Okay, perhaps my post wasnt really clear after all Okay, short retry:

My idea is that PK''ing should no longer be considered PK''ing, or evil. Rather, it should be a part of the game.

The "policing" thing I suggested is just one way of doing it. It prevents a newbie from being killed continually by a signle, strong player (or one strong player from killing a lot of newbies), because then the "enemy" "police force" would activly hunt him down. However, players whom activly integrate with their own "society" (or "police force") would then be send out against other, rival "police forces" (without the PK''ing being a real problem, because as a strong "police person" you have to follow certain rules, including not going out on newbie hunts).

The only way to become really strong is by becoming "favourite" with your boss. And you will not become his/her favourite by killing newbies, because your boss did not gain his/her rank by killing newbies either, but because he roleplayed (and thus got the attention of a moderator). Therefor, people will only become strongen when they learn to function in the society they choose. And when they "flunk out", and start killing motsa newbies, one of his/her chiefs will moest likely set him back a few levels, giving the newbies a fair chance

And as for Player-vs-Player combat: that would no longer happen in a single city, but rather between several groups/kingdowms, and mroe organised... The moderators could decide to go to war with each other, and could give "quests" to their lieuteanants (capture this small country), whom give quests to the people whom are trying to kiss-up on them (go take this city), whom give quests to the people under them (try to take out that small enemy force) whom give quests to their followers (okay, you and your group of 2 fighters and a mage have to sneak into that area and open the gate. Your reward will be x gold pieces) etc. etc.

And when you want to become a thief or spy... Most likely, every group would have a few high-up people dedicated to the more sneaky arts... "Sign-up" with them, head towards an "enemy" city, and become a "good thief". When you prove to be a good one (managing to get your marks), you can get promotions (even though not iving according to the rules of the society you are actually in)...

Errr... Does this make a little more sense? What I am trying to create, is a way to build an on-line society...

-Maarten Leeuwrik
"Some people when faced with the end of a journey simply decide to begin anew I guess."

DavidRM and everyone else,

You''re right. It''s not possible to accomodate people who fit into a normal economic model - people who craft items and avoid combat - and also support a large group of "adventurers" - people who hit monsters until candy comes out. If fighting monsters is relatively safe, not that difficult, stunningly rewarding, and the only way to improve yourself, then of course everyone is going to go that route.

Let''s say (because it''s true)I want to build a game that does include some level of adventure. I will include a fair sized population of dangerous creatures. I will allow PK, banditry, bounty hunting, and strife. But my focus is on bringing in the people who dislike "normal" RPGs and would prefer more of an online community/interesting world to explore. Here''s how I would do it. Note this is not meant to be the ultimate solution but rather some theories I''ve concocted which you should feel free to criticize.

1. Make Monsters Smarter. Monsters shouldn''t like being outnumbered and outgunned, and shouldn''t attack under these circumstances. One rat is not going to jump you for no good reason. However, if a monster feels that it and its allies can beat you, they will attack without warning or mercy. One thousand rats will swarm forward in an attempt to gnaw your bones... This makes hunting critters difficult and challenging, and also a necessity (those rats will become a real problem for everyone if someone doesn''t keep the population down).

2. No HP Discrepancy. Just because you''re a trained fighter doesn''t mean you can take more punishment than a fairly burly farmer. HP should not increase without limit - this is inherently unbalancing.

3. Bounties. You kill, and someone sees you; you get a bounty on your head. For every PKer looking to make their fortune as a highwayman, there''s one looking to make their fortune bringing that highwayman to justice. People killed by murderers respawn for free; people killed for bounty are thrown in gaol and must stew there for some time depending on the heinousness of their crimes. This means that you can PK, but you''ll be caught eventually unless you''re smart, and must accept the real consequences: no play while character in gaol.

4. Other Stuff To Do. If fighting is the only interesting thing, that''s what people will do. Make sure that the game is still involving and exciting even if you''re a baker. Include politics, an interesting craft and merchant system, and fun places to go that aren''t dangerous: local tavern, concert hall, arcade, bowling alley (depending on setting of course).

More suggestions of this nature are at my web page (link in sig) but I''ll leave off here as I''m pressed for time. Please go ahead and tell me why this won''t work... because if you don''t tell me why not, I think it will.

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

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

quote: Original post by SpittingTrashcan
1. Make Monsters Smarter. Monsters shouldn''t like being outnumbered and outgunned, and shouldn''t attack under these circumstances.

God, yes! So many companies are going for the glamorous route of making the games look cooler. I want them to think better. I would be happy with UO''s isometric view if you could just give the monsters brains and tactics, etc.!

quote: 2. No HP Discrepancy. Just because you''re a trained fighter doesn''t mean you can take more punishment than a fairly burly farmer. HP should not increase without limit - this is inherently unbalancing.

I concur. As you increase in skill, the balance already shifts in your favor. Doing it on the HP scale as well only makes that shift more pronounced. It would also slow people down and make them think a bit more about attacking monsters or other players. There is not as much of a buffer to work with.

quote: 3. Bounties. You kill, and someone sees you; you get a bounty on your head.

UO did this in numerous ways... it is a good idea if it is implemented properly. In UO it was not. It was ineffectual and open to exploitation.

quote: 4. Other Stuff To Do. If fighting is the only interesting thing, that''s what people will do. Make sure that the game is still involving and exciting even if you''re a baker. Include politics, an interesting craft and merchant system, and fun places to go that aren''t dangerous: local tavern, concert hall, arcade, bowling alley (depending on setting of course).

The problem with crafts and trades is that people aren''t playing the games to do that. I agree that there is more room for social expansion... but this needs to be done very well in order for it to work.

Good ideas so far.

Dave Mark
Intrinsic Algorithm Development

quote: Original post by InnocuousFox
So many companies are going for the glamorous route of making the games look cooler. I want them to think better. I would be happy with UO's isometric view if you could just give the monsters brains and tactics, etc.!

Hmm. Would you be happy with graphics similar to Final Fantasy 6? (But at a higher resolution, with day/night effects, etc.) This is what I might be aiming at in the near future.

quote: As you increase in skill, the balance already shifts in your favor. Doing it on the HP scale as well only makes that shift more pronounced.

Hmm. My game has this as well. Neat

quote: The problem with crafts and trades is that people aren't playing the games to do that. I agree that there is more room for social expansion... but this needs to be done very well in order for it to work.

I worry about people who try and make games to suit everybody. Of course, this is so they can draw more revenue, but it means that you get a lot more conflict, and a lot more disillusioned players. Perhaps trying to do a 'narrow' game well is better than trying to be everything to everyone and failing. You don't hear people complaining about the rampant pkilling in Quake, after all.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost ]

Edited by - Kylotan on January 23, 2002 3:56:57 PM

quote: Original post by Kylotan
Hmm. Would you be happy with graphics similar to Final Fantasy 6? (But at a higher resolution, with day/night effects, etc.) This is what I might be aiming at in the near future.

I am not familiar with the series. Flame away, people.

quote: You don''t hear people complaining about the rampant pkilling in Quake, after all.

That gave me quite a chuckle

Dave Mark
Intrinsic Algorithm Development

...I still miss Paintball NET

There are a couple issues with MMO games that need to be considered for each game made...

Developers need to make one assumption ALWAYS, and if you don''t believe this, I am quite positive you will be screwed... Players are inherently predisposed towards abuse, violence, taking advantage of others, and taking advantage of the game. This may be a very negative view to have, but trust your players to police the game and give them the powers to do so, and you will quickly have yourself a very corrupt community. Power does corrupt, and even the best of players will be tempted to use their powers for less then appropriate purposes. Yes, there are plenty of decent people out there, but the bottom line is, with the anonymity of online gaming, these people are definitely outnumbered. Implementing a system that gives players to police their own community without allowing that system to become corrupted would be a very difficult thing to do. The bottom line is, there are people that will try their hardest to abuse any game system that is provided for them. Many of these people are very intelligent, very sadistic, and very clever. They WILL think of a good many things you have not. The developer is a team of a handful of people working against a community of hundreds or thousands. It would definitely be an interesting experience though.

The goal that needs to be strived for at all times is to give each player the experience they want without causing an excessive amount of inconvenience to the players that want something a little or a lot different. If you can give PKers the experience they crave without making it an inconvenience to their victims, and give the PvE players the experience they crave without hurting the PK players, you''ve got yourself a winner. Can that be done? Some may say no, but I wouldn''t rule out any possibility. It''s those that take on the challenges that bring about the best changes to our lives.

We all need to keep in mind that MMO games in their current mass market form are still fairly new games. Many companies are simply rushing to get their own feet into the market right now. Some of them are trying to add their own unique twist, but they are all rushing right now, and the result is a series of mediocre products that had more potential then was realized. Once this initial wave is over and players start demanding more then what''s currently being offered, the time will be spent by the developers to offer up more then the current hack ''n slash. Just about every genre goes through this cycle. The first few waves of First Person shooters were more action, better graphics, no new gameplay. Eventually we got our Half Life, our Deus Ex, our Max Payne, but it took time. With time we will have our Half life, Deus Ex, and Max Payne of MMO games.

In the end though, all these companies are businesses, and regardless what people will tell you, Business is about one thing, and one thing alone, the bottom line. Whatever it takes to get that profit will be done, no more, no less. When the time comes that it takes more then what we have now to get there, these guys will respond. Sometimes they are motivated by the competition between each other. Other times they are motivated by the gamers voting with their presence, or lack of. That''s the nature of the industry though. Innovation WILL come, that''s almost as sure as death itself. The only question is, will death come first?

jRaskell,

I agree that one must always consider the players as the enemy when developing MMORPGs. It''s what I and my friends refer to as the Old Man Murray test, after what that illustrious group perpetrated on Asheron''s Call... in a nutshell, they managed to determine in very little time indeed that it was possible to make that game a less pleasant place for everyone without ever PKing anyone.

I do have what I think might be a potential solution... but it does rely somewhat on the players as a group being composed slightly more of decent people than of utter dorks. It''s called the "bless/curse" system, and it shares characteristics with the moderation system on the Slashdot forums and with the seller rating system on Ebay.

The full description is on my site (link in sig) but to give a succinct synopsis, players will be randomly granted the ability to bless kind players and curse jerky ones. Enough curses gets you hurled from the server for a time. Blessings cancel curses, and enough blessings or curses will make your avatar''s appearance change, thus informing others that you''re a kind player or jerk.

I''d like comments and criticism on this idea, as I suspect it will be fundamentally unavoidable to institute some form of self-policing in a sufficiently large game: there simply won''t be enough staff to keep a watch on everyone. Note also that this is entirely separate from discouraging PK: that I would do with bounties and gaol time.

And I do agree that MMORPG is in its infancy. It''s time to construct a new paradigm for gaming to fit this new type of game.

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

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

The solution that I was thinking of (for PKing) is to simply have a feature to tell legal PvP from PKing. Then, if the PKing number gets too big for an account mark any players in that account with a bounty. The more notorious, the better the bounty will be. This allows the PK problem to be taken care of in-game and maybe even with a bit of role-playing.

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster
The solution that I was thinking of (for PKing) is to simply have a feature to tell legal PvP from PKing.

But that''s half the problem anyway: determining what is legal and what is not. If you have simple and clear rules for this, then why go to the trouble of an elaborate bounty system? Just whisk the killer off to some purgatory plane for a while as punishment



[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost ]