| 43 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
3/14/06 3:59:07 PM#21
I wish there was a way to report that one annoying moron or that AFK person in a doorway. Anyway,if there is a way to make open PvP with no flaws then I would love to see it. "The one who begins with nothing, gains everything slowly." |
|
|
3/14/06 5:40:45 PM#22
If you are interested in some really good ideas on most of the topics that have come up here, everyone should take a look at http://mu.ranter.net/theory/. It's quite long, but after reading the sections you're interested in, I would not be surprised if you decided to read the rest (I did, and in fact printed the whole thing). It is pretty oriented towards a medieval game, but the concepts all work across the board to some extent, and the PVP and perma death stuff is truly universal. |
|
|
3/14/06 5:54:30 PM#23
why people SHOULD enjoy PvP MMORP perspective: It does not make sense for a person to play an MMORPG if they do not enjoy playing with others. Playing with others is at the very core of almost every online game. the Game perspective: It is highly unusual, and highly desired by players, to compete against an opponent that provides a dynamic and competitive game. If a player knows exactly what the other will do almost every time, and the player rarely loses (as in when i play backgamon on my phone, or in just about every video game that involves a computer player), then the player is likely to lose interest. The idea is that games are a social thing, and a fun game should reflect or be a game involving 2+ human opponents. For this reason, it is understandable to expect most players to enjoy mmorpgs, and specifically PvP play. The problem is that i layed out 2 aspects for good gameplay: socialism, and competition. Each player is likely to enjoy differing levels of each, and differing levels at different times. A game like WW2OL reflects this nature in some respects in that it allows people to work together to complete a goal, but mostly because you compete against a human opponent (IPO, why most people enjoy any FPS). It also has many of the aspects that i had pointed at in my first post here (player driven political-system) in that players choose where to attack, and thus what missions are available. Tale in the Desert shares many of the social aspects of my point. Since there is no fighting in this game, for the most part, players must be driven to play the game for other reasons. I could spend a long time agruing why, but basically people play this MMOG for the social aspects of it. Thus, if you would like to understand WHY PvP is so important to Online Gaming and would like 2 MMORPGs to exemplify this, WW2OL and Tales in the Desert are some of the best examples. If you would like a more solid example, how about the Xbox360. Almost every aspect of this system is driven to provide for social gameplay, and every game that allows online play is driven by some type of PvP game. With that out of the way, how does one make this work better in and mmorpg. That is the question. For those who play MMOs and solo, honestly, you're in the wrong place. |
|
|
3/14/06 6:50:24 PM#24
I think people look at the pvp situation and MMorpg's in weird ways. The MMORPG of today is totally based on progression , attributes, and gameplay. There are other alternatives. What if... you played the MMORPG to experience the world, and not just build up attributes, what if ALL of the fun of the game was acually being a part of the world. This may sound kind of weird, but what if getting killed in a MMORPG was acually a fun experience yet somehow terrifying and exhilirating at the same time. TO acually get a thrill out of being ganked, becuase it's a part of the world that you're experiencing. Modern MMORPG's aren't set up this way, they're designed to keep you playing becuase you want to advance in a set system that's game made, or you want to kill. Not acually live or experience the game itself. I think open pvp in a game environment like what I described would just be natural. I honestly can't see a game like this coming out for a long while, due to technology restraints. Roleplaying is about becomeing a person you are not, a personality, and playing the roll of someone you are not in reality. In another MMORPG.com article, a really recent featured article about Twitch based play. They were complaining that twitch based play was taking the RPG out of MMORPG's and that they'd like to see more lvling and attribute building added in. Is that what most players think RPG's are all about? Building attributes, numbers and lvling? Is that really what you want to do? Or do you want to acually live as someone else? play that role? get away from your life and become someone/something else. heh, when I first heard of the concept of a mmorpg back when the ruins of kunark/ ultima online renneisance first came out, the first thing I though of was something more like morrowind I suppose. I say there daydreaming abotu what it'd be like. I told my brother, "In that game I'm going to kill my father and mother and run into the woods and be an outcast. " That's really all I wanted, I was 13 at the time and pretty immature, but that was exactly what I wanted, a universe where consequences existed but they weren't built in an intrusive way. When I first dreamed of my first mmorpg, I was going to buy a playstation and play Final fantasy 7. the night before I had a dream of what it'd be like. I saw myself on a guys porch with a band of people, it was all lifelike, and we were in the middle of nowhere , ina house at a dusty 3 way stop, we were all traveling somewhere and we were just stopping there becuse our journey was hard. We would talk, and itneract like real people. I was so excited, When I acually experienced the game, the mechanical nature of the gameplay sort of turned me off and dissapointed me in a way, even though it is one of my favorite games in existance. This is getting a little longwinded, and definitely isn't polished, but I think i'll end with my argument. "Ganking in todays MMORPG isn't fun for anyone, being killed my other players is always a dissapointment, there's no real fun in it. And so people just don't want to be killed. One of the reasons perma death or pvp scare people in MMORPG's is becuase nobody wants to die or lose what they worked or grinded so hard for. Take the grind and advancement out of an MMORPG and you'll have a game where open pvp works. I think a MMORPG that instead of set number systems, "twitch skills" or just smarts in general shoudl be rewarded. THe Matrix really has influenced a lot of my thouhts on games like this now. It is my favorite movie. Does anyone Remember that game called .. Dawn? Where you all started at the beginning of civilization and you all had nothing but sticks off of trees at first, and the playerbase would have to build of civilization using what they knew from sticks, to lumber, to stone work, to metal working, in a totally free world. Kill your fellow neighbor, take what they own, but they may have freinds who will take vengeance. |
|
|
3/14/06 10:50:55 PM#25
Yes, I'd love to get away from the level progression grind. I'd much rather have a world to play in, where exploration can be rewarded with discovery, and the world changes due to what player communities do, what NPCs do, and even natural changes like disasters. I'd like a world where everyone isn't winning big things all the time, where the little victories mean something, where things are challenging every day, and success isn't guaranteed.
Once upon a time.... |
|
|
3/14/06 11:17:07 PM#26
For a moment I though you were going to say just what I had in mind 3 days ago. But you went more specifically on roleplay. Well, I agree about that : death could made bee fun and a part of the game. That's why people who don't like pvp don't like it : because when their character dies, there are several disadvantages, like the loss of experience and the loss of time needed to get back to your body, etc. So, how could those disadvantage could be suppressed ? I though of something. What about a world where life and death were two parallel universes, two level of existence ? Life would be just like we're used to. In death, you could interract in a very, very limited way with livings and there would be spirits to fight, here and there. In this state, your feelings would be very different, the world would have another shape, you would have no map no north and south compass, you'd just know in what direction is your body and maybe some other things, like your murderer, or some deads speaker. Well, a whole gameplay could be built upon death and its interractions with livings. That could certainly make pvp and open-pvp acceptable, and even enjoyable, by people who don't like it at the moment |
|
|
3/15/06 7:02:01 AM#27
Exactly, in such a agme however, competition would be a must. Without loss there is no gain. And pvp comabt is just one form of competition. A game that turns this and other competitive plays into tools that allow the reaching of goals other then pure character advancement would be what I'd want. And I think I've largely found that in Eve Online. The pvp system is essentially nearly open there, but with the checks and balances that give the right comfort level needed to still cater to mroe then the hardocre-only pvp combat player. What's more is that in that game pvp combat is indeed as much of a tool as it is a goal. And other then an earlier poster said about it's role in Eve-Online, territorial conquest does play a role beyond placing your flag on some land noone cares for anyway there. It's about competition for resources, for opportunity. And it works rather well imo. There is no 100% secure zone in Eve-Online. There is no place where you are not affected by the pruely player-driven market. And there is hardly a zone left where even the most basic resources don't get competed for anymore. Thus, this competition that uses combat, industry/crafting and politics (a.o.) as tools becomes a goal in itself. Et Voila, we have a game that drives itself, delivers large amounts of content of itself, and no longer has character developmetn as the main goal for most players.
|
|
|
3/15/06 9:37:14 AM#28
|
|
|
3/15/06 3:52:31 PM#29
I have already made multiple post about this so I'm not going to repeat myself over and over. I am hear to show support of a game that allows for the different freedoms that come with open pvp. It isn't even a mystery to me how you would create this game but I have already said it to many times. |
|
|
3/15/06 4:21:03 PM#30
Ok, first of all. I've been in Eve since just about the release date. I know about the 'yulai incident', since I was atually there at the time. The whole thin is now actually returning as a hot topic in the community because of a new player influx and their anti-open pvp standpoints. PvP in the high security areas is NOT prohibited by any means. Yes. it is immediately and undeniably followed by the loss of your ship. But losing your ship does not equal losing the engagement in Eve. You can still inflict more damage then you suffer. And CCP have recently actually affirmed that this is what they intend to happen. Evading the consequences is not allowed, but creating a situation in which the benefits outweigh them is, The zombie inc players got banned because of disobeying direct GM orders. Now, to the rest of your points. 1. breaking into TS servers is lame, but not something CCP can play a riole in in terms of punishment. If your own laws allow you to prosecute for it, by all means do because you should. However, breaking in is something else then getting the password from someone you trusted with it. Also, new players are widely welcomed by established corporations. I;m part of one of the most powerfull corporations in the game and we do accept new players under certain circumstances. Security being a key element in the recruitment yes. 2. Utter rubbish. It takes a minimum of one month of horrendously boring grindage to get your sec status back to positive from a -10. I'd agree that that is broken tho, those consequences should be player determined, not simply a matter of rule enforcement by AI or game mechanics. 3. Eve encourages ganking yes. It's not a 'fair' game by any means. It's all about power, accumulation and use of it. That means differences in power, adn thus people getting the short end of the stick. Darwinism is a key element of Eve gameplay. But imo, open pvp is exactly that: player versus player competition across all fronts: from industry to politics to combat to resources. Evertyhing a tool in teh quest for power in your virtual-world competition. And wether you like it or not, completely balanced and finetuned or not, it's basically what Eve Online is. Open, player-empowered, nearly unrestricted pvp. |
|
|
3/15/06 5:06:36 PM#31
Ok, I can't give a proper reply, since I'd have to read all 3 pages of suggestions so far, but this exact topic is what I've devoted almost all of my mental energy when it comes to MMOs to ever since their invention. It's a common topic at www.pker.org, where I am a regular. In summary, social advancement, and giving players the tools to police themselves, and indirect influence on the flow of the game from the creators all create an environment where open PvP actually enhances roleplaying and discourages being a senseless griefer. Things like tracking, control of NPC guard behavior, player run government, guilds that actually have meaning all increase players investment in the world, cause your reputation to mean more than your stats, and therefore greatly dicourage mindless killing . As a side note, I am a firm believer that Permadeath is not a solution for an open PvP system. It punishes people for being ganked, and actually discourages all PvP, more for people who care about their characters (the real players) than players who are just playing to gank and don't care if they get permadeath. If you'd like examples of how these sorts of systems have been implemented and created living breathing worlds full of roleplaying and entirely open PvP look at muds like Avalon and Achaea. Note that Achaea is now one of the most popular MUDs on the net, spawning 3 or 4 sub games based on this sort of open PvP system. http://www.achaea.com/main.html http://www.avalon-rpg.com/ If you'd like further explanation, let me know. |
|
|
3/15/06 6:29:21 PM#32
I feel that Politics and also Player policied society would work even with pkers who try to use mule accounts and so forth. Where Players can create game rules that will govern player actions. Players will be able to setup various degree of consiquences based on your reputation. from not being able to enter towns and trade for some time. To the point of your account being disabled complete. Games need to associate your character with your account. so that if your actions are so that the account is disabled. You will not be able to use other characters you have created. In essence you would have to close this account complete and sign up for subscription again. This will give heads up of potential troublemakers to the game. Now this will not stop you from play evil characters. But there is a difference between playing an evil character who goes around murdering other characters and those who are evil for selfish reasons. If you want to play a murderous villain just know that you will pay the consiquences of those actions in the end. As to why you would want to play such a character is a totally different question that i will not ask. Another subset to this rule would be things like anyone caught try to trade with such players or communicate with them will subject to penalties themselves. And finally their should be a curve setup between new players and veterans. New players should be able to advance in stats fast in the beginning while veterans should be given the option to able to give up some high stats for more experience. This would balance the game out well. Brawns vs skills i have always said that this is not the best solution but a darn good one in the search to balance the newbie vs vets pvp in-balance problem.
Faranthil Tanathalos That's right I like bows and arrows. |
|
|
3/15/06 10:10:36 PM#33
|
|
|
3/16/06 2:51:18 AM#34
I used to play Asheron's Call where there was one Open PvP sever called Darktide that was complete anarchy. Oneone could kill anyone else and loot their corpse, there was no safe area for low levels and no built in penalty for killing. As a result, starting players lived in constant fear and if you weren't part of a strong group, just entering town to buy and sell was a big risk. I played a little on that server to see what it was like and didn't enjoy it. I think maybe 10% of the players liked it. I'd only like an Open PvP game where there were major consequenses for killing in civilized areas. One thing i liked about SWG was that a fight could end with just knocking out the opponent and it took a deliberate killing blow to actally kill them. I think the best way to handle killing is with a reputation system. If you kill in a town, you loose major reputation there and about 1/2 as much with all towns of the same faction. If your reputation is good, you get a discount on all buying and selling. If it is poor, you pay a surcharge. If it is bad, the guards attack you on sight and merchants won't trade with you. Major roads between towns would be patrolled and killing there would result in the 1/2 loss. If guards/patrols knocked out a person with a bad reputation, they would be put in jail for a day of elapsed in-game time. This would really make life hard for those that chose to be outlaws. I'd also add a Karma system for killing lower level players. If you attacked and killed a lower level player, you'd loose karma to the degree that the player was weaker than you. Lower kerma would give you bad luck in all random events like chance to hit and chance to avoid hits. Thus really bad karma would ruin your fighting ability. A game system like this would allow killing anywhere but without imposing artificial restrictions would also make players really think twice about random killing.
|
|
|
3/16/06 9:55:49 AM#35
One idea I remeber reading about in a game under development was that if a caracter was attacked by a higher level caracter he could call in a sort of divine intervention and defeat the higher level player. Conditions would apply as being in good standing with your deity, etc and of course only if you're being attacked. I support Belgiums efforts to get noticed ... at all. |
|
|
3/16/06 10:44:40 AM#36
Dadown, this kind of system doesn't work because grief minded players would abuse it. They will only use their ganking characters to hunt players and kill them. They would use their good characters like mules, and do all transactions with them. It doesn't matter if they have to buy another account to do this, many players buy extra accounts anyways. The only system that will work is one where a "criminal" status brings a direct and severe penalty instantly upon defeat or capture to that character. By either drastically reducing ability, or by perma-death, it takes that character out of the grief activity and makes the player week again. Week characters aren't very often successful. Starting over every time is a huge deterant, one that reduces such activity drastically, which is the desired effect.
Once upon a time.... |
|
|
3/17/06 12:40:29 AM#37
Dadown, this kind of system doesn't work because grief minded players would abuse it. They will only use their ganking characters to hunt players and kill them. They would use their good characters like mules, and do all transactions with them. It doesn't matter if they have to buy another account to do this, many players buy extra accounts anyways. The only system that will work is one where a "criminal" status brings a direct and severe penalty instantly upon defeat or capture to that character. By either drastically reducing ability, or by perma-death, it takes that character out of the grief activity and makes the player week again. Week characters aren't very often successful. Starting over every time is a huge deterant, one that reduces such activity drastically, which is the desired effect.
Your criticism fails to address the rest of what I proposed; did you stop reading after you got to the part you quoted? Putting them in jail for a day would provide the immediate big penalty and the karma loss would weaken repeat offenders so that the character would eventually become unplayable. |
|
|
3/17/06 10:34:19 AM#38
What if, just line in real-life (at least in America), crime spread like a virus? In other words, if you steal a car radio, you're a criminal. If you sell that radio to someone who knows they're buying stolen goods, they're a criminal. If someone hides you in their closet from the authorities, they're a criminal too. This would help with the good player/bad player routine where your ganker is a criminal and your mule goes to all the places he can't go to buy or sell things for him, because the second your characters traded stolen goods, or as soon as one character bartered with a known criminal, at least some of that negative renown would spread like a virus to him or her. To keep the virus from being knowingly spread to innocent people, the renown system would have to be such that all players inherently know who is a wanted criminal and who isn't. There might be kinks to work out, but I think this sort of system would really help enforce a legal system, while still rewarding players for being "good guys" and putting some stress on people who only want to gank, cheat, steal, and otherwise intentionally try to ruin the game for other players (not just characters). |
|
|
3/17/06 10:40:29 AM#39
I knew I'd have to answer to you on this one. Yes, you're idea would work great, except for the lack of justice outside of cities and along the roads. However, I have a problem with a hidden issue with karma. It may not be something you intended, but karma is usually taken as a sliding scale. Do something bad, you lose karma, do something good, you gain it back. This, in effect, wipes out past bad deeds. Many developers will look at this as a fair thing. And it is fair. But it doesn't work in MMORPGs for anything more than a slight slow down of ganking. Not nearly enough. What happens is that players use the tactics at hand, they "spy" with higher karma characters, and then gank when they have the advantage and know they are most likely to not have to suffer the effects of having low karma. Then they go out and earn good karma back. This doesn't mean they are bad people, they are just using game mechanics to their advantage. So I hesitate to call it griefing except that the term works for this purpose. If the developers aren't going to allow characters to regain karma like this, they usually call it "faction loss". So that's why, when I see the word karma, I worry about how the developers are using it. Sometimes, a sliding karma can even come as a surprise to a gamer when a game goes live, if he didn't realise that it was actually this sliding scale during all the pre-release talk. Again, I know you didn't intend this in your system. But I worry about developers trying to be "fair", and end up with the same old problem anyways. Your system would be great for a game that wanted to allow for wide open PvP outside of zones of protection. But it's the lack of protection in wilder areas that still leaves players with the gank problem. Miners, hunter/gatherers, etc., would all have to face ganks without restriction. Once upon a time.... |
|
|
3/17/06 10:53:31 AM#40
Exactly. Place ownership tags on items. If someone steals an artifact from your house, loots from your body, steals loot off your kill, then they are handling stolen merchandise. This comes under thieving justice, rather than the PvP justice. So the penalties should be far less severe. Also, if the character is simply acting as a fence, then maybe they shouldn't get flagged at all, unless they are discovered. Some form of a recognition of stolen property would need to be implemented, like a perception skill if the item is seen by either players or NPCs. This does several things. It creates protection that's needed against theft, but it also creates a bunch of game play in the black market area. For the record, for thieving, I'm in favor of a jail penalty. Get caught the first time, it's so much jail time. For each successive time, add to the jail time up to a limit. But the penalties do have to be worth something to give it enough risk. I think that a thief should get more of a penalty than a fence, or other handler. The harsh justice against "murder" will keep everything in a good balance. Once upon a time.... |
|
