Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well written Blog, and I agree with your assessments for the most part.
I think you provide one solution to one of the major issues you have.... Cooperation.
In an Open World PVP MMO, cooperation is a major component that has no substitute.
I do somewhat disagree that PFO will be short on "safe zones". I seriously doubt many PC settlements will allow for open PVP to take place within their own walls. This will solve part of the problem for crafters, because they will be nearly as safe from PVP as they would in an NPC starter settlement.
However, have relatively safe PC settlements will also generate part of the problem you believe exists. If PVP is practically non existent in the NPC settlements, and severally limited in the PC settlement, you virtually guarantee that PVPers will attack targets of opportunity in the wilderness areas.
Contrary to popular belief, PVP focused players do not want to PVP 24-7. They won't PVP "just because they can", every time they have the chance to. I have witnessed this numerous times in MMOs and it was essentially the cultural norm in one.
In Fallen Earth, you could flag for PVP at anytime and anywhere. The server was populated by many Motorcycle Gangs, as well as other PVP centric organizations. The MCs had a culture that, when you are grouped (2+) you ride flagged for PVP. You would actually be kicked out of many of the MCs if you did not.
Often times we would roll into a town, and there could be 50 or more flagged members of numerous gangs + the flagged PC town guards. We could spend from minutes to hours in the tavern or out in the street and no fights would break out. On other occasions, the whole town would fall into chaos.
The point is, even though all of the MCs were flagged to PVP, they did not always fight "just because they could".
The only way to fix it so that everyone is happy is to put PvP flags back into the game, and make it so the PvP'ers are more powerful, because they're playing a riskier game. Risk vs. Reward.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The only way to fix it so that everyone is happy is to put PvP flags back into the game, and make it so the PvP'ers are more powerful, because they're playing a riskier game. Risk vs. Reward.
That is just silly talk, and you know it. If you are being serious, you are asking for a game mechanic to do your work for you. It is no different than those that want PvP deterred through the use of consequences for winning PvP.
The only way to fix it so that everyone is happy is to put PvP flags back into the game, and make it so the PvP'ers are more powerful, because they're playing a riskier game. Risk vs. Reward.That is just silly talk, and you know it. If you are being serious, you are asking for a game mechanic to do your work for you. It is no different than those that want PvP deterred through the use of consequences for winning PvP.
That is just silly talk, and you know it. Why not reward players for opening themselves up to PvP?
In fact, that's how it worked before with the previous flagging system, and you know it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is absolutely different to those that want PVP deterred through the use of consequences.Fixed that for you, Bludd.
No, I wrote what I meant. If you disagree with it, then post your disagreement. Changing my words is beneath you, or at least I hope it is in the future.
The whole premise of "Sanctioned" PVP is a limitation. By splitting that hair, GW is trying to create a deterrent, albeit a fairly minor one.
To GW's credit, they have not explicitly declared "Unsanctioned" PVP as breaking any rules or griefing, but they have kept the old Reputation hits and Alignment shifts that the old system had attached to the Attacker Flag.
This is where the semantics plays a trick on some. When there was the consequences for the Attacker Flag, no one equated gaining the Attacker Flag with committing an act that was detrimental to the game. There were consequences attached to the flag, and all accepted it has part of the decision to initiate combat without provocation.
Once the term "Unsanctioned" is used, that gives it a negative connotation and makes it seem different then the old system.
Eventually I'm hoping that the term "Unsanctioned" represents very limitedly defined activities, and when the perpetrator hits -7500 he or she is subject to GW's punishment for griefing. I'm not sure at what ratio this should be, but I'd hope that at least 90% of all possible PVP situations are considered "Sanctioned".
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
The only way to fix it so that everyone is happy is to put PvP flags back into the game, and make it so the PvP'ers are more powerful, because they're playing a riskier game. Risk vs. Reward.
I see no risk in being an agressor, the risk is for the victim. IRL, an outlaw is limited by the threat of death & prison. IG, what are you risking ? Losing a bow ? While the victims may lose houres, days of works.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The only way to fix it so that everyone is happy is to put PvP flags back into the game, and make it so the PvP'ers are more powerful, because they're playing a riskier game. Risk vs. Reward.I see no risk in being an agressor, the risk is for the victim. IRL, an outlaw is limited by the threat of death & prison. IG, what are you risking ? Losing a bow ? While the victims may lose houres, days of works.
No risk for the aggressor? That is plain wrong.
The aggressor can lose just as much... Not just a bow, but everything else he has not threaded... Which is just as much as the victim has to lose.
In fact the aggressor has a large chance of losing, and must weigh his options heavily before aggressing. The victim could be a trap, the victim could be a good PVPer too, or the area you are in could be heavily patrolled.
Also, PVP flags are a joke... There is no reason for flags at all. Which im pretty sure GW figured out and removed the concept.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The only way to fix it so that everyone is happy is to put PvP flags back into the game, and make it so the PvP'ers are more powerful, because they're playing a riskier game. Risk vs. Reward.I see no risk in being an aggressor, the risk is for the victim. IRL, an outlaw is limited by the threat of death & prison. IG, what are you risking ? Losing a bow ? While the victims may lose hours, days of works.
Outlaws, particularly bandits risk being hunted down. We risk having our hideouts discovered, looted and destroyed. We risk social acceptability amongst the majority of the population.
Our risks might be less so in the attack, but they are as much or more in the after effects (response). But, these are risks we willfully accept in exchange for the thrill of playing the "bad guys" and the lure of the "Big Score".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The whole premise of "Sanctioned" PVP is a limitation. By splitting that hair, GW is trying to create a deterrent, albeit a fairly minor one.
To GW's credit, they have not explicitly declared "Unsanctioned" PVP as breaking any rules or griefing, but they have kept the old Reputation hits and Alignment shifts that the old system had attached to the Attacker Flag.
This is where the semantics plays a trick on some. When there was the consequences for the Attacker Flag, no one equated gaining the Attacker Flag with committing an act that was detrimental to the game. There were consequences attached to the flag, and all accepted it has part of the decision to initiate combat without provocation.
Once the term "Unsanctioned" is used, that gives it a negative connotation and makes it seem different then the old system.
I went back and looked at The Man in Back blog entry. Tork was still using flags as the concept in that post.
I think sanctioned/unsanctioned crept into the player vocubulary to explain alignment/rep hits on some targets and not others. It also explains in one word how GW in the past has spoken of encouraging some forms of PvP and discouraging but not forbidding other types of PvP. I'm not positive, but I don't think GW has used those terms yet. I think it's just a player shorthand.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Outlaws, particularly bandits risk being hunted down. We risk having our hideouts discovered, looted and destroyed. We risk social acceptability amongst the majority of the population.
Our risks might be less so in the attack, but they are as much or more in the after effects (response). But, these are risks we willfully accept in exchange for the thrill of playing the "bad guys" and the lure of the "Big Score".
I can't judge for PFO, since well, it doesn't exist yet. So, I'll take your word.
But on EvE, it was absolutely not my perception of things.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the fact that people can play just sanctioned pvp if they want. Lawful good alignment and high reputation at least to me mean a lot of things. Mostly I want to be in a good settlement where there is no mindless slaughter. The fact that settlements can ban individual characters and characters based on their reputation/alignment(play style) are things that make PFO a better game in my opinion. And I really hope the system works so that people who want to live in a settlement where it's mostly peaceful outside "sanctioned" pvp can do so.
I don't understand why some people try to drive that aspect out of the game. The people who want unrestricted pvp should see that it exists in PFO with the mechanics we have now. So why should those people try to take the aspect I just described out of PFO? Doesn't make sense to me...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bludd
No, I wrote what I meant. If you disagree with it, then post your disagreement. Changing my words is beneath you, or at least I hope it is in the future.
So it's all right for you to put words into other people's mouths, but not the other way round? I know you wrote what you meant; unfortunately what you meant bears little resemblance to what anybody on this board has actually said, and you are yet again wilfully misrepresenting the position that many, including me, have taken. Changing our words is beneath you, or at least I hope it is in the future. Every time you do so in order to construct this particular straw man, I will call you on it. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Having said that, it appears I did forget to put a smiley on the end and I can see how my post may have come across as overly aggressive, for which I do apologise. And I will issue a complete and unrestrained apology if you can find just one post on this forum where someone calls for PvP to be " deterred through the use of consequences for winning PvP." Good luck with that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In Darkfall players attack and gank anyone they can at almost every opportunity. They are supposedly "starved for chances to PVP", although if they actively sought out PvP they could find it easily through sieges, organized events, personal challenges.... But most of the PVPers in Darkfall do not want a fair fight. They want to attack players out of the training area, they want to kill and gank gatherers, they ride in groups to find any opportunity to attack single players in the wilderness. What allows then to do this is the lack of consequences. Only two players have shown any class whatsoever when met in the wilds. One said "There is no honor in attacking the new." (You can see how much prowess a character has if you get close enough.) The other thought he was being attacked, killed the Goblin Squad member, then revived him and rode away.
Changing my words is beneath you, or at least I hope it is in the future.
Calm down Bluddy. That was a silly reaction.
The dregs of PvPers are the ones I mention in the above statement. They are the ones that destroy games with "open PvP". They DO wait around for any opportunity to sack an unsuspecting player. That's why negative consequences to unsanctioned PvP should be severe. These chowderheads are the plague of every PvP game and take away from the game much more than they could ever bring to the table.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Hardin,
I agree with you about the negative aspects that go along with Open World PvP. I also gave an example of where desegregating PvE and PvP focused characters had worked.
In Fallen Earth, there was no reputation system or alignment system in place to control players through the mechanics of consequences. There were community driven and enforced rules. However to be fair, their system of PvP flagging was a bit different.
1. Voluntary Flagging
2. Zone Flagging
You could voluntarily flag for PvP anywhere in the game. If you traveled into certain zones, you were also flagged automatically.
Mobs were really quite dangerous, especially the unexpected elites that you occasionally ran into. The result, few people travelled along or far into the wilderness alone.
You could not attack someone unless they were PvP flagged. However the culture that developed was that you were expected to flag up, even if you were strictly a crafter, if you were grouped up (even a pair). Those that were reluctant soon learned that flagging up for PvP was not a guarantee that they would have to participate in PvP.
Since the culture dictated that "when grouped you flag", seeing a character flagged for PvP usually implied that they were grouped. Not knowing for sure what their support was, was at times enough to prevent an unprovoked attack.
Almost all of the spontaneous fights I had been a part of were caused by something said in the local chat channel.
This us partly the type of culture I hope that PFO can achieve. There is something to be said for a simple opt in PvP flagging system. I always had more respect for those that flagged up when they didn't have to, rather than those who chose not to when they could have or worse, when they should have.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I remember a voluntary flagging system in UO (I think) but it's been years. There is also a self-flagging system in most current MMO's like Rift and WoW, but the theme park nature of the content there renders "world PvP" useless.
I agree PvP is a helpful element when "used in ways the designers intend" such as !sanctioned! banditry, sieges, wars, feuds, raids....those are part of a healthy good/evil alignment system where actions may be taken with known consequences accepted at the time of the deed. That is a good thing.
My issue comes from two areas: 1-Weak systems and poor enforcement of the "unsanctioned PvP" as mentioned many times in this and other threads, and 2-Griefers, Exploiters, Noobkillers, Hackers, Aimbotters, and other cheaters that wish to do whatever they like in violation on the Terms of Service and intent of the game designers. For these players, I love Darkfall's Banhammer. It gets updated at least once a week and shows who was banned, what clan they were in and why the banhammed came down. Sure, they might be a paying customer, but shoplifters and bank robbers usually start off as paying customers too while they're casing a target.
I see no problem with players being able to self flag for PVP in PFO if they are willing to suffer the consequences, as their flag removes most negative consequences of the attackers they lure in (and it provides a mechanic for dueling in unclaimed territory...can't think of too many negatives for a player run competitions if all the participants were willing to self flag, and they could be prize money!).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For these players, I love Darkfall's Banhammer. It gets updated at least once a week and shows who was banned, what clan they were in and why the banhammed came down.
Just a side question - when a character is banned, does his clan lose the dominion they had gained from that character?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For these players, I love Darkfall's Banhammer. It gets updated at least once a week and shows who was banned, what clan they were in and why the banhammed came down.Just a side question - when a character is banned, does his clan lose the dominion they had gained from that character?
Hard to tell. Our clan still shows 28 members, but most have dropped, although all the high prowess members are still active. There are fewer than we would like, but the dominion of every member, active or not, is still showing in our total.
(Side note: I was really proud of everyone in our group whether they stayed or not that to a member our names were solid RP names. Not a single member of the Goblin Squad had a suck name. Very cool, and that bodes well for the future of PFO..at least as far as Paizo forum posters go. Thank you to everyone for non-sucky names. Looks great on our member roster!)
FFA PvP in Wilderness and Monster hexes. PvP safety in NPC hexes. At the discretion of each settlement in settlement hexes. Problem solved.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would not agree to Monster Hexes. The Escalations are purely PvE content and an integral aspect of the Settlement mechanics. These hexes should only support pop that are the result of feuds, wars, bounties, assassination or Death Curses.
Caravans should not be able to fast travel through a monster hex, and should have no reason to pass through one.
As to the point of FFA zones, unnecessary. If almost all PVP situations are sanctioned then there is no need for zones for PVP.
Once again, back to Andius's point of desegregation of PVP and PvE. I can think of two forms of griefing that can be completely eliminated:
Corpse and Respawn Camping can easily be eliminated from the game. Remove the need to return to your corpse, and have an invulnerability aura when respawning for long enough duration to get to safety.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FFA PvP in Wilderness and Monster hexes.Still need consequences here though. Wanton murder should always have some sort of consequence.
I think this gets right back to Andius' statement: The PvP crowd crowd needs to accept that they are not free to abuse everyone without limitations, and that an environment where people are constantly dying just because they exist is in-fact abusive. The history of MMO's shows PvPers cannot exercise enough self restraint to not run off the greater majority of the game's potential players, so heavier restrictions than most titles with open world / non-factional PvP have had in the past is a requirement.
To rephrase, the PvP crowd needs to understand that in general, sandbox MMOs with unrestrained PvP have not done well because many potential players will go elsewhere. Restraints and consequences in PFO's design are there to encourage potential players to stay in the game. Limits on PvP are in the design so you have more targets!
To rephrase the other part of Andius' statement, the non-PvP crowd must understand that in general, sandbox MMOs with no PvP have not done well because without danger and uncertainty such games often become dull, listless grinds. Restraints and consequences in PFO's design are there to moderate PvP, while never banishing the risk of PvP completely. I think all of the lean-less PvP crowd on these boards have accepted that. (Others have left, I'm sure).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To rephrase the other part of Andius' statement, the non-PvP crowd must understand that in general, sandbox MMOs with no PvP have not done well because without danger and uncertainty such games often become dull, listless grinds. Restraints and consequences in PFO's design are there to moderate PvP, while never banishing the risk of PvP completely. I think all of the lean-less PvP crowd on these boards have accepted that. (Others have left, I'm sure).
The split of the shard (server) in Ultima Online when Trammel (non-PvP) and Felucca (open PvP) occurred is pretty much accepted as the beginning of the end for UO. Sure it is still around in a form, but that one event ended UO as king of MMOs (at the time, early 2000's). There needs to be a reason even for the non-PvPers to work together as a cohesive unit, and survival is a pretty motivating reason to have friends you can trust.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...That is just silly talk, and you know it. Why not reward players for opening themselves up to PvP?
In fact, that's how it worked before with the previous flagging system, and you know it.
A flagging system gimps a game. It is like a hybrid: never as good, probably a cripple.
Flagging has arguably never really worked well. Half measures do not go the distance. The center will not hold.
There are moral questions as well involved in asserting more power to one faction because they think they are special, such as 'taking more risks'. It fragments the community and divides the house against itself. Segregation is a bad idea that only seems good if the current situation is worse, and it isn't worse.
Instead we have what looks to me like the first pragmatic approach to PvP I have seen in a world where PvE enjoys primacy simply because PvP has never worked using baby steps. It doesn't work in chains. PvP needs her wings to soar, to convert the players from their PvE prejudices.
We can do that. Don't sell us short.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FFA PvP in Wilderness and Monster hexes. PvP safety in NPC hexes. At the discretion of each settlement in settlement hexes. Problem solved.
I would prefer PvP allowed anywhere...consequences for unsanctioned forms of PvP uniformly administered. In some areas, such as NPC areas, guarded by NPCs...others PC controlled, controlled by the PCs. This is my opinion solves the problem.
FFA PvP in Wilderness and Monster hexes.Still need consequences here though. Wanton murder should always have some sort of consequence.
This seems to be a very common idea here... as if when people want to PvP simply for the sake of PvP they're "bad griefers who just want to ruin everyone's experience". No...
If you see someone in a wilderness or monster hex, you don't know what they're carrying, but, you can die as well, so, you have to measure risk and reward.
@Bludd: Monster hexes should be open to PvP because they're the OPPOSITE of NPC zones. They're not just "PvE" zones, but the zones that have the most valuable resources too, so that's a big reason why people will go there...
Also, the vast majority of the hexes are "wilderness" hexes, so add that to monster hexes, and optional PvP in settlement hexes, making NPC hexes relatively "safe zones", and I think you've got yourself a fair compromise.
You could still have unsanctioned PvP in Settlement and NPC hexes, but with the usual reputation loss.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FFA PvP in Wilderness and Monster hexes. PvP safety in NPC hexes. At the discretion of each settlement in settlement hexes. Problem solved.I would prefer PvP allowed anywhere...consequences for unsanctioned forms of PvP uniformly administered
Yes, I agree, but the current rules against PvP are very "Nazi-esque". So that's why I'm trying to solve the problem... either with flags, or a large amount of FFA PvP zones, something like that...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
FFA PvP in Wilderness and Monster hexes. PvP safety in NPC hexes. At the discretion of each settlement in settlement hexes. Problem solved.I would prefer PvP allowed anywhere...consequences for unsanctioned forms of PvP uniformly administered. In some areas, such as NPC areas, guarded by NPCs...others PC controlled, controlled by the PCs. This is my opinion solves the problem.
This is more or less my view as well. Kinda like RL in a way. I could buy a gun and go shoot people anywhere I want. But if I do it in a city, I am more likely to get caught as there are more cops and (in general) people around. in PFO, I would think that settlements and NPC towns will have NPC guards as well as PCs that are out and about and if I kill someone inside I run a greater risk of being caught. Especially if it is against the law in those settlement.
However, weather I am in a settlement or a wilderness hex, PVP should follow the same rules and punishments regardless of location. Maybe additional penalties in settlements as it incurs the "against the law" punishment where in the "wild lands" there is no law for say and so it is just the normal rules.
@Andius, great blog. I thought it was well written and seamed reasonable.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This seems to be a very common idea here... as if when people want to PvP simply for the sake of PvP they're "bad griefers who just want to ruin everyone's experience". No...
Of course they're not "bad griefers who just want to ruin everyone's experience" (Well, they mostly are actually), but they're on the wrong game. People looking for "PvP simply for the sake of PvP" are just not meant to play on a sandbox RPG. They're more meant to play Mount & Blade or special MMO for them.
But they won't, because most PKers are not looking for a fair fight. So they haunt the MMORPG community, and by their griefing, they destroy each & every one of the sandbox titles on the market, because when they are all alone by themselves, they just don't really like to play with each others.
The PvP needs mechanisms to ensure that a player is compelled to restrain himself to kill when there's no point to it. "PvP simply for the sake of PvP" should be utterly confined in special zone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Imo, the ONLY problem with PvP can be easily resumed by one phrase :
You don't have a reason to NOT kill someone.
Pretty much this. All day, every day. IRL every human being ever agrees that ( barring special condition i'm not going to further elaborate ) they do not want to get killed. This is why laws against killing exist.
In a game if you get killed you respawn and be on your way. If you kill someone and PCs or NPC give you the capital punishment you respawn and be on your way. Loosing your stuff is significantly worse then the death itself.
And while I will not try to advocate permadeath for PFO if death or the fear of death has no meaningful consequence combat PvP can never be a meaningful interaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Papaver, I think you're getting Audocet's point reversed. I think he's saying that in most MMOs with PvP, there's no reason not to kill someone. He's not saying there's no reason not to get killed.
And PFO is proposing that there should be reasons not to kill other people. Well, reasons not to murder other people. Killing other people in war or in feuds, or in faction warfare which is for most practical purpose a long running feud... All of those aren't murder, and they have less consequences than just stabbing someone to death to steal his stuff, or any number of other bad reasons.
PvP is one of several reasons I don't play MMOs. I do not see the appeal of going after other players just to get some loot. Any game that restricts PvP to specific areas is the best way to go...at least from my perspective and by no means indicative of anyone else.
That being said, great blog!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm saying that if the penalty for dying is great enough people will not only do less dying but also less killing.
This is both correct and wrong, because it does not state the whole reality.
If the penalty for death is too high or too low players will do less killing or dying because they will stop playing if PvP is what they are looking for.
Eve Online has proven that you can have a dangerous world and with full looting and still be hugely successful. Yet there is no alignment or reputation systems that are meaningful in any way. CCP only bans for two types of activities: exploits and hacking.
As Ryan Dancey wrote, "Eve is made by wolves for wolves". If you learn the mantra of EvE you will not only survive being a noob, you will eventually thrive and become a player that can live amongst wolves, if not become one yourself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PvP is one of several reasons I don't play MMOs. I do not see the appeal of going after other players just to get some loot. Any game that restricts PvP to specific areas is the best way to go...at least from my perspective and by no means indicative of anyone else.
That being said, great blog!
As above, when UO split shards that was the end of that game.
It could be argued that the key was different rulesets allow different players the perfect balance for themselves as per Minecraft or even making their own games for their own small group where everyone agrees the rules and is motivated to do so (either all friends who agree democratically/like-minded or it's simple to remove unwanted players with a small sample of players to monitor or the real threat of such makes people behave and limits opportunistic anti-social behaviour). etc
But this does somewhat go against making a large world. And making a large world populated by "living beings" who act rationally, perhaps dangerously or saintly etc.
With AI in PvE you don't have intelligent antagonists. Secondly mobs are not social opportunities: To turn an enemy into a friend or set two enemies on each other: These are massively powerful uses of our brains I think and this freedom in a game to "play" this out I think is potentially very fun. Most PvP boils down to "kill/combat" interaction which is actually fun so long as all players know it's socially-sanctioned and each player involved plays by the same rules or if the game space seems to get out of whack one or other can break off at some point and not perpetually be under duress.
So if you can make pvp social, intelligent and concensual on the rules being used (not necessary on the time of engagement of combat) I think it has much more scope for players to find a lot of fun they can't get in real life or even only passively watching a machiavellian soap drama or HBO tv series.
I'd say penalize unsocial PvP then penalize the group the player belongs to eg perhaps Reputation loss leads to group loss of something valuable and being grouped is vital. It works in the army and used to work for teachers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm tossing back in an old idea:
Background: any hex not owned by a player (or npc) group is in effect lawless. Alignment (and rep) applies but killing is not a crime.
Idea: Let any small group be allowed to publicly claim and hold a wilderness area (hex or smaller) with only a small investment (ie. planting a flag), and let their laws or lack thereof prevail as long as the claim is maintained (timer or until the flag is cut down).
A settlement could claim the area to enforce its laws there. A bandit (or any other) group could claim it and turn it to a FFA pvp zone. A gathering group could claim to prevent others from stealing their nodes.
To avoid large groups simply claiming the whole map, claims should be time limited and require X number of claimants to remain in the area, and attacking someones claim (not guards) should not be penalized.
note: killing someone in held FFA area would still be evil, but also sanctioned and legal.
EDIT: and great blog. I fully agree with your reasoning.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm saying that if the penalty for dying is great enough people will not only do less dying but also less killing.
I think the experience of some other games confirms that. Most of the game spaces are empty, with the few travelers or hunters trying to avoid gank squads, and the gank squads desperately avoiding anything approaching even odds. Less dying and less killing isn't always success.
Maybe having the penalty only on dying isn't enough. Maybe there could be penalties on killing as well, or at least some kinds of killing. Maybe in a game where there are sanctioned and unsanctioned reasons to kill - and penalties for murder - more people will risk getting out of the safe zone and behind their guild perimeters and interact with the rest of the world.