Goblin Squad Member
|
Being Wrote:
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.
What this is called is EVE Online's CONCORD. But what you are not seeming to understand is that PFO has been described as having "Open World PVP". Your idea would effectively end all PVP outside of war and dueling.
With your system idea, how could bandits or pirates function?
If we are to be instantly killed for our actions, what incentive do we have for being bandits and or pirates?
You also seem to use the terms "ganking" and "griefing" interchangeably.
Ganking is just the use of superior force or numbers against a lesser opponent in order to ensure an easy victory. The threat of being ganked is what might lead a merchant to voluntarily pay a "toll", thus avoiding being killed. Ganking is a completely legitimate act of combat. No one plans to have a fair fight in war or crime.
Griefing is the act of repeatedly interfering with another person's game play or enjoyment of the game. The key is "repeatedly". Respawn camping or repeatedly harvesting noob players in a starter zone constitutes the most common forms of griefing.
Here is my alternative....
Scenario: Road Connecting Two Towns being raided by bandits
My not so merry band of bandits begin attacking NPC caravans on the road connecting these two towns. As we attack and plunder more and more, the hexes in that area move from consensual PVP to open PVP.
* A warning is issued in the local area that the status has changed in the local chat window.
[This may sound familiar for those that play or have played Pirates of the Burning Sea]
* The alert would allow those in the local area to respond, if they choose to.
If there is no PC response after a few minutes, an NPC Patrol will be issued from the closest town. This will not be the invincible Lightning Bolts of God or the invincible fleet of CONCORD. It would start as a small patrol, low level.
* Undeterred by the pitiful response, my band attacks another caravan and perhaps even a PC owned or occupied caravan. It is captured / defeated, further adding to the danger status of the hex.
* A stronger response is sent from both connected towns.
Again, my bandit company puts these pesky patrols to the sword.
* A Regional alert is issued, calling on all good aligned persons to lend assistance.
At that point my bandit company and I will have to begin to weigh, risk vs. reward.
If we continue to attack caravans, and there is no significant response from regional PCs... Two Options....
1. Players stay the hell away from that road for a while!
2. A large NPC force is issued forth by both towns and my company will likely be driven off or killed.
If by some stroke of luck, skill or brilliance my company defeats these large forces, we receive some type of an accolade / reward and the hex reverts back to Consensual PVP status.
If players of good end the caravan raiding, and restore the status, they too will be granted an accolade / reward for their protecting the peace.
This is in my opinion is the best alternative because all have the opportunity to play their way, all have the opportunity to be rewarded, and it will be damned fun either way it goes!!!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First, let me state I dislike PvP personally. I find it a bit too much like a 5 year old playing king of the mountain in most MMO's. However, saying that, I can see why GW has it, and the system described neuters PvP. Since, unlike DDO as an example, players can end up any alignment based on their deeds, PO needs to have its share of murderers and thugs and bandits. There will be a bounty system in place, and eventually the player will be caught and punished (I am eager to see how GW implements such things as a LG system in which there is a trial).
I also should note I am also not in favor of "flagging" a PC. I would prefer that GW implement a system whereby NPC's begin to whisper about player X as his/her infamy builds, letting players learn just as they would in a quasi-medieval setting without mass media. Flagging a PC with a different colored name or some icon simply reduces the immersion factor as it introduces meta-gaming. Someone who wants to play a con-artist who takes in other players buy getting them to buy shares in that "new mithril mine" should be able to ply his/her trade, at least until players and NPC's start to catch on that there is no new mine. Same for someone wanting to play a bandit. He/she should be able to have a chance to fool a PC into thinking he/she is a harmless person until the trap is sprung. This is called role-playing, and most MMO's are very bad at it. PO has a chance to do it right, and from the start. If some jerk wants to grief, then the GM's can step in, as GW has said they will, but a murderer should have a chance at being that CN psychopath if that is what the player wants. Eventually players and/or NPC militias/guards will catch them and depending upon the alignment of the nearest settlement, dealt with appropriately for that area.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Its always struck me as interesting that the extensive mechanics in P&P (koshes, merciful weapons, the ability to deal nonlethal damage etc) that allow NPCs and players to "beat unconscious" without killing tend to be missing or ignored in online MMOs.
On another note, the curious kickstart addon that implies it does something funky when you die and come back might even make dieing worthwhile, though one assumes whatever its effects are they would not stack.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Kusuriurite
better start looking forward to having evil folks getting smoted. My paladin is going to be all about laying down the Fist of God upon the bodies of the unfaithful!
@lee
I agree. Any anti griefing system needs to be tweeked. There is a fine balance between ensuring that griefers dont get their own wonderland and allowing pvp.
I do think that at the end of the day, the most important aspect will be the Devs letting people know what type of behavior is and is not acceptable and dealing with anyone using exploits (blue blocking..etc) to get around it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do like the idea and example that Bluddwolf has stated here, though I am also really likeing the idea that Glorindl has said concerning con artists fooling people. I agree that there should NOT be some form of name change or icon or whatever, atleast untill you have heard of their deeds. Something along those lines would be fine, but just walking up to random person and seeing their alignment (Without some sort of detection spell or item) and weather or not they are criminals is wrong. Coming from 20+ years of table top D&D, I have had some very interesting times with NPCs joining the party only to find out later they were playing us. Being betrayed at a crucial moment has a way of sticking with you and making it fun. I personally want to make sure that griefing and ganking get addressed in this game because I have seen it destroy other decent games. I am not sure if it is possible to completely remove it as some people are just dead set on doing, but if it can be minimized then that is better than not dealing with it at all.
I want PVP in the game because in a persistant world, there needs to be threats and danger. To completely remove ganking and griefing would destroy the PVP and the game would quickly become boring. I really like the idea that Bluddwolf put up and I think something like that could be a good method to use that would limit ganking and griefing. At the same time, I think we use Gloreindl's Idea about NOT lableing these characters who are doing these things so that they can do these things. Wanted posters, and whisperings in the nearby taverns is a great idea. After you see/hear about these people, then you can have some sort of note or reminder when you encounter them, but not before. And maybe have some sort of time frame for these things so that you can have bandits change their ways and become good and give up the life of crime. After all, if I heard this guy is a murderer on day 1 and 2 years later he is trying to change his ways, why not let him try. Not saying it would be easy but it can still happen.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree with Bluddwolf on the NPC system he proposed. And then there would be some degree of warning and NPC protection for PvE players. And this protection would lesson as you transfer from Secure to unsecure hexes. So you goo to a primarily evil or even just a wilderness hex then its essentially "Enter at your own risk". Even if there were no PvP, in a wilderness section a frickin dragon could come up and eat you.
What I do think is over board is the death curse and overcomplication of anti-griefing programs. Its really very simple. Unless its an official war or duel, You can only kill a specific person once a 24 hour day. And if the victim wants they can do 1 bounty on that person, not repeatedly (thats just dumb).
Now there are exceptions like, if the person directly retaliates against the murderer, the murderer can defend themselves and thereby kill the original victim again. Same goes for Bounty Hunters. Lets say a certain Bounty Hunter kills you for one Bounty earlier in the day, and comes after you for a different one later, then even if you killed them earlier you can still kill them again. This would require some kind of flagging or system indicator to make sure you didnt make a mistake, but its definately doable.
Detailed:
War and Duel are FULLY sanctioned PvP, and not subject to the description below.
If I kill Bob unprovoked, I cant kill him (or any group hes directly partied with at the time) for 24 real hours (otherwise its greifing, so Bob wont feel persecuted and I will be strongly encouraged to move on)
Bob can post a Bounty on me 1 time for that 1 act, which stays in effect til the deed is done. However Bob can do assassination contract on me with all the penalties that entails, but thats Bobs decision.
I will be permitted to kill him or Bounty hunters or random do-gooders that come to his aid as much as I need too in defense only, despite the 24 hour period. But they wont get a murder status, so I cant set up a bounty.
Even if the Bounty is claimed, I still cant kill Bob and consequently and one he happens to be (Partied) with at the time unprovoked until the 24 hour period is up.
If no bounty is posted within 24 hours then there will be no legal retaliation, and any agressive response will be flag the original victim for a Bounty or unpunishable killing.
Other exceptions would be contract killings (Bounty or assassination). So if I randomly killed Bob earlier in the day, but got a contract to kill him later, then that would be ok. However, again the system would not let me or one of my guildmates/friends set up a contract to skirt the system.
Additionally maybe something else could be set up so that I wasnt repeatedly killing Bob at the end of every 24 hour period. Like no more than 5 times within a month? IDK, whatever sounds reasonable...
Also i think a 10 day noob grace period would be good, so they can introduce themselves to the game and get familiar with controls, or meet up with friends in a faraway settlment without the risk of PvP. Of course they would also have the option to disable the grace period if the so desired by attacking another player.
I think a good NPC response system, and with bounty systems, and PCs aiding eachother would be perfectly fine and fair. It greatly reduces griefing, and doesnt give Good or Evil any unballanced power over eachother. Both are equally protected and both can seek retribution if they so choose. PvE players wont feel persecuted, and PvPers can still do their thing (just not repeatedly to the same person). There is no reason to overly persecute PvPers, or they might as well make this game PvE. And unless the devs decide to make this game PvE only, I will continue to be against things like death curses, reduced threads of fate, and infinity bounty systems.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My thoughts on this is that the devs are trying develop a fantasy sandbox MMORPG that maximizes meaningful human interaction. So giving NPCs too much power neglects that. I understand the need for NPCs but I wanna see towns where only PCs reside and handle everything. I feel NPCs should be the base from where players start building their own nations that in time became independent and have no need for NPCs, but the NPCs are there when all that's been build by some players is destroyed by others. I wouldn't give NPCs other role than that. This is why I'd like to see all kinds of game mechanics that allow players themselves to solve problems amongst themselves and deal with hazards that threat them. And I'm exited what I'm seeing and hearing thus far.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...One thing; if I kill someone and then go offline for 24 hour, does that time count in my favor if I log back on and want to kill Bob again?
And another; I assume there will be certain settlements that will be evil places. Will these places be a shelter for me against the bounty hunters? Will I be able to use places where sentient creatures fear to tread as personal defense? will people eventually have to give up looking for me?
The point I'm tring to make is that the world is not just. I kind of find it unrealistic to make the PFO world just, since on the whole it would not benifit anyone if every killer was reprimanded. It takes all the fun out of being evil. It makes it seem like I have no real choice in the matter. So it's okay for them to be able to put a bounty on my head, but I want some kind of protection, as well as some kind of time limit so they eventually give up actively searching for me.
I'm not advocating griefing, just the right to senselessly kill people for the puposes of alignment and free will.
Just the evil guy's standpoint. (reply to Greedalox's previous comment.)
I actually addressed what you asked I beleive? From my post.
The 24 hours is in real time, but "Additionally maybe something else could be set up so that I wasnt repeatedly killing Bob at the end of every 24 hour period. Like no more than 5 times within a month? IDK, whatever sounds reasonable..." But remember you can still defend yourself, and take kill contracts against them as long as you/friends/guildmates dont post it.
"And this protection would lesson as you transfer from Secure to unsecure hexes." I used Good as an example but it could apply to evil settlements too.
"Bob can post a Bounty on me 1 time for that 1 act, which stays in effect til the deed is done."
"If no bounty is posted within 24 hours then there will be no legal retaliation, and any agressive response will flag the original victim for a Bounty or unpunishable killing."
Does this answer your questions? Im also in favor of the "bad guys" btw. I thought it was fairly obvious with my last paragraph. I do think there are some people though that are strictly against it in this thread and thus they are in favor of extremely punishing PvPers. Taking in account that PvEers want some protection and that the devs are apparently taking a strong stance on griefing, I posted what I thought to be reasonable safegaurds.
The purpose is to keep griefing to a minimum, but still allow people to PvP. And to not give too much power to good/bad/PvE/PvP in regards to retaliation and punishment.
And yes the Bounty stays in effect til you are killed, but Im not in favor of an infinity bounty or a death curse like the devs have posted , thats just too much adavantage to the victim. On the other hand, if someone kills you unprovoked you could set a bounty on them and it would be the same deal (no matter if they are good). Although youd probably have to post the bounty within the evil community.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You may be right, but I'm not sure there is much better to be done. But as I said, its a lot fairer than victims being able to put a death curse on PvPers, weaken their threads of fate (more item loss at death from being looted), and the ability to hand out infintity bounties for 1 single act of murder.
I guess I just fail to see a good alternative, because the stuff in the developer blog could work but is way over the top.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is an interesting subject.
There's going to be a lot of ganging and griefing in this game. But to accept that as a normal human behavior is what the devs are trying to do in my opinion.
And to use ganking and griefing to build content into the game is their idea, i think. And I feel it's very constructive.
So using game play styles, that are "forbidden" in almost all MMOs but not thoroughly controlled in any, to create content for the gankers and griefers themselves but to other players as well is a definitive. But to say that for the gankers that content is that they are being hunted is not downgrading them.
And before all and foremost of all ganking and griefing should create content for those players that don't gank and grief. This is also a definitive.
So not forbidding ganking and griefing, because it's impossible, but to have severe consequences and handicaps to characters that use those play styles is the way to go I think.
To those people who think they want to play an evil character and think they are too severely punished by doing so I have to say that whether you think you're evil or not or whether the game thinks you're evil or not will not probably change the way you play the game, but should it?
I would like people to be able to gank and grief as much as they want and then if we have a game that works this ganking and griefing is 100% approved by all players. Of course it is a source of grief always if another character is better than you in a sword fight...
TL;DR Using ganking and griefing to build content into the game is ingenious.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Your half right. They are using PvP to help build content, but the devs have said specifically that they are against and will agressively deal with griefers. Now that could just be maybe steal killing or physical blocking. But it also includes PvPing noobies, repeatedly killing someone thats just gathering silver over and over again.
I strongly encourage anyone whos hasnt read the blog posts to do so, they have some really interesting ideas on many subjects.
However, there is a difference between stoping griefing and crushing punishment for PvPing unprovoked enemies. If the punishment is too severe then no one will want to PvP, and no content will be created for bodygaurds, security details, bounty hunters, and caravan escorters.
Also what counts as murder? I think if I kill someone in a zero security area where there are no laws, then maybe its just bad luck for the victim and not murder. Also I dont think Good or Evil should matter, if you kill someone in a civilized area its Murder. So just as a evil player could get flagged for murdering a good player in a good settlement. A good player should be flagged for murdering a evil player in an evil settlement. Of course that wouldnt apply to a duel or war.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For those of you interested in a player based solution to griefing check out "The Treaty of Rovagug"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As a future RP-Evil I hope the devs do not make it impossible for me and my guild to play the way we want to. On the other hand I will be right there with the Good players in killing anyone who is griefing noobs.
Agreed, and based on the newest information, I still have quite a bit of fear in regards to that with existing systems. I haven't seen a clarification and would like to see one if it was made as to whether it was chaos or evil that would cut access to possible training, but in the event that it is evil, or even just anyone who goes for PVP.
Lets throw a hypothetical scale of power going from 1-100, and say evil is capped at 60.
The 100's IMO are the ones that the game benefits from being knocked down a peg, IE they don't have much more up they can go, so fighting to keep what they have, is what keeps them engaged.
The 10's are the newbies. Those are the people that pretty much universally agreed it is unfair to them to target them, and if they find themselves the main targets, expect them to ragequit.
Then of course a large amount of inbetween. Now the evil's themselves can't focus on the 100's, after all, they will never be in the same camp of stregnth as they are... They might find 40-70's to target, but they will have to keep looking as those will continuously be moving up, and are most likely under the protection of an organization consisting of 100's, because they've been around long enough to work their way into a good organization.
Well... so where do the bandits pretty much have to go under this mentality? The exact spot we don't want them.