Goblin Squad Member
|
So I made a post where I proposed stripping out all the complex code bounties (that add possible exploits to the system) and recommended just significantly increasing the aggro range of the killer when the victim of a verifiably unprovoked murder flags him. The idea was that all the creatures and NPCs in an area would immediately rush in to tear the murderer limb from limb.
Ryan said 'Sweet!' but I think that reply has vanished as I haven't seen it since. I looked for it when I thought it would be much more satisfying for the victim to be able to watch, as in spirit form, as the murderer is brought down by an unnatural swarm of wild animals.
But then it occurred to me that nobody is going to want to hover around for a few minutes to see the bad guy fall to a swarm of rabid bunny rabbits anyway, and would likely rather just respawn and get on with things.
Then I was chatting with a fellow who seemed rather interested in open PvP for the Evil-aligned and together we arrived at an observation that it really is acting in character for the evil to be evil. It occurred to me that probably open PvP would be a desirable thing for an evil character, and probably all the people who absolutely will not tolerate non-consensual PvP would align good or neutral and avoid evil like the plague. Alignment hits for PvP would only bolster evil ratings anyway.
So I've come to a tentative conclusion that it would be better if, when a good or neutral aligned character is struck down in an act of unprovoked murder (not in a state of war, not duelling) that when they die they call out to their deity as part of their animation and a terrific bolt of lightning should boom from the sky and blast the killer instead. As in disintegrate. The system would have to unerringly know whether the conditions defining 'griefing' were met, and strike immediately, wasting no time.
This would remove a potentially major burden from the GMs, and there should be no appeal about unfairness, since the rules are clearly defined. The lightning bolt is an impartial judge, jury, and executioner. The victim cannot curse the murderer unless murder conditions were present. It would be pretty hard for the murderer to not know what it was for, how it happened, and there would be no appeal of a human decision. Let the gods sort them out.
The killer just gets his eggs fried and that is that. He leaves no body, maybe a singe mark or smudge, all his gear is disintegrated, and he gets to start his character all over again. No worries about banning. He does it again and it always happens without fail.
Eventually he learns.
Meanwhile the evil are whetting their skills on each other without worrying about absurd criminal flags and meaningless alignment 'hits' while no unbalancing advantages accrue to Lawful Good, better assuring us that the ranks of the lawful good are not being swollen by opportunists for the excessive power that othewise will attract them.
Plus the victim gets to see his revenge before he releases his spirit for rebirth and gains a sense of satisfaction without wasting time.
I realize this is a shocking proposition, but does anyone else think this might be better alternative to the bounty/flagging system?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The system that GW has proposed at this point seems like a pretty well balanced plan. In a sandbox you need the risk of players being bandits to create value in the economy for guards and transporters of goods. This will go very much to the core of moving goods around and creating services that players can provide for income in addition to simply going out after raw materials they can then protect the finished products or smuggle them across the map.
To counter act people being overtly grief oriented the Threading of items to protect certain pieces of your gear and the leveling of a "death curse" which can cause your griefer to have his threaded items looted is a pretty strong deterrent that creates a fun risk vs reward for those in the bandit lifestyle.
Being able to control who can get credit for the death curse kill is how this is all balanced. same with contracts. If I dont put your name in, you cant collect. I think this will be at the very least a solid starting point that can be easily tweaked as time progresses.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The problem is, as always, what constitutes griefing.
At one end of the scale there are folks like me, who would want a lightning strike whenever attacked unprovoked by another PC.
At the other end is those who enjoy the PvP dance who would complain if any act of brigandage or murder was treated in this fashion.
A compromise in the middle would satisfy neither camps.
I am willing to wait and see if the currently-proposed combination of death curses/bounties/active GM presence will curb the most egregious griefing in game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dont think your method goes far enough. I think that evil characters should get -30% penalties on all stats and damage. Also every 10 minutes they get struck by holy light and must make a reflex save at -50 and evasion and imp evasion do not apply. The damage is untyped and cannot be mitigated with any type of DR, also all spells are stripped from the character. In addition all their items immediatly get transfered to a LG settlement treasure chest for anyone to grab.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Way over the top. What would ever stop a good player from just going to a place swarming with evil players? If the consequences are that severe there is no good reason ever for an evil player to provoke a good one. If anything, it will just become a way for good aligned players to grief evil aligned ones.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People need to get over the fact that this is an open PvP game, and that's the way it will stay. Having some non-sense act of god not only would cause the game to no longer be Open PvP, it would decrease player interaction and hence destroy one of the sand box elements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This "act of god" leaves so many issues.
First GW would have to define griefing in the core programming.
Exactly so. There are measurable conditions where a good or neutral aligned character can be killed by another player. State of War is one. Duelling is another. Possibly there is an implicit state of war always between lawful good and chaotic evil, and between lawful evil and chaotic good but that estate is unclear to date.
For example an unprovoked attack to you might be someone out harvesting and a bandit that has "claimed" that a tax is owed to be on his land. (whether or not it's his through settlement, camp, etc.) The harvester says no and then bandit proceeds to attack/kill harvester for taxes the bandit is "owed". In this example the bandit acted within his role as a bandit and attacked because the harvester said no. Is it griefing? Too some yes it is, to others no it's role play. How is code going to decide?
It depends on whether your scenario falls under the definition of a sanctioned killing or unsanctioned, according to the programming. I'd say the bandit is SOL but then that is just me.
Then lets say LG Paladin sees an LE Rogue with a good reputation standing outside of town and insists that the rogue leaves the area. Rogue then says "no, i don't think i want to go anywhere." Paladin then follows his role and starts to smite evil and attacks/kill the rogue. The rogue wasn't in the act of any wrong doing, was in good reputation with the city and other players yet now lays dead cause of a Paladin following his code. Is it griefing?
Under my very limited definitions laid out above, yes it certainly would be. Now, if a perpetual natural state of war is ruled to exist between diametrically opposing alignments then no: it would be war instead and not griefing.
For another example. Let's say N merchant transporting some goods from town to town is beset upon by NE bandit. Bandit jumps out of the woods slays the merchant without mercy and then loots the corpse and wagon and runs off with the goods. According to GW the bandit was playing his role and the merchant should've known to protect them self from bandits. Is it griefing?
If GW has determined that the case is not griefing then it is not. I'd recommend a merchant conveying goods should be coded for a flag for that estate (call it a vulnerability flag) which would exempt you bandit from divine retribution.
I can go on listing many other examples of how one person playing their role in game can be considered griefing but isn't considered griefing to everyone.
Everyone is not the adjudicator: the rulemaker is.
The biggest factor in anti griefing is reputation and alignment. If a player is already at the worst possible point in alignment then his/her rep is probably in the trash as well and not even other evil players will want to trust them. As I've seen other people post there's ways to minimize the amount of open pvp you'll encounter if your careful. Anti-griefing measures shouldn't be an "act of god" because someone is crying about getting beat...
I'm not invested in what you appear to think I am worried about. What I am worried about is the anti-griefing measures bestowing too much power to the Lawfl Good, unbalencing them with advantage, and filling the Paladin Sanctuary with opportunists and social engineers in the disguise of a Paladin and weilding Paladin powers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@copasetic
Honestly my opinion is this. PvP is fine. non consentual pvp (in this type of game) can also be fine. Players who do not want to PvP need places where they can go to be safe, highsec areas. Griefing, which is different from consentual pvp (which many people will consider griefing, but i dont), needs to be severly limited.
I think that three things needs to happen to allow pvp to do well but limit griefing.
1) A mechanical system of some sort. No mechanical system can address all the possible ways to grief. However the Devs need to stay involved and tweek systems as needed. I understand people will find ways around mechanical systems, but i look at that exactly like i look at exploits.
2) Players need to police themselves. Hmm bandits in that Hex getting bad? Well then those LG settlements might want to start patrolling those areas in force.....
3) Developer involvement - I mean Ban hammer. You let the players know what is and is not appropriate. If you catch players trying to skirt the rules to grief people, lay down the ban hammer. Make it clear that while a mechanical system is not perfect, just because you use an "exploit" to get around it doesnt mean that is acceptable.
Now i do want to clearly say that ban hammer should not be used against PvP, it should ONLY ONLY be used to counter griefing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being you're trying to explain how evil will still be able to attack good, but you're still only giving examples of consensual PvP.
You can argue back and forth about where you think the line is crossed between appropriate PvP and griefing, but GW have already made it clear that they intend non-consensual PvP to be appropriate. Their line is clearly in a different place than what you are describing.
Given that you are proposing a system based on where you want that line to be, and not on where it actually is, what you are proposing doesn't seem likely to gain much traction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@leperkhaun the blogs do lay out ares where PvP will be impossible: the 3 NPC settlements.
And while possible, PvP will be very difficult in the security zones around those settlements.
And like you suggest, I also hope to see the risk in the rest of the game's geography managed/policed by players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Being you're trying to explain how evil will still be able to attack good, but you're still only giving examples of consensual PvP.
I am 75% sure the original post is intended to be satirical. IE a post saying that the anti-griefing measures are already too far, and attempting to point it out by attempting to humorously stretch it further than any rational person should want to back.
The sad state of affairs is the amount of posts that are in the extreme of ensuring that non-consentual PVP is non-viable, and the portions of the game that are sounding to me like they are indeed going to err in that direction, quite frankly I must say, accidentally believing this is legitimate is a pretty honest mistake.
The dead givaways that it isn't serious
I'm not invested in what you appear to think I am worried about. What I am worried about is the anti-griefing measures bestowing too much power to the Lawfl Good, unbalencing them with advantage, and filling the Paladin Sanctuary with opportunists and social engineers in the disguise of a Paladin and weilding Paladin powers.
The system would have to unerringly know whether the conditions defining 'griefing' were met, and strike immediately, wasting no time.
This would remove a potentially major burden from the GMs, and there should be no appeal about unfairness, since the rules are clearly defined. The lightning bolt is an impartial judge, jury, and executioner. The victim cannot curse the murderer unless murder conditions were present. It would be pretty hard for the murderer to not know what it was for, how it happened, and there would be no appeal of a human decision. Let the gods sort them out.
Now if I'm wrong... well I suppose that's the reason why I don't come around here very often anymore... The direction the community, and the general concept of the game... has drifted so far from the initial soundings, many of the things that drew me to the game initially, are seeming to be practically a parody of the initial soundings.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Way over the top. What would ever stop a good player from just going to a place swarming with evil players? If the consequences are that severe there is no good reason ever for an evil player to provoke a good one. If anything, it will just become a way for good aligned players to grief evil aligned ones.
If the area is evil controlled wouldn't the good aligned be subject to evil conditions? If evil conditions include open pvp wouldn't the good be subject thereto?
So you have a good (sorry) I mean strong argument that the good aligned in evil controlled territory should be flagged for war, as they incited and provoked that condition.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being you're trying to explain how evil will still be able to attack good, but you're still only giving examples of consensual PvP.
You can argue back and forth about where you think the line is crossed between appropriate PvP and griefing, but GW have already made it clear that they intend non-consensual PvP to be appropriate. Their line is clearly in a different place than what you are describing.
Given that you are proposing a system based on where you want that line to be, and not on where it actually is, what you are proposing doesn't seem likely to gain much traction.
I may have failed in the attempt I grant, but my objective was to simplify an overly complex system, provide assurance to those who wish to absolutely avoid non-consensual PvP by giving them the good and neutral aligned areas to enjoy relative safety, and to relieve the doom that I think is being set up for the lawful good.
If too much advantage is given to the lawful good then lawful good will be riddled with those who seek power rather than goodness.
I'm seeking balance, frankly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Geez, some of you guys seem to be in denial. From painful personal experience I can say that it is better to acknowledge the truth, accept the way things are, then make a rational decision from there.
This is a sandbox game. The lead guy worked on Eve, he has specifically mentioned Ultima Online. The Devs have said that there will be open PvP. When you guys log in to the game you won't be able to claim ignorance. Downloading, installing, launching, logging in to a PvP game is consent to PvP. It would be impossible for anybody in the game to engage in non-consensual PvP. I could log in to BF3 and get upset when I get shot, but it would be pretty silly.
Sure, there will be circumstances when PvP will be penalized, there will be plenty of mechanical systems that make some areas safer than others (depending on the system they go with probably not perfectly safe ever, but safer), but have no doubt, you will get ganked. It isn't that freakin' bad, it's annoying maybe, but you are playing a game, stuff happens.
Griefing is a separate thing, and I can't help thinking while reading this thread, "You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means."
Is avoiding PvP by sticking to safer areas and fleeing from fights a valid playstyle? Sure. Have at it. You might even enjoy it. Personally, as a person with some experience with sandbox MMOs, I find that style of play gets really boring after a while. I love theme parks. I love the pure PvE parts of theme parks. This isn't a theme park.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am 75% sure the original post is intended to be satirical.@Being you're trying to explain how evil will still be able to attack good, but you're still only giving examples of consensual PvP.
I am afraid your subtlety exceeds my intent, but thank you for the flattery.
IE a post saying that the anti-griefing measures are already too far, and attempting to point it out by attempting to humorously stretch it further than any rational person should want to back.The sad state of affairs is the amount of posts that are in the extreme of ensuring that non-consentual PVP is non-viable, and the portions of the game that are sounding to me like they are indeed going to err in that direction, quite frankly I must say, accidentally believing this is legitimate is a pretty honest mistake.
The dead givaways that it isn't serious
I'm not invested in what you appear to think I am worried about. What I am worried about is the anti-griefing measures bestowing too much power to the Lawfl Good, unbalencing them with advantage, and filling the Paladin Sanctuary with opportunists and social engineers in the disguise of a Paladin and weilding Paladin powers.The system would have to unerringly know whether the conditions defining 'griefing' were met, and strike immediately, wasting no time.
This would remove a potentially major burden from the GMs, and there should be no appeal about unfairness, since the rules are clearly defined. The lightning bolt is an impartial judge, jury, and executioner. The victim cannot curse the murderer unless murder conditions were present. It would be pretty hard for the murderer to not know what it was for, how it happened, and there would be no appeal of a human decision. Let the gods sort them out.
So basically if we can achieve clarity about the flags that neutralize the lightning strike: state of war to include good aligned characters in evil controlled territory, dueling, and similar then maybe GW can rid themselves of what must be a cumbersome system, save some development time, and still strike (sorry) a healthy balance. Evil gets to exercise their skills unrestrained in territorie they control, and the innocent can walk with a little more assurance in the lands of the good.
And it should work well for my neutrals. I think.
Um... except that if I cast lightning bolt on the wrong person by accident I'll be disintegrated and have to start over... hmmmm <looks at drawing board with growing alarm>
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Way over the top. What would ever stop a good player from just going to a place swarming with evil players? If the consequences are that severe there is no good reason ever for an evil player to provoke a good one. If anything, it will just become a way for good aligned players to grief evil aligned ones.If the area is evil controlled wouldn't the good aligned be subject to evil conditions? If evil conditions include open pvp wouldn't the good be subject thereto?
So you have a good (sorry) I mean strong argument that the good aligned in evil controlled territory should be flagged for war, as they incited and provoked that condition.
Well, lets say there is an evil character and a good one hanging out in an area. Just somewhere in the middle of the wilderness. Nobody is really under a war flag in this example. I as an evil character am just minding my own business, doing evil things. You know how it is. But then a good character shows up and decides he wants in on whatever I'm doing. Maybe he wants to take over my mob camp or my harvest node. As an evil character I only have two options:
1.)Kill the good character. The good character is inconvenienced for a second while I lose my character forever (or have some other huge penalty thrown on me for trying to protect my spot from someone who just happened to be good aligned).
2.)Let the good player have my spot. There is nothing else I can do about it.
I really don't see how evil characters can defend themselves from good characters under this set up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being
I don't mean any disrespect but have you read anything from the devs on their intent for PVP. They have a pretty detailed post on their blog that completely negate the potential for the system that you propose and quite frankly your system doesn't fit into a world that needs to be self policing for the most part. There will of course be a couple of safe areas and some "moderately" safe areas but what they propose to handle the situation is very clear and very much a step in the right direction taking what EVE already has and building in more flexibility to handle griefing.
From the dev Blog (small section please read the entirety if you have time):
What does "Threaded" mean?
Each character has a certain number of "threads of fate" they can use to tie their equipment to them, thanks to the rather unusual relationship the characters have with the goddess Pharasma—the same relationship that causes them to keep coming back from the dead. These threads cause the items to which they are tied to remain with the character when the character resurrects, meaning threaded items cannot be looted. Higher-level items consume more threads to tie them. Characters earn more threads as they advance in level, but they gain threads more slowly than they gain level-appropriate gear. This means a starting character will be able to thread all of his equipment to him, while a high-level character will probably have to pick and choose what he uses his threads on if he is using all high-end gear. If a low-level character gets his hands on a high-level weapon, he will probably have to expend most of his threads to keep it, meaning the rest of his gear will be lootable.
If a character dies and manages to make it back to his husk before it is looted, he has looting rights and can regain all his equipment. So if his allies can keep his killers away from his husk, they can make sure he gets his gear back.
In addition to the time it takes to loot a husk, each player has an encumbrance limit that determines how much gear he can carry. This starts out at a set number that can be increased by race (i.e. dwarves have a high encumbrance limit), by equipment (bags of holding, backpacks, etc), or by spells or feats. Each item in the game is rated in encumbrance, and you can only carry items that have a combined total encumbrance equal to or below your encumbrance limit. So even if someone kills you, they may not be able to make off with everything they could loot from you. This also allows certain crafting or gathering equipment loadouts, like trading cloaks for backpacks and wondrous item slots for bags of holding.
If you are killed in a non-consensual way, such as being ambushed while minding your own business, you may level a death curse on the killer by praying to Calistria. Doing so costs you reputation, but the cost is reduced if your killer has a low reputation (and if he is a gank-happy killer, he probably will have a very low reputation). Once invoked, the death curse causes your killer's threads to become weakened for a time. If your killer is in turn slain by you or one of your specified agents before the death curse ends, more of his gear may be looted. Your killer cannot have the curse removed by having an ally kill him and refuse to loot him; it only goes away if he is slain by you or someone you specify, such as a member of your group or settlement.
Dev Blod Location: https://goblinworks.com/blog/
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Way over the top. What would ever stop a good player from just going to a place swarming with evil players? If the consequences are that severe there is no good reason ever for an evil player to provoke a good one. If anything, it will just become a way for good aligned players to grief evil aligned ones.If the area is evil controlled wouldn't the good aligned be subject to evil conditions? If evil conditions include open pvp wouldn't the good be subject thereto?
So you have a good (sorry) I mean strong argument that the good aligned in evil controlled territory should be flagged for war, as they incited and provoked that condition.
Well, lets say there is an evil character and a good one hanging out in an area. Just somewhere in the middle of the wilderness. Nobody is really under a war flag in this example. I as an evil character am just minding my own business, doing evil things. You know how it is. But then a good character shows up and decides he wants in on whatever I'm doing. Maybe he wants to take over my mob camp or my harvest node. As an evil character I only have two options:
1.)Kill the good character. The good character is inconvenienced for a second while I lose my character forever (or have some other huge penalty thrown on me for trying to protect my spot from someone who just happened to be good aligned).
2.)Let the good player have my spot. There is nothing else I can do about it.I really don't see how evil characters can defend themselves from good characters under this set up.
Nice one. I don't have a good solution ready and I know that situation sure would come up.
Thinking.
I was hoping to keep it elegant but this situation would require a claiming system where what you were doing has a claim on the area. That way you could be measurably provoked.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being
I don't mean any disrespect but have you read anything from the devs on their intent for PVP.
s'okay Pharazon I probably come off like a, I don't know what, but I'm just me. No worries.
They have a pretty detailed post on their blog that completely negate the potential for the system that you propose and quite frankly your system doesn't fit into a world that needs to be self policing for the most part. There will of course be a couple of safe areas and some "moderately" safe areas but what they propose to handle the situation is very clear and very much a step in the right direction taking what EVE already has and building in more flexibility to handle griefing.From the dev Blog (small section please read the entirety if you have time):
...What does "Threaded" mean?
Each character has a certain number of "threads of fate" they can use to tie their equipment to them, thanks to the rather unusual relationship the characters have with the goddess Pharasma—the same relationship that causes them to keep coming back from the dead. These threads cause the items to which they are tied to remain with the character when the character resurrects, meaning threaded items cannot be looted. Higher-level items consume more threads to tie them. Characters earn more threads as they advance in level, but they gain threads more slowly than they gain level-appropriate gear. This means a starting character will be able to thread all of his equipment to him, while a high-level character will probably have to pick and choose what he uses his threads on if he is using all high-end gear. If a low-level character gets his hands on a high-level weapon, he will probably have to expend most of his threads to keep it, meaning the rest of his gear will be lootable.
If a character dies and manages to make it back to his husk before it is looted, he has looting rights and can regain all his equipment. So if his allies can keep his killers away from his husk, they can make sure he gets his gear back.
In addition to the time it takes to loot a husk, each player has an encumbrance limit that
Right. I have read it. Didn't even factor it. If they already have that system coded great. And it is a good mechanic.
But look at all the complications. All the hoops their coders are expected to jump through just because of this fear of griefers that behaviorally compares to really serious fears in some of these people.
I was hoping to suggest a way to simplify that whole miasma of trouble waiting to happen with what I though might be a reltively simple alternative.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Geez, some of you guys seem to be in denial. From painful personal experience I can say that it is better to acknowledge the truth, accept the way things are, then make a rational decision from there.
...
You've got me all wrong, reverend. I have no problem with PvP. I very much dislike the bad rep PvP has gotten, but no problems with PvP.
I've even faced a Mech piloted by someone calling himself leperkhan over on MWO, which is exclusively PvP, albeit the closest you can get to griefing there is a cap rush.
I was in a PUG group. They won and deserved to win.
Recommend seeing what is being said before reacting to what you expect. I'll try and do the same.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Geez, some of you guys seem to be in denial. From painful personal experience I can say that it is better to acknowledge the truth, accept the way things are, then make a rational decision from there.
...You've got me all wrong, reverend. I have no problem with PvP. I very much dislike the bad rep PvP has gotten, but no problems with PvP.
I've even faced a Mech piloted by someone calling himself leperkhan over on MWO, which is exclusively PvP, albeit the closest you can get to griefing there is a cap rush.
I was in a PUG group. They won and deserved to win.
Recommend seeing what is being said before reacting to what you expect. I'll try and do the same.
Sorry, went back and read the entire thread again, not one of my better posts. Think I was defensive from reading something elsewhere on the forum.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you are over estimating how complex the system actually is or under estimating how important the threat of pvp is for this type of game. Without the threat of unprovoked combat traders and crafters would have no fear of moving their goods from one hex to another and doing so would have a severely negative impact on the economy. In addition there would be no need for guards or smugglers which are directly created by the players who choose to try and prey on the good.
From a complexity standpoint the system itself is not that bad. The players that do not want to pvp can hire others to protect them or to move and sell their goods without leaving the safe zones themselves. If they do move their own goods maybe they take skills that will let them move their goods in secret via stealth or maybe they don't travel the roads directly instead taking a more round about path.
If they are killed by another player then they have two options that they can use to punish the player who killed them. First they can simply take out a contract in which they add the names of anyone capable of collecting the contract to it. This prevents the killers friends from collecting the bounty and gives me the opportunity to get revenge even if I'm not capable myself. Second if you really want to punish the player you can level the death curse which again acts like a contract where I can specify people that can kill my killer. And while under the curse the killer has to worry about losing gear that they have "threaded" to themselves which creates a much larger risk for them.
The only real issues I see right away with the system is that the killer needs to be forced to keep any threaded gear on that they had at the time of the kill so they cant simply equip crappy gear until the curse goes away. And the curse timer needs to only go down while they are online. Other than that the system is very simple.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think you are over estimating how complex the system actually is or under estimating how important the threat of pvp is for this type of game. Without the threat of unprovoked combat traders and crafters would have no fear of moving their goods from one hex to another and doing so would have a severely negative impact on the economy. In addition there would be no need for guards or smugglers which are directly created by the players who choose to try and prey on the good.
From a complexity standpoint the system itself is not that bad. The players that do not want to pvp can hire others to protect them or to move and sell their goods without leaving the safe zones themselves. If they do move their own goods maybe they take skills that will let them move their goods in secret via stealth or maybe they don't travel the roads directly instead taking a more round about path.
If they are killed by another player then they have two options that they can use to punish the player who killed them. First they can simply take out a contract in which they add the names of anyone capable of collecting the contract to it. This prevents the killers friends from collecting the bounty and gives me the opportunity to get revenge even if I'm not capable myself. Second if you really want to punish the player you can level the death curse which again acts like a contract where I can specify people that can kill my killer. And while under the curse the killer has to worry about losing gear that they have "threaded" to themselves which creates a much larger risk for them.
The only real issues I see right away with the system is that the killer needs to be forced to keep any threaded gear on that they had at the time of the kill so they cant simply equip crappy gear until the curse goes away. And the curse timer needs to only go down while they are online. Other than that the system is very simple.
Thank you, Pharazon. You have shed some light for me. I had not adequately considered the significance to the economy for making guards really desirable for transport. I mean, I've thought about it before but something about the way you put that brought clarity.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@being
When I originally started playing MMO's I was of a similar mindset regarding PVP and feel that most average players are as well. The difference for me came from playing EVE to be perfectly honest. Most MMO's like World of Warcraft and other themepark MMO's have a system that doesn't haven't have adequate risk to the killers and basically no incentive for the good to punish the bad. In this type of environment griefing was born and has permeated the MMO genre to the point of scaring most players away from PVP all together.
EVE has a decent system of punishment and reward but in my opinion the idea of the threads and death curse system is a good evolution of the EVE system. In addition if there are actual cases of griefing that get out of hand the devs have made clear that they will be actively banning accounts that are outside of the spirit of the system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think it's too much. You should be able to murder someone in cold blood. That's part of the game. But such behavior belongs only to madmen who will be hunted down and killed several times by the rest of the community. If someone wants to play a madman, I'm fine with that but there has to repercussions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This would remove a potentially major burden from the GMs, and there should be no appeal about unfairness, since the rules are clearly defined.
I realize this is a shocking proposition, but does anyone else think this might be better alternative to the bounty/flagging system?
The problem is that the above would only be applicable for "griefing" which is not defined. GM's will act in an arbitrary manner as necessary.
Secondly it removes gameplay from a system that is intended to increase gameplay, without adding anything to replace it - for the goal of reducing GM requests over a scenario that can't be defined, only interpreted.
Here's Ryan's post on the layered-approach
The only question I have is what do you guys consider to be griefing? So what you are saying, OP, is if some random evil aligned character comes up to me, kills me (because he is evil :P) he then gets struck by a bolt of lightning and instantly dies? Doesn't sound very plausible to me. It would be better if the game automatically keeps track of how many times one kills people without reasonable cause and keeps putting them higher up on the "ok, this guy needs to eventually stop because he is just griefing" latter. To me griefing is just sitting around, camping bodies and newbies. Now, those people should be stopped in some way. But come on, you have to admit that sometimes running around with a group of friends, spotting someone out of the opposite alignment, and taking them down is pretty fun. It just becomes a problem when you do it over and over again. And how would it work if a LG character randomly kills a CE character?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally to me there are 3-types of evil players:
Griefers: "Hey guyz its a n00b! Die n00b!!! *Gank* Lolz. I'm gonna take his copper dagger and moldy bread! Now I'm going to activate my teabag macro and send him a PM saying 'U Mad Bro?' OMG! Vets!!! Run!!! *Gets ganked* %^#& YOU!!! YOU $@&%ING CAREBEAR DO-GOODER!!!"
RPKer: "It's a lone miner! *gank* It's someone my level! *gank* Gf dude. It's a vet! *gets ganked* Gf dude. It's a newb who I have no good reason to kill! *gank* God I love Call of Duty: Golarion Warfare!
RP-Evil: Stand and deliver! Ten gold or die knave! .... Wise choice, now get out of my sight! Stand and deliver! Oh so you think you can take me?! *gank*
I'm glad admins will be dealing with griefers. There should be strong penalties for RPKing but it should be allowed. A certain amount of RP-Evil is healthy for the game and community and any mechanic that blocks it is not healthy for this game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally to me there are 3-types of evil player:
Griefers: "Hey guyz its a n00b! Die n00b!!! Lolz. I'm gonna take his copper dagger and moldy bread! Now I'm going to activate my teabag macro and send him a PM saying 'U Mad Bro?' OMG! Vets!!! Run!!!"
RPKer: "It's a lone miner! *gank* It's someone my level! *gank* Gf dude. It's a vet! *gets ganked* Gf dude. It's a newb who I have no good reason to kill! *gank* God I love Call of Duty: Golarion Warfare!
RP-Evil: Stand and deliver! Ten gold or die knave! .... Wise choice, now get out of my sight! Stand and deliver! Oh so you think you can take me?! *gank*
I don't buy those stereotypes, Andius, and I have trouble thinking you do either.
If I were to try and describe a PvP enthusiast, well, in the first place I know they are individuals and not 'types'. But the most significant differnce between most PvP enthusiasts and PvE enthusiasts in in their respective ideas of what constitutes 'play'.
This is really shaky territory because nobody is really going to fit a very broad category (because they are each unique). But I'll risk a try.
I think the most significant difference is that PvP players play to win where a PvE player plays to play. Now understand that is a spectrum I am describing with many different 'frequencies' on that spectrum. But I think that is a pretty accurate approach.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think most players don't fall on absolutes of the spectrum just like most evil players are not absolutes on the LE-NE-CE spectrum. A lot of RPKers are a bit griefer. Most RP-Evil are quite a bit RPKer. But I think those absolutes are good for establishing the different types of evil players possible.
Griefers kill for tears.
RPKers kill for fun.
RP-Evil kill to create player interaction.
