quote: Original post by SpittingTrashcan


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.

This kind of system can lead to vote selling or voting circles if it''s not policed. You can limit people''s ability to repeatedly bless or curse the same player, but how do you keep players from swapping cash or equipment for blessings?

I used to be an avid MMORPG player but lately I got tired of them. Just tired of the same model, same game, same play style.

I think there is a barrier for players to break in terms of perception. If someone can play 30 hours a day, then he or she deserves more power through xp and gaming.

Other than that, I think the issue is in game design. No one has come up with an effective means to incorporate the actions of a "grief player". If they violate the rules of the games with questionable tactics, then they need to be fixed through patching. If, however, they''re griefing through the game mechanics (waylaying newbies out hunting) then it has to become part of the game.

Right now games don''t incorporate player manipulated paths of devleopment. Meaning, the game doesn''t go anywhere based on what a player does. Sure, DAoC has some keeps that can be taken, but beyond some bonuses what does it change?

Until a game is developed that properly accounts for "grief players" and puts their actions in the game, then it''ll be an issue to turn away some players.

What I do see, however, is a lot of players who like to be on a MMORPG, but still expect the game to play like a single player where they are the focus of the game. That''s a tough issue to break. Not everyone can be the best fighter, the best mage, or the prime hero. That''s the problem with most games now.

MMORPGs need to incorporate dynamic, driven content. If a group of PKs start killing "noobs" outside of the player start town, then more guards need to move towards that location to guard them. Or perhaps the game needs to declare the area "a no man''s land" and alter the player start area.

Also, killing a "noob" should result in almost no prestige or gain beyond "sick satisfaction" (which can be good RP). But PKing a powerful warrior should increase one''s status.

I think once someone develops a paradigm to incorporate PKs and other grief actions into the game instead of working around their actoins, then it might actually generate a catalyst for the game. If someone PKs then they become an evil force. Perhaps each PK action gives them prestige to raise evil army forces. THey can then direct these to attack, etc.

Then you just encourage the good players to rise to meet the evil challenge, etc.

However, if your players are complaining about the PvP atmosphere, then you need to re-market the game =)

EQ was always a no-PK game. So griefing on that system is a problem. People went there to avoid PKs and grief (from UO). Neither were permitted in the regular game context (hence the need for special servers with updated code base to allow for PvP action).

I thought ShadowBane had promise in this area, but the game seems to have fallen into vaporware status (correct me if I''m wrong). I thought DAoC would be more interesting, but it''s really not. Anarchy Online had promise, but I feel it was mostly smoke. They had their GM driven events, but again, they weren''t player driven, just player participated.

Once someone designs that game to incorporate players as the main characters to drive the world''s conflict and plot, then you''ll have the answer to PvP and Grief. Also, eventually someone will have to take the risk of saying, "This game will not be for everyone."

R.

quote: Original post by Rube
I used to be an avid MMORPG player but lately I got tired of them. Just tired of the same model, same game, same play style.

I think there is a barrier for players to break in terms of perception. If someone can play 30 hours a day, then he or she deserves more power through xp and gaming.

If someone can play 30 hours a day, he deserves a nobel prize for inventing the time machine.

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster

This kind of system can lead to vote selling or voting circles if it''s not policed. You can limit people''s ability to repeatedly bless or curse the same player, but how do you keep players from swapping cash or equipment for blessings?

I don''t care if people buy or sell their vote. The point isn''t to make people into angels, it''s to prevent them from being jerks overall. If someone gives you stuff, you have every right to bless them... of course, they can''t really force you. The idea is that if you''re a jerk to ten people, being nice to the eleventh won''t make up for it. The ten people have no reason not to curse you... and while of the ten, one will most likely have the ability to curse this session, you can''t count on the eleventh having the ability to bless.

Blessings and curses, as explained in more detail on my page (which you really ought to visit, it''s full of good stuff), only become available during random sessions and are only available for the duration of the session. They''re not things to be stored up, but to be used on the spur of the moment... and unless someone tells you so, you can''t tell who has bless/curse points to spend. And of course, they could be lying. So making an effort to "buy" a blessing would most likely be fruitless; but if it does work, its effect on the overall system will still be minimal.

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster

...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.

This idea is a slight modification of one I''ve been pushing (again, see my page or previous threads). I don''t think anyone should be invulnerable simply because they don''t want to be killed. On the other hand, people shouldn''t be severely penalized for being PKed; they should respawn, and only their carried cash should be stealable (to avoid valuable item loss). Furthermore, PKing is murder. It can be witnessed, it can be reported, and bounties can be set. Murderers should have to be subtle and hide from the public eye, just as in real life. Of course this is just one possible solution... but I like it.

quote: Original post by Rube

I think there is a barrier for players to break in terms of perception. If someone can play 30 hours a day, then he or she deserves more power through xp and gaming.

Pardon my french, but the Hell they should! If people only play your game to get powerful enough to get to the point where the game is enjoyable and interesting instead of frustrating and repetitive, then it''s a game you won''t catch me playing. Godlike characters interacting with newbies cause the vast majority of the problems in MMORPGs, especially since the socioeconomics of the games are modeled on real life systems, which rely on the non-existence of Superman. Do you know anybody a thousand times as strong as you?

The barrier to break is in the opposite direction, as you yourself go on to say:

quote:

What I do see, however, is a lot of players who like to be on a MMORPG, but still expect the game to play like a single player where they are the focus of the game. That''s a tough issue to break. Not everyone can be the best fighter, the best mage, or the prime hero. That''s the problem with most games now.

In the single player model, where the player is the most important person in the game, it''s only fair for him to attain incredible powers. In a multiplayer model, everyone should be equally important, and thus have equivalent (but not necessarily identical) power. This is the barrier to break: the experience and advancement paradigm of the single player game, which DOES NOT WORK in a multiplayer game!

... Sorry, I lost my cool. I''ve been hammering on this point for a while, but I suppose the only sure way to make my point is to get off my butt and make the game. Which I will do, just as soon as I get around to it.

All opinions expressed are opinions, and all losses of cool were unintentional.

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

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

Not that anyone cares, but...

I STILL MISS PAINTBALL NET!!

What was paintball net? Tell us please!

quote: the experience and advancement paradigm of the single player game, which DOES NOT WORK in a multiplayer game!

Well it depends mostly of the players.
Power Players will not enjoy a game where everyone is "equal".
In the other hand, some players just don't care about their weaknesses at PvP.

Edited by - Khelz on February 5, 2002 11:11:00 AM

I have been watching the comments on this thread and would like to thank everyone for their insight. I think my original question has been answered adequately, even though our game was going to happen regardless of the outcome of this thread. If you take a look at Raph Koster''s "Rules of Massively Multiplayer World Design", you will see on slide 14 a graphic depicting the triangle of design where simulation, community, and gameplay all interact. What we are attempting to do is break the law of 250 people subcommunities on his "Laws" page.

My question centered around giving more social meaning to an online world(ie community) while trying to keep the gameplay strong and fun. Once you begin to give more community to your game you have to give them a reason to stay in your game. Communities are portable and therefore are out-of-game concepts. This leads us to a much more involved simulation that tries to better mimic the realities of social lives in the real world because only people know best how to deal with other people. We think this is something that can never be coded adequately to make all people involved happy. Witness, EQ and their "Vision" and the flak they received for promoting it to unwanting players.

The problem with this stems from the non-hero/central focus theme that this thread has evolved into in some parts, as well as the higher expectations law that Raph''s "Laws" page identifies. (His Hula-Hoop example) If everytime, I sell something I EXPECT to make a profit, then an economy in an online world will NEVER work. If I have to be the central focus of the game, then the developers will be hard pressed to keep up with my content usage rate and the game will not work. Are users ready to accept these realities and abandon their single-player mindsets for something that might be a greater reality? Are players ready and willing to accept the responsibilities that must exist for a truly NEXT generation online community game? I think so, though I do think it will take an exceptional game to draw that many people out from the "murder-based" experience games of today. I guess only time will tell. Thanks again for your input. It is greatly appreciated.

Derek Licciardi
Elysian Productions Inc.
www.AgesOfAthiria.com