Since the "death penalty" seems to be a hot topic at the moment, I thought I''d take another look at it and put in my two cents. I think it true that the best and most playable games are those that correlate properly the penalty for death with the likelihood/necessity of combat. To put it more plainly, death should be penalized in proportion to the frequency with which the designers intend it should occur. Example 1: But What If - Nope, Death. Many of the older PC adventure games - text based and early graphical - included many ways for the player to suffer horrible death. While these were amusing to some extent, they were also frustrating in that the games'' main challenges were puzzles which required significant experimentation. But since experimentation was likely to get you killed, you would have to remember to save every other second, and would have to reload many times as you experimented with dangerous situations. LucasArts made popular a different style of adventure game - one in which death was nonexistent. The threat of death was used to create barriers, which the player would have to deal with or solve puzzles to circumvent, but no action could actually cause the character to die. The emphasis was shifted away from risk and toward brain-busting puzzles and amusing dialogue and action, homing in on what was for many the main appeal of adventure games. I know there are adherents to the older, more lethal games - but the LucasArts no-death credo has become pretty much the industry standard, and quite successful. Example 2: With Both Guns Blazing. By increasing the penalty for death, FPS creators also increase the lifetime of the average player. Two good examples of the ends of this spectrum are Quake 3 and Counter-Strike. I would like to preface this section by saying that I have played neither of these games, and have not even seen Counter-Strike played, so I''m going on anecdotal evidence and secondhand knowledge. If I make any mistakes here, please feel free to correct me. In Quake 3, the penalty for death is that your killer gets a point (or you lose one, depending) and you respawn immediately sans weapons. It takes an average of five seconds or so to become moderately well-equipped again, and within ten seconds you are most likely back in the fray. In another twenty to forty seconds, you have hopefully killed two or three other players, and by the two minute mark you are lucky to still be alive. This, despite the fact that a Quake 3 character can shrug off several dozen machinegun bullets. The low death penalty and kill-based scoring system lead players to take any risk for the kill. The designers intended to create a frenetic berserker playstyle, and adjusted the death penalty accordingly. On the other hand, Counter-Strike has a one-life policy. Ammunition and health are difficult to replenish, and death means sitting out till the end of the round. Although combat is highly damaging, players tend to stay alive a lot longer (provided they are any good) because they and their opponents are more cautious about taking risks. Given the choice between firing on an opponent immediately or maneuvering for advantage, a player will often choose to better his own odds through careful maneuver rather than initiate a "fair fight". The designers intended to create a tactical, measured playstyle, and adjusted the death penalty accordingly. Example 3: Let''s Talk About Thi- Urk! In MMORPGs, death policies (as well as other mechanics) used to encourage combat with monsters backfire in PvP situations, creating a world where deus ex machina must be used to prevent god-player rampages. Conversely, a high death penalty can be used to encourage community living - but this requires that the game''s focus be shifted from combat, which necessitates a rethinking of advancement schemes as well... For many MMORPGs, monster slaying is the order of the day. The PCs vary mainly in the means by which they deal out death, and their primary employment is in dealing it out to all and sundry. Indiscriminate slaughter leads to monetary gain - money to be spent, invariably, on more tools of slaughter - and "experience" - which inexplicably advances the character from mere homicidal maniac to invincible genocide machine. Since there is nothing to do but fight, it would hardly be fair for combat to be extraordinarily lethal (or even realistically lethal). Thus, the penalty for death is quite light. Lose some cash, lose some of that "experience" stuff, have to go fetch your pants back, have to wait for your health to return as you sit around in the graveyard... not a big deal. All this is fine and good for single player - I play Diablo II too, and have myself a fine time carving a path across the landscape. But now consider multiple players. A whole world of professional killers hungry for money, loot, and power - and varying so widely in their abilities that the average person can point out ten people in the crowd around them who they could cut down without any risk to themselves, and ten others who could do the same to them. What stops the mighty from treating the weak exactly as they would any other squishable creature? In a fair number of games, the answer appears to be GOD. Some higher moral authority, omniscient and if not omnipotent at least extremely powerful, is watching you all the time - and if you raise a hand against your fellow man, it intervenes. This can take the form of the mighty town guards, always ready to jump in at the first sign of violence (INSIDE the city). It can be in more subtle ways, such as a dead character''s inexplicably firm grasp on his sword and purse, or an otherwise heinously amoral character''s reluctance to even consider the idea that a fellow player could be the target of violence. But I have yet to see or hear of an anti-PvP measure that did not taste suspiciously of the hand of GOD. Indeed, in such a world of mighty (and less mighty) "heroes", who other than GOD could keep the peace? Back in the real world, though, we seem to have a fairly peaceful society without the obvious intervention of higher powers. Why the big difference? Well, in the real world we have social institutions, crime and punishment, all that jazz. But I think the fundamental difference is this: in the real world, the "death penalty" is VERY high, combat is VERY lethal, and it is dangerous even to highly experienced, well equipped fighters. If I were to meet a man on the street with a sword, and he wanted to kill me, it''s likely that he could (we''ll leave aside the later consequences for him). But if I also had a sword, he might think twice - because, regardless of our relative skills, there''s a good chance I might hurt or even kill him in the fight. And if I do, he doesn''t get a second chance. But if we were to try to port these ideas over to our MMORPG world, we''d quickly have another problem on our hands. Certainly, the players are being more civil (with their hands on their pommels, but still...), but now it''s far too dangerous to go troll-slaying! As monsters are now just as lethal as players, the whole combat-based economy collapses. I can think of three solutions to this little quandary. The first is to have a more complex combat system which can reflect the tactical difference between monsters and players. Sure orcs are tough, but they always charge forward in a clumsy rush while swinging their axes around in predictable, unbalanced patterns. It''s no problem to kill one, two, or even a dozen - so long as you maneuver to give them the disadvantage, and know their tactics. Players are another matter - every one fights differently, all of them fight cleverly, and their friends are not so easy to confound or distract. The second is to have less aggressive monsters. Sure there are trolls in the hills - but during the day, they hide out in their troll caves and sleep, so it''s safe to go hunt less dangerous prey. Mugwumps are huge and can stomp any single person flatter than a pancake, but it takes some serious effort for them to even notice you exist. Dread chickens are content with chasing you away from their eggs, and won''t pursue you if you keep a respectable distance. Almost all monsters can be fled from if the fight goes against you. Players, on the other hand, will nurse a grudge forever, and even if you kill your pursuer it''s likely that his friends will be just as eager to have their vengeance. The third solution I like less, because unlike the first two it doesn''t encourage teamwork or cleverness. This solution is simply to have two different damage models for players and monsters. For instance, a player who is level 10 can give and take 10x more damage with respect to monsters, but only 10% more with respect to players (as compared to a level 1 character). Holy macaroni, this post is loooooong. If you''ve made it this far, congratulations and thanks. Feel free to comment on any part (preferably a part you read). --------------------------------------------------- -SpittingTrashcan You can''t have "civilization" without "civil".

I will be using ideas like your 1st and 2nd one. Many monsters will be of equal strength as a player but of far inferior intelligence. And many monsters will have agendas other than "kill everything I see". I also want to place a greater emphasis on ''player training'', in that players have to be instructed on the best way to fight. Rushing into an orc lair without someone who''s fought orcs before might be suicidal. I am happy for this to not be to everyone''s taste, as I''m not making a mass-market product. For someone writing the next Everquest, they may have to think hard about making sure that even the dumbest of players is still able to ''survive'' (in some meaningful way) an encounter they blunder into.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files | My stuff ]

quote: In a fair number of games, the answer appears to be GOD. Some higher moral authority, omniscient and if not omnipotent at least extremely powerful, is watching you all the time - and if you raise a hand against your fellow man, it intervenes. This can take the form of the mighty town guards, always ready to jump in at the first sign of violence (INSIDE the city). It can be in more subtle ways, such as a dead character''s inexplicably firm grasp on his sword and purse, or an otherwise heinously amoral character''s reluctance to even consider the idea that a fellow player could be the target of violence. But I have yet to see or hear of an anti-PvP measure that did not taste suspiciously of the hand of GOD. Indeed, in such a world of mighty (and less mighty) "heroes", who other than GOD could keep the peace?

I think town guards are a nice solution. However, when talking about all this, you must realize that 99% of the time, the ONLY thing stopping us from doing anything we (humans) want is fear , pure and simple. I could buy a gun and go shoot everyone I want, but I don''t because I know that I would be put in jail for the rest of my life, or executed.

So, how do we apply this to the MMORPG world? If the only thing stopping someone is fear, what do they have to be scared of? The town guard solution is nice because it makes sense and it causes fear to kill someone inside town. This provides a relatively safe area. You can still be killed in town, but it is less likely, because there are consequences for the defender. Just like I could be shot in the middle of the street tomorrow, but it''s unlikely because of the consequences for doing so.

The principles of capitalism are at work here as well. The player will always act in their best interest. This bring up an interesting point: having PCs (player characters, as opposed to NPCs) act as the police.

Here is how the system would work (in my opinion of course.) Players can pay taxes which give them rights, such as protection from the (NPC) government. Players can sign up as police officers and they get a portion of this tax money, for doing their job. This includes responding to calls and killing lawbreakers (people respawn in this world.) The details are difficult to work out, but the idea being that powerful characters can police the world for a monetary sum (as opposed to becoming PKs themselves, which is the path for a high-level character in today''s MMORPGs.) It brings up some interesting gameplay issues, such as towns with low traffic having no police, some times during the day having less police, and the police being weaker than the murderers, but I think that over time, things would balance out. A way of speeding this up would be to offer a higher pay when there are less police, and less pay when there are more police. They might also enjoy other benefits, such as special armor, faster transportation, etc.

quote: Original post by Neosmyle
I think town guards are a nice solution. However, when talking about all this, you must realize that 99% of the time, the ONLY thing stopping us from doing anything we (humans) want is fear , pure and simple. I could buy a gun and go shoot everyone I want, but I don''t because I know that I would be put in jail for the rest of my life, or executed.

So, how do we apply this to the MMORPG world? If the only thing stopping someone is fear, what do they have to be scared of? The town guard solution is nice because it makes sense and it causes fear to kill someone inside town. This provides a relatively safe area. You can still be killed in town, but it is less likely, because there are consequences for the defender. Just like I could be shot in the middle of the street tomorrow, but it''s unlikely because of the consequences for doing so.

I think the paragraph immediately after the one you quote speaks to this very point, although in different words. We are in fact basically restrained by fear: fear of permanent death. This is the restraining factor I propose for the game as well.

quote:
The principles of capitalism are at work here as well. The player will always act in their best interest. This bring up an interesting point: having PCs (player characters, as opposed to NPCs) act as the police.

Here is how the system would work (in my opinion of course.) Players can pay taxes which give them rights, such as protection from the (NPC) government. Players can sign up as police officers and they get a portion of this tax money, for doing their job. This includes responding to calls and killing lawbreakers (people respawn in this world.) The details are difficult to work out, but the idea being that powerful characters can police the world for a monetary sum (as opposed to becoming PKs themselves, which is the path for a high-level character in today''s MMORPGs.) It brings up some interesting gameplay issues, such as towns with low traffic having no police, some times during the day having less police, and the police being weaker than the murderers, but I think that over time, things would balance out. A way of speeding this up would be to offer a higher pay when there are less police, and less pay when there are more police. They might also enjoy other benefits, such as special armor, faster transportation, etc.

I also like the idea of PC law enforcement, although the mechanic I favor is more "quick and dirty" frontier style: bounties. PKers could have bounties laid on their heads - bounties funded by the communities they plague, and thus in direct proportion to the degree and scope of their crimes. As a bounty hunter, a player would get all the fun of hunting "the most dangerous game" and a fat reward besides. A criminal could even "redeem" himself by capturing bounties equal to his own debt to society - although the friends of those he killed may still thirst for vengeance. In fact, the bounty system might apply to monsters as well - the reward for slaying monsters comes not from their odd predilection for carrying about money, but from the people you save from monster attacks.

In a larger sense, the permanent death system is also an economic motivator. In fact, the longer a character lives the more risk-averse he may become, as the character represents an ever-greater investment of time on the part of the player. When you''re young, poor, and desperate, seeking your fortune as a monster hunter seems as good a plan as any. After a few years and a couple close shaves, opening a flower shop starts to sound like a good idea.

---------------------------------------------------
-SpittingTrashcan

You can''t have "civilization" without "civil".

quote: Original post by SpittingTrashcan
We are in fact basically restrained by fear: fear of permanent death. This is the restraining factor I propose for the game as well.

In real life, we are not. We are driven by a risk/effort/reward system. We only take risks or make an effort if there is a reward. There is no reward in real life for going out guns blazing and mowing down crowds of people.

If the ''reward'' for killing stuff in any game would be reduced to near zero (no ''experience points'', precious little loot offset by a whole bunch of other people who now consider you a menace to society , etc...) then you''d see far less combat.

Of course, currently it is so that the ONLY reward you can get in most CRPGs is through whacking as much stuff as possible. Also, the ONLY risk you run is dying, and even that''s usually pretty much an "oh well, do I reload, or do I respawn?". The meaninglessness of death is just a symptom of very shallow gameplay in a type of game that cries out it is so much more than just a gib-fest, but isn''t, really.


Quake and Counterstrike got it right, because combat and death are advertised right there on the box. But many other games advertise other gameplay aspects, while not having them much or at all within the actual game.

MadKeithV,

I think we''re both actually coming at this from the same angle. When I said that we are motivated to be good through fear of death, I was summarizing the result of the risk/effort/reward calculation. In fact, people will kill if the reward is high: bank robbers etc. Increasing the "death penalty" raises the risk; reducing experience and monetary awards for killing decreases the reward; making players closer to equal in combat increases the effort. The degree of each of these determines the degree of lawfulness. I prefer a certain lawless frontier atmosphere in games, so I would keep the potential reward for killing high - that is, by allowing body looting.

I also agree that in many so called RPGs the focus is too much on combat. Any game which uses the rewards and punishments scheme I am laying out would have to shift its focus away from combat or be incredibly frustrating and boring. I don''t want to eliminate combat completely, however, as it is just as erroneous to say that violence is never the answer, as to say that it always is.

Another factor, which must be considered more in games than in reality, is the perception of value. A dedicated role-player who has developed a complex and interesting character over countless hours of play values his character''s life highly as it represents a significant investment on his part. On the other hand, a nuisance player whose only goal is to hurt and anger others will value his character''s life quite low, and therefore is likely to go on a murderous rampage regardless of the in-game penalties.

The only solution to this problem I''ve come up with is a "karma" system, wherein characters have the opportunity to give each other good or bad karma. The exact details of the karma system have been bandied back and forth quite a bit, so I thought I''d include the exact details of implementation here to avoid a digression on it.

- When a player logs on to play, he has a small chance of receiving some amount of givable karma. The chance drops to zero after the first login for the day, so that multiple logons in one day do not increase the chance of receiving karma. If the player logs off before giving this karma, it disappears.

- There is absolutely no way for any other player to determine whether a given player has givable karma (so it cannot be bought or sold reliably). There is also no normal means to determine a given player''s karma level (there may be magic to do this).

- A new character''s karma level is always zero (neutral). A player with givable karma can expend it to increase or decrease another character''s karma level. He cannot give karma to his own character. Additionally, when a player kills another player his karma level is decreased by a fixed amount, then the opposite of that player''s karma level is added to his own (so killing the truly evil is rewarded with good karma, but killing neutral or good people is punished with bad karma).

- Enough bad karma means that when you die your soul is punished for some time before it can be reincarnated, meaning that you must wait a significant amount of time (days, weeks, months even) before you can create a new character. Enough good karma means your soul is reincarnated into a "higher being" at death - that is, you start at a more advanced level (although, not so advanced as the character who died). This turns the penalty for bad behavior into a penalty on the player''s wallet , as a player whose soul is in hell is paying to not play.

That''s karma. Any comments?

---------------------------------------------------
-SpittingTrashcan

You can''t have "civilization" without "civil".

I don''t usually bump threads, but...

The Karma system as described above is the result of more than a year''s worth of serious thinking on how to control/deal with nuisance players. I really do want some feedback on it.

Also, given that a high-risk, high-death-penalty system would discourage combat of all types in a game, this brings up a larger and more important question.

What can replace combat in a CRPG? In other words, now that we don''t slay orcs, what do we do?

---------------------------------------------------
-SpittingTrashcan

You can''t have "civilization" without "civil".

Don''t worry about the bumping, SpittingTrashcan! I''m sure that any serious inhabitant of this forum does not mind seeing good threads getting bumped.

quote: When a player logs on to play, he has a small chance of receiving some amount of givable karma. The chance drops to zero after the first login for the day, so that multiple logons in one day do not increase the chance of receiving karma. If the player logs off before giving this karma, it disappears.

I log on for the first time today. I have a chance to get some expendable karma (giveable) karma.
QUESTION: does the ‘chance at first login’ apply to the account or to the character? Can I switch to playing another character, and then have a renewed chance to receive some expendable karma with that character? Or does only the first character picked per day have a chance to receive some expendable karma? (I’ve allowed myself the freedom to chance ‘giveable’ to ‘expendable’ because I think I understand that I can use the karma to slightly raise or lower the permanent karma of another player’s character. ‘Giveable’ to me has a mainly positive side to it)

quote: There is absolutely no way for any other player to determine whether a given player has givable karma (so it cannot be bought or sold reliably). There is also no normal means to determine a given player''s karma level (there may be magic to do this).

Are players able to communicate? When my character gets some expendable karma, can I just /shout to other players that I have some expendable karma? Would I be able to ‘sell’ my beneficial services? Of course, there could also be an effect almost opposite to that. I could lure other characters to come to me, using my expendable karma as bait, and use it to lower their permanent karma instead. This way, player who do not want the expendable karma feature to be used as anything economical can take action to make sure other players will think twice before participating in this heinous act.

quote: A new character''s karma level is always zero (neutral). A player with givable karma can expend it to increase or decrease another character''s karma level. He cannot give karma to his own character. Additionally, when a player kills another player his karma level is decreased by a fixed amount, then the opposite of that player''s karma level is added to his own (so killing the truly evil is rewarded with good karma, but killing neutral or good people is punished with bad karma).

This works very, very well. I’ve been thinking about a similar subject (how to make the consequences of death and killing a solid part of the game) and really like this approach. The ‘opposite’ karma effect upon killing another works wonder. It really creates a nice circle.

quote: Enough bad karma means that when you die your soul is punished for some time before it can be reincarnated, meaning that you must wait a significant amount of time (days, weeks, months even) before you can create a new character. Enough good karma means your soul is reincarnated into a "higher being" at death - that is, you start at a more advanced level (although, not so advanced as the character who died). This turns the penalty for bad behavior into a penalty on the player''s wallet , as a player whose soul is in hell is paying to not play.

Why should bad behavior be punished though? The player should not suffer for doing something that is meant to be a part of the game. There can be no light without dark, no good without evil. If we want to let our players do good deeds, we must give them the opportunity to do bad things. Give them a choice, don’t put them on a leash. If you do create a penalty for bad behavior, make sure to also allow the players who do choose that path of life to gain some form of satisfaction from what they do. Create an elite type of gameplay specifically designed for those characters that have a truly evil karma. Players who ally with the dark side will appreciate it. Some want to see the light at the end of the tunnel, others want to see a blazing fire.

Silvermyst,

Good questions all!

I should have specified that an account can have only one character at a time, ever . I can''t stop people from buying two accounts on two computers though. Of course, if people want to pay twice as much for the small benefit this would provide, the greedy developer side of me says "why not?"

Characters can talk to each other... but how do you know that the person claiming to have karma to sell actually has it? You don''t. They could just take your money and run. Contrariwise, selling karma is hard because the only way to prove you have it is to use it up... after which there''s no incentive to pay you for your service. Boned!

The purpose of karma is not to punish evil characters but rather to reward good players , and remove obnoxious ones. Even a tremendously nasty character can keep his karma level relatively high, by dealing fairly with his nasty comrades and avoiding doing the dirty work himself. Note there is NO karma penalty for putting a price on another''s head! Only the killer takes the karma hit; and he can balance his karma by taking a mix of good and evil contracts. On the other hand, a monstrously obnoxious player will quickly find himself in hell even if he doesn''t kill anyone. All and sundry will curse him for his annoying behavior; then, when his karma passes the "neutral threshold" someone will kill him for the karma bonus... and if that isn''t enough incentive, people can pass the hat to have Bastard Bob killed by a paid assassin. So long Bastard Bob! See you when they finally let you back out of the pit! This should quickly teach players to be civil. Similarly, a rampaging psycho player will quickly accrue enough bad karma to keep him in the Ninth Circle for the rest of his natural life. Then a wandering paladin kills him and becomes ever more holy, whilst Senor Psycho stews in the inferno. Should the paladin die in the attempt, he''ll be reincarnated almost as strong as he was before due to his many good deeds. Beautiful, isn''t it?

Note that karma can be gained and lost ONLY in the ways described initially. There is no way to get good karma from ANYTHING other than the gratitude of players or the slaying of nuisance characters. The system is as close to self-policing and self-correcting as any I have ever seen.

Any other potential loopholes?

---------------------------------------------------
-SpittingTrashcan

You can''t have "civilization" without "civil".

quote: I should have specified that an account can have only one character at a time, ever.

I know the reasoning behind this (limits possible loopholes), but I''m not sure if it''s entirely necessary to only allow one character per account.

quote: Characters can talk to each other... but how do you know that the person claiming to have karma to sell actually has it? You don''t.

May I offer a solution to the slight possibility of players selling their karma? How about hiding the fact that a character has expendable karma even from the player controlling that character? In other words, you won''t know if you have expendable karma until you use it. If you want to reward a player for good behaviour, you would activate the ''reward other character with expendable karma'' feature. If you were indeed given some expendable karma at login, the karma will be transfered. Same applies to when you want to punish another character with expendable karma.
Keeping this crucial information (do I have expendable karma or not?) hidden from even the players themselves will completely remove the economical issue from the table.

quote: Any other potential loopholes?

Well, imagine a group of players intent on destroying the system. They gather, find a target, and use all their expendable karma to lower the karma of the innocent victim (punishment). Once the karma of the victim is low enough, the group attacks. They gain positive karma (reward) if karma of victim dropped below the neutral level as a result of the expendable karma that the group used.
Possible solution: a character can only receive negative expendable karma once every certain period of time.

quote: meaning that you must wait a significant amount of time (days, weeks, months even) before you can create a new character

Okay, my character just died. Due to his negative permanent karma, I must wait days/weeks/months before I can create a new character. I''m paying X amount of dollars per month. No way. I cancel my account. Will I purchase a new account?

Some random thoughts.

Does a character with negative karma receive expendable karma (a chance to receive it) at login?

How much does expendable karma statistically affect karma? If my character''s karma is as high as it can get, what percentage is lost when someone uses his expendable karma to punish me? How much negative karma does my killer exactly receive?

Does the expendable karma of a character with a very high amount of permanent karma affect another character more, less, or equal to that of a character with a lower positive karma, or a neutral or negative karma?

In a ''one character per account'' system, I don''t think there''s a real reason to make the player wait very long before creating a new character after his character dies. Characters with a good karma might be able to create a new character right away. Characters with a bad karma might have to wait a full day.
They''re all paying for your product. You chose to give them the opportunity to be good or bad. I really don''t think that players should be punished for the actions of their characters. By all means, punish the characters that behave bad. Let them burn in hell, suffer the consequences of their actions. Put the burden on the characters.

How about this:
When a character with a negative permanent karma dies, his soul is transfered to a place where all ''evil'' souls reside. Here, a character has to reach a certain goal. When the goal is reached, the player can create a new character.

The goal could be anything. Defeat another evil soul. Find an exit. Evade your punishers. Redeem yourself by prayer. If at all possible, make this place entertaining enough for some players to actually enjoy it.

Of course, the opposite would be interesting as well: create a heavenly place for your good characters to go to after death. Here also, the characters will have to reach a certain goal before a new character can be created. But goals in this heaven are much easier to achieve, much faster.

Perhaps this way you also have somewhat of a solution to the ''one character per account'' issue, which some players see as a negative issue.

By creating a heaven and hell for souls to reside in, you have basically created two alternative virtual worlds for gameplay to take place in. You maintain the ''one character per account'' rule for the virtual world where the live characters walk around, but you might allow players to have more than one character residing in heaven or hell. They could never, ever, return to the live world, but they might be able to reach heaven when they redeem themselves in hell. (or, there could be a special world for neutral characters, purgatory, from which they could reach heaven. Hell would be inescapable)

This way, players who have bonded with a certain character can still go back and play the character for a while. In heaven and hell, no progress can be made, but it might still be fun to play.

Oh well, just some ideas to prevent the mandatory wait after character death and change it into a gameplay element instead.