation of EULA or TOS. Or at the very least it is also considered griefing by GW. Not saying this will happen, just saying it is a possible outcome.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's still all irrelevant. Players have found a way around it already. So let GW do what they want.Untill GW hands out bans for the player made solution because they feel it is in violation of EULA or TOS. Or at the very least it is also considered griefing by GW. Not saying this will happen, just saying it is a possible outcome.
I'd be very impressed if they ever made a connection. Even if they do have server logs of a conversation asking the guy to drop the bounty, what are they going to do? ban anyone who attacks that player afterwards? If the attacks come from different people from different companies, how do you imagine they'll know who to ban?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
boo hoo
People also don't like their characters killed and robbed by other players.
The fraction of "but I want to play a villan" players appears like a bunch of kids who want all the reward of free loot with no risk attached.
They want their fun at the expanse of everyone else.
So if 'evil' type players can be tossed in jail for playing a legitimate role in game, only makes sense that 'good' type players can be kidnapped and tied up and not be able to play for a few rl days.
After all, they're just acting like a bunch of kids that want all the reward of free loot with no risk. They want their fun at the expense of everyone else.
I'd be very impressed if they ever made a connection. Even if they do have server logs of a conversation asking the guy to drop the bounty, what are they going to do? ban anyone who attacks that player afterwards? If the attacks come from different people from different companies, how do you imagine they'll know who to ban?It's still all irrelevant. Players have found a way around it already. So let GW do what they want.Untill GW hands out bans for the player made solution because they feel it is in violation of EULA or TOS. Or at the very least it is also considered griefing by GW. Not saying this will happen, just saying it is a possible outcome.
just a worse case scenario type thing, playing devil's advocate. I have seen some pretty harsh punishments before, perfect example a whole guild got banned in WoW because ten people in that guild cheated by using a gm only item to one shoot a raid boss. instead of just banning the people responsible and saying " hey. our bad, the game code broke somewhere and a special gm item got sent to a player who upon receiving it should have contacted us, so we banned him and his group for using it and not reporting it but we left the rest of his guild alone cause they had nothing to do with it" pretty draconian in my opinion, but hey they made a dang good example out of a lot of innocents. point is sometime game companies take extreme measures needlessly to get a point across, for better or worse. I hope GW would never be so tyrannical in their actions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You're talking about a scenario with evidence. Lot's of evidence and server logs recording every bit of it.
Best GMs will have is blind speculation about something people maybe did to counter something that the game designers have themselves admitted was designed to be especially harsh and aimed at griefers.
The closest thing to evidence I suggest is a conversation on the server where one player politely asks another to stop griefing another player.
That's it.
You want to picture a worst case scenario? Try picturing this not being organized on a larger scale. Innocents will get griefed and it will be done by small scale groups who might make the mistake of discussing it on the game server and who make the mistake of using the same account to repeatedly attack the same person. So what do you think is more likely to lead to a worst case scenario? Organizing this properly, or leaving it alone knowing people will at least do this on a smaller scale anyways when they realize how stupid the currently planned bounty system can get?
Of course it has to be handled carefully, so your scrutiny is appreciated. It's the kind of scrutiny that will make this operation a healthy one.
You're talking about a scenario with evidence. Lot's of evidence and server logs recording every bit of it.
Best GMs will have is blind speculation about something people maybe did to counter something that the game designers have themselves admitted was designed to be especially harsh and aimed at griefers.
The closest thing to evidence I suggest is a conversation on the server where one player politely asks another to stop griefing another player.
That's it.
You want to picture a worst case scenario? Try picturing this not being organized on a larger scale. Innocents will get griefed and it will be done by small scale groups who might make the mistake of discussing it on the game server and who make the mistake of using the same account to repeatedly attack the same person. So what do you think is more likely to lead to a worst case scenario? Organizing this properly, or leaving it alone knowing people will at least do this on a smaller scale anyways when they realize how stupid the currently planned bounty system can get?
Of course it has to be handled carefully, so your scrutiny is appreciated. It's the kind of scrutiny that will make this operation a healthy one.
Totaly agree with you actualy, just have always been one of those people that like to point out the extreme stuff to make people stop and think for a moment. like i said, devil's advocate.
Do you handle parking tickets?
I actually issue them, and it kinda sucks lol. so many people get ticked off about getting a parking violation when they clearly broke the rules/laws and don't want to deal with the consequences of their actions. So i get to play the role of teacher about the rules/law or enforcer for idiots that do not want to go buy their parking permit when they need them or otherwise get stupid and raise to much grief instead of taking a moment to listen to me explain to them why it is necessary to do so.
I much prefer to be nice about it, but more often then not the violators wont let me so i then have to have their vehicle towed and have them fined/trespassed and removed off the premises, possibly with other criminal charges ranging into the felony level.That is just as a state licensed security officer, when i finish my criminal justice degree and pass my law enforcement standards it will be even more aggravating i am sure. Don't get me started on speeding tickets and seat belt laws.
but yes i do handle parking tickets in the sense of helping you get out of them in a sense ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
boo hoo
People also don't like their characters killed and robbed by other players.
The fraction of "but I want to play a villan" players appears like a bunch of kids who want all the reward of free loot with no risk attached.
They want their fun at the expanse of everyone else.So if 'evil' type players can be tossed in jail for playing a legitimate role in game, only makes sense that 'good' type players can be kidnapped and tied up and not be able to play for a few rl days.
After all, they're just acting like a bunch of kids that want all the reward of free loot with no risk. They want their fun at the expense of everyone else.
very mature reply (rolly eyes)
so setting up a buisiness and using paid online time to produce goods & services for the benefit other players is "at the expense of everyone else" ?!?your logic isn't, kid.
How do you make a living in the real world?**
Do you provide the "service" of risk to small buisinesses by robbing them?**
After all: It makes the reward of profits at the end of the month so much more enjoyable when they have to overcome the occasional hit by a burglar, no?
You can feel like you really achieved something when you can keep your business alive even though 20% of the profits just walk out of the door.
** this is a rethorical question, not an accusation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really detest the 'real world' arguments when trying to validate some element of a fantasy game. When you can cast a fireball, lightning bolt or use astral travel 'in real life', I'll consider it a valid point.
Thoss people playing bandits and criminals in game are using paid online time to achieve their goals. In doing this, they're creating conflict (roleplay) and they're the ones that add the element of risk to those players creating and running businesses. If these things do not exist, then conflict, roleplay and the risks associated with running and owning some sort of business are lowered (and not as much fun in my opinion) and then we're back to the themepark type of game. Player v Environment (NPC's).
In other words, those players playing as bandits/outlaws/criminals etc, are actually using the features of a sandpit game as it is intended and we're not just reliant of the AI of preprogramed sprites being the ones tearing our mine down or setting fire to our shop. You belittling these aspects achieves nothing and calling those people 'little kids' really undermines your entire argument.
We understand you may want to play PvE, but the fact is not everyone does. Indeed, there are a large group of players wanting to move away from the rinse and repeat themepark style PvE games and move into a game similar to EVE (but in a fantasy setting) where players are your main adversaries and you simply do not know what they're about to do next because unlike a preprogramed NPC, they're intelligent and have wants, needs, desires and sometimes even act on a whim given their mood.
Sounds awesome to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At the risk of rustling you, Jiminy, it's not so much the PvE as in making sure players realise the setup here.
On the Goblinworks Home-Page, they listed that Gatherers (Adventurers) will be going out to get the materials, Crafters (Merchants) will be putting it all together, and then Heroes (Adventurers) will be purchasing them and restarting the whole cycle.
But when you've got a group of hard-core PvPers/Griefers running around and decimating the local Merchant PCs, who may not be able to fight back, and after getting hit time and time again, they aren't going to stick around, they're going to either rage-quit the game, and then bad-mouth it over the web and to their friends, or up and move to a different hex.
If there's no way to stop players who have a raging hardon for your misery, then you're never going to see player-controlled hexes beyond the Major NPC-Faction controlled areas. There has so to be some form of, if not control, then an awareness drummed into people's heads that completely ruining the businesses of an area can only end poorly for everyone.
The Merchants either leave the game or pack up and move somewhere else, creating gluts of crafters in some hexes and a complete absence in others.
Adventurers are not able to repair and replenish, and thus they become confined to a few Hexes, meaning that competition between players for access to crafting nodes and material-dropping mobs climbs to a genocidal pitch, meaning players will get frustrated and either leave, or further fragment the Player Community with accusations about being 'Farmers' or 'Node-Ninjas'.
The Bandits have nobody to rob/murder anymore, and thus spend their days picking off the few souls brave enough to venture out, and either get bored and quit to play something else or start to pick each other off.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If there's no way to stop players who have a raging hardon for your misery, then you're never going to see player-controlled hexes beyond the Major NPC-Faction controlled areas. There has so to be some form of, if not control, then an awareness drummed into people's heads that completely ruining the businesses of an area can only end poorly for everyone.
I will never understand this "He can't win a fight, so thus is 100% powerless definition. The merchant you described, is a magnet for Adventurers, heros, warriors etc... who have a vested interest in protecting their supply.
Ritch merchants are like a bank... yes it is true, the tellers, the bank employees etc... are not particularly strong at fighting off robbers, but they hire a security company, have the best safes money can offer, routine checkins by the police etc...
Yes, when criminals actually succeed at robbing a bank, they make a fortune, but that isn't the daily life of a banker. Succcesful bank robberies are rare, newsworthy events, but they aren't thwarted because the teller has a black belt, they rarely happen because the banks have the money to purchase state of the art security, have their high valued items delivered too and from via an armored car etc...
Just like in PFO's plans. Replaced armored car with hired protector escorts, or simply adventurers in a shared allience with this merchant who simply need to keep their crafting team crafting.
People have this image that the bankers need to go out into a dark alley alone with nothing but a bag of money strapped to their back, and hope they don't get robbed. This isn't the case.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But when you've got a group of hard-core PvPers/Griefers running around and decimating the local Merchant PCs, who may not be able to fight back, and after getting hit time and time again, they aren't going to stick around, they're going to either rage-quit the game, and then bad-mouth it over the web and to their friends, or up and move to a different hex.
You have made a large leap in logic here.
I chimed in on this discussion because it was touted that bandits et all should be able to be punished for their crimes by tossing them in jail for a period of time and thus locking them out of playing their characters.
An assertion was made that those players running a bandit appear like a "bunch of kids that are out to ruin other peoples fun" (i.e. griefing). I do not think this is the case and gave reasons why I think bandits and other 'evil' types of characters
add flavour and value to games.
To leap to the 'all bandits are griefers' is a huge step. This is simply not the case and in addition GW have made it it clear they want to see banditry in game and that they will not consider it griefing.
How to deal with said bandits (and also griefers) is a completely separate discussion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If there's no way to stop players who have a raging hardon for your misery, then you're never going to see player-controlled hexes beyond the Major NPC-Faction controlled areas. There has so to be some form of, if not control, then an awareness drummed into people's heads that completely ruining the businesses of an area can only end poorly for everyone.The Merchants either leave the game or pack up and move somewhere else, creating gluts of crafters in some hexes and a complete absence in others.
A few examples of things players running merchants could do to deal with bandits are:
-Hire guards for their supply trains/resource operations.
-Hire soldiers to regularly sweep the woods looking for bandits.
-Hire assassins to make the bandits dead.
-Make a trade alliance with a large corporation and leverage their resources to deal with bandits.
-Use the bounty system to your advantage to make the bandits lives miserable.
-Appeal to the nearest kingdom or city and ask them to leverage their resources to deal with bandits.
-Make or join a trading coporation and user their resources to deal with bandits.
-Make a large donation to the church of XYZ to convice their clergy than bandits are all badness and holy jihad should be waged upon their heads each and every day.
-Convince the local druid that the bandits are damaging the local environment and get them to make their lives miserable.
-Gather rare components for the local wizard and convince them to make the heavens rain with fire upon the bandits.
In doing one or more of these, you're also generating roleplay and creating content for yourself and others. All working as intended.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I really detest the 'real world' arguments when trying to validate some element of a fantasy game. When you can cast a fireball, lightning bolt or use astral travel 'in real life', I'll consider it a valid point.
Garbage: you are dealing with real people who control their characters and get frustrated by the same things as in RL, it doesn't matter if the weapon of choice is a handgun or a wand of magic missils.
on to PvE vs. PvP
Themepark PvE:
kill the NPC bandits, take their loot, a few minutes later they respawn ready to try and rob the next player.
Pathfinder Online PvP:
Kill the PC bandits, take their loot, a few minutes later they respawn ready to try and rob the next player.
Spot the difference.
One main difference I see is that in PvE there is 100% control by the developers on how many bandits roam the environment.
A game where your actions are persistent
exept when the bandits are player characters, who can't be locked up, who won't stay dead and whose players feel some sort of entitlement for providing content.
Don't you have it sweet? You get all the fun ganking people and also get to tell them to "STFU. I'm not a bug, I'm a feature"That is where risk for the bandits in PvP comes to play:
Too little risk and there will be too many bandits for the game to be fun for the other players.
atm the risk is only in the Bounty system and already people are wanting a way to get a bounty removed other than getting killed by a bounty hunter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really detest the 'real world' arguments when trying to validate some element of a fantasy game. When you can cast a fireball, lightning bolt or use astral travel 'in real life', I'll consider it a valid point.Garbage: you are dealing with real people who control their characters and get frustrated by the same things as in RL, it doesn't matter if the weapon of choice is a handgun or a wand of magic missils.
I absolutely agree with you. Now lets look at what you're implying:
1/ A merchant gets killed by a bandit and 'maybe' loses some gear/resources that they collected over time. On the flpside, they get to undertake a whole bunch of roleplay activities as per my post above.
2/ A bandit gets found guilty of a crime and thrown into jail. The player gets his account locked out for a period of time.
There is even less fun and zero opportunity of roleplay or character interaction with option 2, yet this is what you are advocating. You also seem to thnk ALL banditry is griefing and leads to rampant PvP and RPK. This is an assumption and has no basis in fact.
on to PvE vs. PvPThemepark PvE:
kill the NPC bandits, take their loot, a few minutes later they respawn ready to try and rob the next player.Pathfinder Online PvP:
Kill the PC bandits, take their loot, a few minutes later they respawn ready to try and rob the next player.Spot the difference.
One main difference I see is that in PvE there is 100% control by the developers on how many bandits roam the environment.
If bandits can rob the next player without armor or weapons (which is what state they will be in after getting whacked a few times), they're doing pretty well. Refer to my above post again for options and tactics to leverage against such bandits.
You're under the illusion that bandits hold all the cards and that the other 90% of characters in the game cannot do anything to retaliate or stand against these ferocious bandits. I somehow don't think this will be the case.
A game where your actions are persistentexept when the bandits are player characters, who can't be locked up, who won't stay dead and whose players feel some sort of entitlement for providing content.
Don't you have it sweet? You get all the fun ganking people and also get to tell them to "STFU. I'm not a bug, I'm a feature"
How do you gank someone when every bounty hunter in the game is after you, a bunch of companies will be protecting against your actions and half the kingdoms will outlaw your activities (whyich will probably have consequences)? Once again, it is not going to be as easy as you think.
That is where risk for the bandits in PvP comes to play:
Too little risk and there will be too many bandits for the game to be fun for the other players.
atm the risk is only in the Bounty system and already people are wanting a way to get a bounty removed other than getting killed by a bounty hunter.
There is also the risk from other bandits, other characters, NPCs, Kingdom guards and all the other options in my above post.
Banditry will be a long and hard road. You really need to stop equating a player wanting to play an evil or chaotic bandit as a grifer and a 'kid' and wanting to leverage punitive damages upon them above what they push onto others. Locking out their accounts falls into this category.
If your issue is with griefers, then I have no problems with your idea of locking out accounts and even more harsh punishment. Please do not lump players wanting to play the bad guy into your sweeping statements though.
Shouldn't much of this argument be postponed until it can be tested in game? Seems this is what crowd forging is about, the players having a hand in shaping the game. I'm interested in seeing how this works in game, then tweaking it from there.
Seems like the logical course
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Banditry will be a long and hard road. You really need to stop equating a player wanting to play an evil or chaotic bandit as a grifer and a 'kid' and wanting to leverage punitive damages upon them above what they push onto others. Locking out their accounts falls into this category.
If your issue is with griefers, then I have no problems with your idea of locking out accounts and even more harsh punishment. Please do not lump players wanting to play the bad guy into your sweeping statements though.
The Devs have expressed desire to see characters of all alignments. Evil characters != Evil Players. I think that's a big part of the contention on these boards. I think a bigger problem is people's past experience with open PVP worlds and the horrors of being ganked every two steps.
Between the bounty system, lack of significant material incentive for looting, alignment shifts, settlement/faction responses to alignment, reputation, and the number of griefer-hunting guilds already in place (and growing) - I think we have a good chance to make it through this okay and change that paradigm. A lot of it is going to be on the community though - don't tolerate griefing, even if it's your best friend or girlfriend or whatever. If you suspect (actually suspect, not a one-off you got killed by a CE bandit) someone is griefing, drop their reputation, bounty up, inform the in-game authorities - and if it stays out of hand, inform the GMs. That's my plan anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there's no way to stop players who have a raging hardon for your misery, then you're never going to see player-controlled hexes beyond the Major NPC-Faction controlled areas. There has so to be some form of, if not control, then an awareness drummed into people's heads that completely ruining the businesses of an area can only end poorly for everyone.The Merchants either leave the game or pack up and move somewhere else, creating gluts of crafters in some hexes and a complete absence in others.
A few examples of things players running merchants could do to deal with bandits are:
-Hire guards for their supply trains/resource operations.
-Hire soldiers to regularly sweep the woods looking for bandits.
-Hire assassins to make the bandits dead.
-Make a trade alliance with a large corporation and leverage their resources to deal with bandits.
-Use the bounty system to your advantage to make the bandits lives miserable.
-Appeal to the nearest kingdom or city and ask them to leverage their resources to deal with bandits.
-Make or join a trading coporation and user their resources to deal with bandits.
-Make a large donation to the church of XYZ to convice their clergy than bandits are all badness and holy jihad should be waged upon their heads each and every day.
-Convince the local druid that the bandits are damaging the local environment and get them to make their lives miserable.
-Gather rare components for the local wizard and convince them to make the heavens rain with fire upon the bandits.In doing one or more of these, you're also generating roleplay and creating content for yourself and others. All working as intended.
or seek me out and i will organize a righteous crusade against them with my paladin and his like minded friends. Smite evils all around!
Banditry will be a long and hard road. You really need to stop equating a player wanting to play an evil or chaotic bandit as a grifer and a 'kid' and wanting to leverage punitive damages upon them above what they push onto others. Locking out their accounts falls into this category.
If your issue is with griefers, then I have no problems with your idea of locking out accounts and even more harsh punishment. Please do not lump players wanting to play the bad guy into your sweeping statements though.
The Devs have expressed desire to see characters of all alignments. Evil characters != Evil Players. I think that's a big part of the contention on these boards. I think a bigger problem is people's past experience with open PVP worlds and the horrors of being ganked every two steps.
Between the bounty system, lack of significant material incentive for looting, alignment shifts, settlement/faction responses to alignment, reputation, and the number of griefer-hunting guilds already in place (and growing) - I think we have a good chance to make it through this okay and change that paradigm. A lot of it is going to be on the community though - don't tolerate griefing, even if it's your best friend or girlfriend or whatever. If you suspect (actually suspect, not a one-off you got killed by a CE bandit) someone is griefing, drop their reputation, bounty up, inform the in-game authorities - and if it stays out of hand, inform the GMs. That's my plan anyway.
I know peace through vigilance most likely will come down hard on griefers,think its a safe bet the empyrean order, Seventh Veil, and a few others would be more then happy to go en mass against some griefers in a heart beat as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I know for sure Peace Through Vigilance, The Empyrean Order, and The Keepers of the Circle (the only guild I can actually speak for :P) will be anti-griefer and active about it, and I know several members of The Seventh Veil will be active against griefers as well, and their faction does not tolerate griefers. There's a TON of great people in this community who strongly desire to make this game fun for everyone. The fears about griefing certainly aren't unfounded, but I think we can gain enough traction to start mitigating those effects - particularly if we can get a handle on it in Early Enrollment.
Note: I linked to those guilds without their permission and will take down the links/references if they request that I do so. I am not in any way attempting to associate myself with them, except as an admirer - and I'm a member of Keepers of The Circle.
I know for sure Peace Through Vigilance, The Empyrean Order, and The Keepers of the Circle (the only guild I can actually speak for :P) will be anti-griefer and active about it, and I know several members of The Seventh Veil will be active against griefers as well, and their faction does not tolerate griefers. There's a TON of great people in this community who strongly desire to make this game fun for everyone. The fears about griefing certainly aren't unfounded, but I think we can gain enough traction to start mitigating those effects - particularly if we can get a handle on it in Early Enrollment.
Note: I linked to those guilds without their permission and will take down the links/references if they request that I do so. I am not in any way attempting to associate myself with them, except as an admirer - and I'm a member of Keepers of The Circle.
Peace through vigilance don't mind you linking to us in this way one bit, its advertisement for us lol.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Peace through vigilance don't mind you linking to us in this way one bit, its advertisement for us lol.
The way I see it, recruiting good members to good guilds (even when they're not mine) is a good thing. The more anti-griefing minded players flock to these factions, the more power these factions have to shut down the bad guys, the better. =]
EDIT: Bad Players, not evil characters. <3
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the bounty system is fine as long as there is some understanding/application of jurisidiction.
In other words, there aught to be some places (presumably player controled settlements) that don't actualy care what happens outside thier own border but do care what happens within it. So one of the settings players should have in terms of setting the "laws" for their settlements would be a simple "accept outside jurrisdiction" toggle. If it's set to on, then the settlement respects lawfull bounties issued by outside entities and allows bounty hunters to operate (i.e. kill thier targets) within thier territory. If it's set to "off" then the settlement simply doesn't recognize anything that occurs outside thier own borders. If the bounty-hunter tries to kill the target within that settlement he gets tagged with a criminal tag (or at least an "attacker" flag). The bounty-hunter gets a warning about this before it happens, so he won't get nailed by it by accident. Murders that happen within that settlement probably can't trigger bounties themselves.
That's not too different from what is/was the way things work in real-life. There are/were some pretty notorious locations that simply wouldn't recognize extradition requests.
I think that kinda addresses the issue of bounties effectively. You want to be a bandit/criminal, you carry alot of risk showing up in places that recognize warrants issued by other lawfull entities but there are places that you can operate out of that "make thier own laws"...where that's neccessarly a place anyone would WANT to operate out of given a choice, is another question.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that kinda addresses the issue of bounties effectively. You want to be a bandit/criminal, you carry alot of risk showing up in places that recognize warrants issued by other lawfull entities but there are places that you can operate out of that "make thier own laws"...where that's neccessarly a place anyone would WANT to operate out of given a choice, is another question.
Seconded, +1'd.
I think the bounty system is fine as long as there is some understanding/application of jurisidiction.
In other words, there aught to be some places (presumably player controled settlements) that don't actualy care what happens outside thier own border but do care what happens within it. So one of the settings players should have in terms of setting the "laws" for their settlements would be a simple "accept outside jurrisdiction" toggle. If it's set to on, then the settlement respects lawfull bounties issued by outside entities and allows bounty hunters to operate (i.e. kill thier targets) within thier territory. If it's set to "off" then the settlement simply doesn't recognize anything that occurs outside thier own borders. If the bounty-hunter tries to kill the target within that settlement he gets tagged with a criminal tag (or at least an "attacker" flag). The bounty-hunter gets a warning about this before it happens, so he won't get nailed by it by accident. Murders that happen within that settlement probably can't trigger bounties themselves.
That's not too different from what is/was the way things work in real-life. There are/were some pretty notorious locations that simply wouldn't recognize extradition requests.
I think that kinda addresses the issue of bounties effectively. You want to be a bandit/criminal, you carry alot of risk showing up in places that recognize warrants issued by other lawfull entities but there are places that you can operate out of that "make thier own laws"...where that's neccessarly a place anyone would WANT to operate out of given a choice, is another question.
The only problem i have with that is it circumvents the bounty system being used as a deterrent to greifers, I.E. a group of jerks that just want to murder newbs set up their own settlement, set it so they ignore outside jurisdiction and can grief new players with full immunity from the bounty system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only problem i have with that is it circumvents the bounty system being used as a deterrent to greifers, I.E. a group of jerks that just want to murder newbs set up their own settlement, set it so they ignore outside jurisdiction and can grief new players with full immunity from the bounty system.I think the bounty system is fine as long as there is some understanding/application of jurisidiction.
In other words, there aught to be some places (presumably player controled settlements) that don't actualy care what happens outside thier own border but do care what happens within it. So one of the settings players should have in terms of setting the "laws" for their settlements would be a simple "accept outside jurrisdiction" toggle. If it's set to on, then the settlement respects lawfull bounties issued by outside entities and allows bounty hunters to operate (i.e. kill thier targets) within thier territory. If it's set to "off" then the settlement simply doesn't recognize anything that occurs outside thier own borders. If the bounty-hunter tries to kill the target within that settlement he gets tagged with a criminal tag (or at least an "attacker" flag). The bounty-hunter gets a warning about this before it happens, so he won't get nailed by it by accident. Murders that happen within that settlement probably can't trigger bounties themselves.
That's not too different from what is/was the way things work in real-life. There are/were some pretty notorious locations that simply wouldn't recognize extradition requests.
I think that kinda addresses the issue of bounties effectively. You want to be a bandit/criminal, you carry alot of risk showing up in places that recognize warrants issued by other lawfull entities but there are places that you can operate out of that "make thier own laws"...where that's neccessarly a place anyone would WANT to operate out of given a choice, is another question.
Not really because now they have a settlement that can be attacked directly and are accountable for thier actions in that manner. Remember that people who control settlements have (and should have) a great degree of control over what happens in thier territory and access to thier territory. People setting up a settlement could create it so they are able to Kill On Site anyone who tries to enter their territory who is not a member of the settlement. Bounty-Hunters would be SOL in that regards....and that's not a completely illogical desire in terms of the territorial conquest aspect of the game.
I don't think the bounty system will do much to deter "griefers" in the traditional aspect of that word...as griefers don't usualy care much about thier own characters and can "grief" another player in a thousand different ways that don't even involve killing but are just, as if not more annoying. I think what it does is make sure that people are accountable in some manner for their actions...and this would especialy includes RPK's or even people legitimately playing "bandits". When "bandits" are acting on thier own there is nothing that can be targeted except themselves. Once bandits have something material on the lanscape...an outpost or settlement that can actualy be targeted and deliver some economic repurcusion for thier actions, they will be... and believe me there are organizations out there which will be looking to deliver such just retribution...usualy for free.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The bounty system won't do much to deter bandits. It will deter the person that rarely or never uses violence. Among other situations, it will deter the person being non-combat griefed from putting an end to the annoyance with the threat of violence.
The first 1 or 10 bounties are a hardship; all of a sudden, some people can kill you where you used to feel safe. A person could care less about the 20th bounty on their head; it doesn't change their situation in the slightest.
This is why I have suggested that bounties be applicable only in hexes immediately adjacent to a settlement with laws against murder.
If we keep bounties relatively more rare, then they have more of an impact when they are placed. It also puts a mechanic in place that specifically discourages RPKing/banditry in hexes where relatively new players, lower power characters, and players that just want to get some quick and easy PvE in will be in large numbers.
This also sets a precedent for the bandit community to consider activities in these hexes as less-than-honorable, and to willfully restrict their own bandit activities to wilderness areas where all players will know the stakes are high (PvE as well as PvP).
The deterrent for continually killing other players is that your character will shift alignment to CE, it will lose reputation and be run out of most settlements, and it will eventually have to live in a wretched hive of scum and villiany where character advancement and material advancement is extremely difficult. They will eventually fall behind as they discover that 'crime does not pay' and playing that way becomes not fun when they start losing fights regularly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope playing a CE character remains fun - playing an evil character and being an griefer aren't the same, and I would hate to see a player punished severely for being IC. Outlaws naturally tend to group together because they're outside traditional society. That's how gangs happen, very often. Even the most ruthless bandits know they can't steal everything they need - it would behoove them to behave in at least a few settlements.
This is why I have suggested that bounties be applicable only in hexes immediately adjacent to a settlement with laws against murder.
I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, committing murder near a settlement should obviously label you a criminal and (depending on how much the settlement cares) leave you open to their law enforcement hunting you down. Bounties for crimes committed within that area are more likely to be fulfilled by those LEOs. Out in the wilderness though, I see bounties more as a "Hey guys, Bob the Murderhobo assaulted me. Here's 5K to whoever brings me his head." I think that's a good mechanic to keep (since we don't perma-die when we're killed IG), but I am slightly worried about the mechanic and it either being not-useful or abusive. But that's a worry with every game mechanic, I think.
On the other hand, I don't think you should get a criminal flag if you're in a lawless area - and I think that your actions should shift you towards Evil/Good out there more than Lawful/Chaotic. Thoughts?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's still all irrelevant. Players have found a way around it already. So let GW do what they want.
You mean by gaming the system, lieing to mods, deliberately griefing people and conspiring with other griefers to target individuals you don't like?
@ryan dancey
Why is this person and everyone supporting his "solution" not already banned from the game?
You claim you will not allow griefing.
They make it pretty clear thats exactly what they intend to do, know they are doing it, intend to lie about it to mods (isn't that a bannable offense in itself?) which pretty much makes it a deliberate, planned violation, not an opps, I didn't know that was considered griefing offense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think at this stage more risk analysis and planning is important. All risk analysis that is done now will save much effort trying to correct things farther on down the road.
Without sufficient diversity in viewpoints some problems may not be thought of, hence would not be responded to until it was too late.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's still all irrelevant. Players have found a way around it already. So let GW do what they want.You mean by gaming the system, lieing to mods, deliberately griefing people and conspiring with other griefers to target individuals you don't like?
@ryan dancey
Why is this person and everyone supporting his "solution" not already banned from the game?
You claim you will not allow griefing.
They make it pretty clear thats exactly what they intend to do, know they are doing it, intend to lie about it to mods (isn't that a bannable offense in itself?) which pretty much makes it a deliberate, planned violation, not an opps, I didn't know that was considered griefing offense.
The answer is pretty clear: if someone doesn't do it and insist on diplomacy and investigation, it will happen anyways and it will be worse.
You don't like what I'm suggesting, but you also won't face the reality that my suggestion avoids something worse, and you also won't face that it is so necessary because GW insists on using a system that treats griefers as well as playstyles they have said is not griefing as one and the same.
You don't have to like my solution, but why do you not come up with a better solution?
In any case, I don't see it as griefing. As Ryan has said, they expect players to help control the griefing, and that's what I'm doing. GW's bounty solution is a flawed system, but they are choosing it over other flawed systems. Now thanks to players helping plug those gaps, it's going to be even less flawed.
If they agreed with you, they've had plenty of opportunity to discuss it with me, and still will before the game launches. So far, they have not communicated any problem at all with my plans. They're pretty responsive to player questions though, so why don't you start a thread about it?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1/ A merchant gets killed by a bandit and 'maybe' loses some gear/resources that they collected over time. On the flpside, they get to undertake a whole bunch of roleplay activities as per my post above.
2/ A bandit gets found guilty of a crime and thrown into jail. The player gets his account locked out for a period of time.There is even less fun and zero opportunity of roleplay or character interaction with option 2, yet this is what you are advocating.
actually I'm advocating the bandid gets dragged to jail as part of the roleplay activities you mentioned earlier.
Alternatively I'd suggest that permanent structures are allowed to be build around respawning sites.
Excelent opportunity for roleplay activities:
the evil types will try to defend their limited respawning sites, while the paladin types can try and build a containment structure.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
actually I'm advocating the bandid gets dragged to jail as part of the roleplay activities you mentioned earlier.
This could work if there was a judicial process. Capture the criminal, bring them in for trial, defend themsevles and then go to jail if found guilty. It will not work if the sentense is having your account locked out.
Alternatively I'd suggest that permanent structures are allowed to be build around respawning sites.Excelent opportunity for roleplay activities:
the evil types will try to defend their limited respawning sites, while the paladin types can try and build a containment structure.
Which might become a cyclical effect. Bad guy gets killed, respawns and has to fight his way out which causes him to get the criminal flag again and be 'lawfully' killed all over again.
It would be amusing to charge the paladins with 'unlawful imprisonment and deprivation of liberty' though, cauing them to get the criminal flags and allowing other paladins to kill them :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not exactly on the current topic, but regarding bounties nonetheless.
Why not have these tied to husk loss and value of property lost (based on rarity * qty or somesuch) in place of or in addition to the actual unlawful killing of an individual. If they lost their life, well that sucks.. it's the loss of the husk that really gets you. This shifts the question of banditry away from the actual killing and towards the question of "am I going to be able to retrieve my goods?"
There's no reason the killing can't incur possible bounties, but they could be limited in duration/repetition. Killing someone and depriving them of valuable goods is far more offensive on the other hand. A bandit might ransom a husk (if they are able to keep it from being "stolen" out from under them and paying a heavy cost if they can't) thus avoiding much in the way of a bounty, but still being penalized for a time. A hardened criminal on the other hand may just get on with the killing and the looting, or ransom the husk and renege on the deal and loot the husk anyways.
It just seems like the loss of life, while inconvenient, is potentially worth far less than the loss of a husk. Instead of it being an all or nothing 'infinite bounty or not' situation, it could take steps of bounty counts or max lifetime bounty up to that infinite bounty in justifiably extreme cases. This offers much more of an eye for an eye solution to my way of thinking.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Summersnow
The game has not even started yet as you well know, so players giving their honest reaction and plans to planned mechanics is a good thing. This allows GW to see how players will react to whats planned and they can stay the course or change things. This plan with how to deal with the bounty system would be a bad thing if it was not posted here for discussion and instead only lived on a small corner away of the internet away from GW eyes.
I honestly hope that we get more and more posts from future players on how they will react and deal with/exploit planned mechanics. Its far better to see honest reactions to the game now while we are still in the early development stages than after the game goes live.
I was in the 'Beyond Protocol' beta and the first 3 months of play. In that the player group I was figured out how a spawning mechanic worked. While still in beta we privately talked to a mod about what our plans were. We didn't report it on the message board or publicly because we didnt want the other guilds to also use this trick. The mod said it was fine and we thought we were good to go. The mod didnt report this to the devs at all, and the devs never once though about people taking advantage of the system like this. So when the game launched and we did exactly what we said we were going to do, and the other guilds complained, the dev came into the game space declared that we were cheaters and proceeded to blow up some of the things we had built (even though things we had built had nothing to do with the exploit we used). Now if we had sat on this information the whole time yeah we would have been exploiters and cheaters. Looking back I can see that we didnt do a good enough job of reporting out findings because we wanted to keep our discovery out of the use of the other guilds, even if we reported it to a mod. We should have emailed the dev or even posted it on the message board.
So since we are not in game, and these honest player reactions are being posted publicly, do you still feel that people should be banned already for suggesting work arounds?
@Summersnow
The game has not even started yet as you well know, so players giving their honest reaction and plans to planned mechanics is a good thing. This allows GW to see how players will react to whats planned and they can stay the course or change things. This plan with how to deal with the bounty system would be a bad thing if it was not posted here for discussion and instead only lived on a small corner away of the internet away from GW eyes.
I honestly hope that we get more and more posts from future players on how they will react and deal with/exploit planned mechanics. Its far better to see honest reactions to the game now while we are still in the early development stages than after the game goes live.
..
+10
I've been keeping an eye on Neverwinter online. There is 0 communication between the devs and the players. The players are having all kinds of discussions on the forums, but 99% of them are moot because Cryptic isn't listening to the players at all despite some really poor design decisions on their part. That's why I'm so excited about PFO and the input the players will have on the games design. :)
So I totally agree with you Tetrix, alignment will be a part of PFO, evil aligned characters will be in the game. So discussions like this one are valuable if we want a game that provides a place for good and bad aligned characters. Plus allowing potential exploits, griefing mechanisms to be addressed before the code is laid out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This could work if there was a judicial process. Capture the criminal, bring them in for trial, defend themsevles and then go to jail if found guilty. It will not work if the sentense is having your account locked out.
actually I'm advocating the bandid gets dragged to jail as part of the roleplay activities you mentioned earlier.
I was thinking more about this last night. There is the possibility of great RP interaction here. If a 'warrant' type of system was created where characters could serve a criminal with a specific warrant and report back to some NPC judge with their success, this could simulate the 'capturing the criminal' part of a judicial process. The criminal of course could try to ensure the law abiding person that served them never makes it back to town :)
This is a possibility for more minor crimes that don't flag someone as a serious criminal (theft versus murder for example) and adds roleplay and makes the bounty hunting system more realistic in that you're chasing the 'real scum' and not just someone that stole a wheel of cheese to feed their starving sister.
Effectively, a player run legal system.
Thoughts?
This could work if there was a judicial process. Capture the criminal, bring them in for trial, defend themsevles and then go to jail if found guilty. It will not work if the sentense is having your account locked out.
actually I'm advocating the bandid gets dragged to jail as part of the roleplay activities you mentioned earlier.I was thinking more about this last night. There is the possibility of great RP interaction here. If a 'warrant' type of system was created where characters could serve a criminal with a specific warrant and report back to some NPC judge with their success, this could simulate the 'capturing the criminal' part of a judicial process. The criminal of course could try to ensure the law abiding person that served them never makes it back to town :)
This is a possibility for more minor crimes that don't flag someone as a serious criminal (theft versus murder for example) and adds roleplay and makes the bounty hunting system more realistic in that you're chasing the 'real scum' and not just someone that stole a wheel of cheese to feed their starving sister.
Effectively, a player run legal system.
Thoughts?
love the idea, so long as no one actually has to sit in jail unable to play their character. could give the non pvp crowd something to do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I generally approve of more options in a game, but this seems like busy work disguising itself as depth. I'd rather see horse breeding come to fruition. Plus, it's fairly shallow.
You'd need to add non-lethal damage, the ability to drag/transport a subdued criminal back to town, have a player run system leveraging game mechanics to charge the criminal a fine or execute them or something.. and yet all of this is a purely RP substitute for merely hunting down criminals and killing them for a bump to Lawful alignment and whatever reward there might be.
There's a story to be had from these encounters, but it's a more visceral honest story than the criminal being hauled back to be subjected to the trial process so justice can be served! Except perhaps as an alternative to pacifist Goods killing anyone while still wishing to contribute.
That's a lot of extra baggage for niche gameplay, but as things get added to the game it could become viable eventually. Regardless, the depth required to make this a meaningful experience for the pacifists or role play aficionados just became a MASSIVE time sink to the Criminal player. If it were me, knowing you guys weren't going to kill me anyhow, or that as a Criminal I'm traveling light to begin with, I'd disconnect over having my time wasted. That or reenact a scene from SWAT by offering all my criminal buddies obscene amounts of money to kill everyone, that would make things worth staying connected for. =)
Ultimately, the Criminal would have to be willing to go along with any deeper role playing you wished to partake in, at which point there's hardly any need for game mechanics in the first place.
I generally approve of more options in a game, but this seems like busy work disguising itself as depth. I'd rather see horse breeding come to fruition. Plus, it's fairly shallow.
You'd need to add non-lethal damage, the ability to drag/transport a subdued criminal back to town, have a player run system leveraging game mechanics to charge the criminal a fine or execute them or something.. and yet all of this is a purely RP substitute for merely hunting down criminals and killing them for a bump to Lawful alignment and whatever reward there might be.
There's a story to be had from these encounters, but it's a more visceral honest story than the criminal being hauled back to be subjected to the trial process so justice can be served! Except perhaps as an alternative to pacifist Goods killing anyone while still wishing to contribute.
That's a lot of extra baggage for niche gameplay, but as things get added to the game it could become viable eventually. Regardless, the depth required to make this a meaningful experience for the pacifists or role play aficionados just became a MASSIVE time sink to the Criminal player. If it were me, knowing you guys weren't going to kill me anyhow, or that as a Criminal I'm traveling light to begin with, I'd disconnect over having my time wasted. That or reenact a scene from SWAT by offering all my criminal buddies obscene amounts of money to kill everyone, that would make things worth staying connected for. =)
Ultimately, the Criminal would have to be willing to go along with any deeper role playing you wished to partake in, at which point there's hardly any need for game mechanics in the first place.
I actually envisioned a player running into said criminal, and trading a item to him that lets him go to a town and pay off a fine to get the bounty of his head , gets the non combat guy some lawful alignment bump just like the bounty hunter, and gives the criminal a chance to repent, or gain a second bounty for "killing the messenger". either way i make profit.
I actually envisioned a player running into said criminal, and trading a item to him that lets him go to a town and pay off a fine to get the bounty of his head , gets the non combat guy some lawful alignment bump just like the bounty hunter, and gives the criminal a chance to repent, or gain a second bounty for "killing the messenger". either...
How would that work if say I were a bounty hunter with an active contract to hunt that player down? Would it suspend the bounty, even cancel it if the criminal did go to the magistrate and repent his criminal act?
I like the idea of being able to have a bounty lifted without the player having to be killed. Currently in Eve there is no way to wipe a bounty except by being killed.
But we have to think in terms of game mechanics and how the game allows for all the possible conflicts that may arise.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I generally approve of more options in a game, but this seems like busy work disguising itself as depth. I'd rather see horse breeding come to fruition. Plus, it's fairly shallow.
Yes, it could be classified as 'busy work', but the point I was trying to make was that it was an alternative to PK.
Instead of outright killing someone (which means your character needs to be combat oriented), you pick up a warrant from an NPC somewhere and 'serve' the criminal. No combat, just a command or click.
There is then a race to get back to the NPC to validate the warrant. If the bounty hunter gets there first, the criminal is served and due process is followed (i.e. a fine or some debuff). If the criminal PKs the bounty hunter, no harm, no foul.
I'm not sure how you class an alternate to walking up to a ciminal and killing them, as shallow. This adds another string to a player run justice system and allows non-combat oriented characters a chance at participation. As the bounty hunting system stands, they are currently precluded. That said, this idea was just a catalyst for discussion. It's not totally fleshed out yet.
You'd need to add non-lethal damage, the ability to drag/transport a subdued criminal back to town, have a player run system leveraging game mechanics to charge the criminal a fine or execute them or something.. and yet all of this is a purely RP substitute for merely hunting down criminals and killing them for a bump to Lawful alignment and whatever reward there might be.
I didn't envision any combat or transport of prisoners. Simply a warrant serving process.
That or reenact a scene from SWAT by offering all my criminal buddies obscene amounts of money to kill everyone, that would make things worth staying connected for. =)
At which point the criminal that in my original post only stole a wheel of cheese, would become a more serious criminal and fall under the 'make him dead' bounty hunting system. They've gone from petty theft to inciting murder/ Roleplay and character progression, plus opportunities for interation under two slightly different bounty hunting systems. Content all round!