quote: Original post by Edward Ropple
I favor the permadeath, always-PvP-enabled format. If I''m playing a game, I don''t want some lowbie mouthing off at me because they''re not PK. And I''d watch my mouth too so I wouldn''t be in the hole myself. But this is really only usable for RP-enforced games like some MUDs and there''s still the issue of high-level characters beating on lowbies for fun. I''d recommend forcing a PK note to be written for every PvP kill with their reasoning and the game should probably log the last twenty lines of chat or something to prove that it isn''t pointless. And if it is, the PKer is killed and the victim is restored.

(So I''m a RP-loving PK-loving Nazi. Fear.)

You are nothing but a powergamer.

Premises:
Looks like you have played some retarded ring economy based game where the roleplaying consists of mindlessly killing cows. If you''d know something about roleplaying, you''d connect the game with real-life and suggest that there would be some sort of reward on the player. Now that the economy wouldn''t be funked up, the reward would be high enough to cause interest in even higher players or groups and they would whack the PK. Now 2 players have to start from zero and the other player, who was high level pk, has lost a lot more than the noob.

Conclusion:
Ownage.

Argus,

*Ding!* You get a prize.

quote:
- The difference between the effective combat strength of real-world humans is rarely great. Effectively the equivalent of a small number of new characters being able to take down a much more experienced character. Compounding this is the fact that guns are easy to use and universally deadly, a combination that is I suspect rarely found in MMORPGs.

Which is exactly why I believe the exponential character growth model, used in such P&P games as Dungeons and Dragons, and single player games such as the Final Fantasy series, is utterly unsuitable for multiplayer gaming. It is unrealistic for gods to treat ants with respect, and the source of the problem is the massive, unrealistic power differential between low and high level players.

quote:
- Humans are more inclined to gamble when the risks are lower, even when the rewards are proportionally lower. Even if some new character protection community existed in MMORPGs, the threat of imprisonment and/or death does not carry the same relative weight that it does in RL.

How about permanent character death ? That ought to put the fear of God into anyone who''s been developing their character for a long time. If one sets the maximum prowess ratio (an abstract concept, but bear with me) to around x2, that means that no matter how cool you are, any two chumps stand a good chance of killing you, and then all that progress is shot. Yes, not the same weight as in RL, but it does make one think twice if one cares at all about one''s character.

Grief players, those who kill not for in-game gain but to derive joy from the loss of others, are a separate issue and should be dealt with separately. I recommend cancelling their account, banning their IP, and mandatory RL community service and anger management counseling. As a developer, I can at least enforce the first two.

quote:
So I think MMORPGs do require some alternative solution, although I am against hard-coded protection.

No, they don''t. You just need to start thinking more about what can and should be changed.

Mr. Ropple,

Your position appears to be something of an old-west style of diplomacy. In other words, one had better watch one''s mouth around the well-armed and highly dangerous. I would imagine the Frontier was a highly polite society, punctuated by brief and violent breaches of protocol. Similarly well-armed and highly polite arrangements existed in the courts of feudal Japan and Europe.

Of course, I would prefer if the flow of politeness was more egalitarian and less unidirectional (that is, from lower to higher only). I think this could be arranged through decreasing power differentials between levels, as described above. Still, the idea of violence enforcing politeness and good behavior has merit.

I do not like your idea of PvP "receipts" as it seems a bit artificial. Perhaps rewards could be granted to those who avenge heedless murders. These rewards could be monetary, or more abstract (return the honor of the family, prevent internecine warfare).

Captain Goatse,

Whatever useful point you may have had was lost in your tide of abuse. You are nothing but a troll.

-STC

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

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

I just want freedom. It''s not fun to make it impossible to attack other players. Maybe some of the newer players won''t enjoy being killed but eventually they''ll grow up. Not to mention that allowing full pvp in an mmorpg allows for MUCH more roleplaying. There''s no sense of danger unless pvp is allowed everywhere. Without it, then the guilds wanting to roleplay "the protector of newbies" can only act it out, without any real fun.

Besides, that with full pvp comes accountability. Players aren''t responsible for their actions unless punishment can be dealt by anyone. There aren''t enough customer service people to run around punishing people 24/7. Even if there were, it wouldn''t be fun at all.

Allowing pvp boosts the fun factor. Taking it away lowers the fun factor.

Go read the discussions forum of Starwars Galaxies. Pretty much every other post is somebody whining about PvP one way or the other. You''ll get every opinion concerning PvP that you can imagine and then some.

My opinion is that I don''t find PvP fun except in highly controlled situations (i.e. both people have to consent). All the hand waving the pro-PvP crowd uses to deal with griefers pretty much is just that - empty hand waving. If your game is the least bit successful you won''t have the CS staff to babysit every single incident and determine who did what and who is lieing through thier teeth.

Go ahead and make your all-PvP all-the-time game. I''ll go play something else where I can focus on having fun within the world the game presents me rather than constantly looking over my shoulder for the l33t d00d who''s going to hit me when I''m down and then go off on some ego put-down trip about how kewl he is and how I suk.

Why do people PK in the first place?

The most obvious reason is that there is a clear reward. Not only do you get experience points for killing the players, but you get all their stuff too.

You could fix this by overhauling the experience points system. If you want hack and slash, then you can just make the experience points risk based - so that killing a character more than a certain number of levels lower than you actually penalizes you for experience. If you only fight weaklings and newbies, you'll never be a master swordsman. Of course, even though you take an experience hit, you still get all their stuff.

Higher level characters can still PK newbies, but they can't afford to make a habit of it. It can still be a worthwhile option if you really need a particular piece of equipment which they are carrying, or if some low level newbie is really pissing you off.

Lower level characters can still pick fight with the big guys, but at the end of the day, there isn't that much point, because they have little or no chance of winning, and there is nothing to stop the higher level character using non-lethal forms of combat.

So most of the PK-ing that takes place will (hopefully) be on a level playing field.


[edited by - Sandman on November 25, 2002 8:40:01 PM]

Here are some thoughts :

Running away/ Escaping battle - Do like the FF series does, and most other console RPGS, and have "Run Away" as a command. The chance of a successful flight to the fighting boundary is based upon your character stats. Modifiers depending on who you are fighting. That way newbies will not pester the Gods because their chance of fleeing is low, and characters about the same level can still have a chance to flee.

PvP - The Danger level idea is kind of like AO. Different areas have a gas level to control Pvp and Environment attacks. Also, since you can not attack people of the same clan, full Pvp is more restricted to outer areas. So in essence, the further you travel out from a city, the more encounter possibilities there are.
Guards and Police should always control fighting of any kind in urban areas. Full force PVP should be allowed only outside. I think SWG is going to have the feature where shops and such will treat you differently depending on your PVP title, which gives some impact to your playing style.

To prevent useless PvP one have to modify the risk/reward ratio..

I'm not a very big fan of the "godlike"-playing system most rpg's supply. "My" rpg (i.e. the one I would like to play) would have no (or very rare) boost of character stats and only increase skill levels. That would mean that even if two characters have a big level-differance, it would mean that the higher-level character would still take a reasonably risk by attacking a lower-level character, thus thinking twice before picking a battle for fun. (A flat "might"-curve would also make the game more socially oriented with more focus on role-playing rather than just hack and slash, be it good or bad.)

And if on top of that one add little, none or an exp penalty for killing too low level characters/mobs and remove looting, the reward for pk-ing would decrease and picking on n00bs for the reward would get pointless..leaving the only reason for PvP-battle roleplaying-reasons or because some cooky ediot needs a good whack.

/* Everything above IMHO */
-Luctus

[edited by - Luctus on November 26, 2002 4:37:19 PM]

Spitting - Sure we could make the maximum power character about twice as powerful as a beginning character. Now I wonder how many players that would attract. Perhaps it could be successful, but remember that there must be a reason that RPGs allowing for massive power are popular. If we take your idea to its natural limit, we need not have different power levels at all - all characters can be equally vulnerable. But would this make for a fun game? I dunno, but to me the problem is to allow for massive character development while also allowing for ants to stand up to gods.

Permanent character death may solve the gambling problem so I''ll withdraw that.

Argus:

Arguing from popularity is not particularly effective in this case. Of course games with large power differentials are popular, seeing as how they''re the only kind available. As far as I know, nobody''s ever tried making a MMORPG with a flat or logarithmic power curve.

"Character development" can occur in so many ways besides increase in combat prowess. A character who starts out with nothing but the clothes on his back and ends up a rich and successful shop owner has definitely developed as a character, even if he''s no better at fighting at the end of his journey than at the beginning. A character who overcomes his fear of the unknown and journeys through foreign lands has definitely developed as a character, even if he has never crossed swords with anyone on his journeys. Even warriors develop in ways besides fighting. A great knight has gained skill with the sword, and better arms and armor. More importantly, he has probably also gained lands, wealth, and the respect and admiration of his peers - peers who will rally to his aid in times of need, or avenge his losses.

I don''t mean to be rude or upbraid you, but a key component to creativity is breaking away from one-dimensional thinking. And we all want to be creative, don''t we?

Sorry Mr. Russell, I''ve deviated quite a bit from your topic. Still, it must be remembered that conflicts between characters occur in the context of a larger game community, and help to shape that community in critical ways. I''m just looking at PvP within that larger context.

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

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

Actually, the FF type zone fighting can help PVP. Going with what Luctus said, it would mean if a upper level character gets ambushed by 20 low level characters, then the uppper level character would not get any exp for killing them all, and a tough fight it may be.

However, if the fighting is zoned (Where you are either in the fight or not), then exp gained by doing Pvp could be determined by what level the other character is and how many there are. For example, killing one guy at a level lower than you yields exp at a significant decrease per level difference. However, killing people at a higher level would increase the exp per level difference. On top of that, there could be an exp modifier based upon the number of your people you have killed during the battle. That way killing one newbie would get you nothing, while defending yourself against 20 would at least get you a little.

Because the fights are zoned, you know when the fight started and stopped.