My 2 cents

[difficult]

After seeing all of the threads, I would like to add my 2 cents:

I believe that dueling must exist and should be consent-based.  Everyone should agree that two people who want to kill each other should be allowed to do so.  And because of this, the dueling question should be left alone.
 
However, I firmly believe that cities should be safe-zones -- they should be designed to promote free and unfettered trade as much as possible.  Allowing any sort of damage to a player within a city will hurt trade and ultimately hinder the success of PS.  The two issues may seem unconnected, but people generally spend more money when they feel safe than when they feel scared.  Hence, cities should be safe.

Where I differ from most people is my belief that outside of a city gate should be a free-for-all.  That is, everyone can hurt everyone.  When people die, whatever they were carrying is also fair game, and the dead players should return empty-handed to a spawn point inside a city.  To prevent intelligent players from losing everything, everyone should have access to a black-box within a city to place items for safe-keeping.  Hence, good players will only carry what they need.  This would also add a level of challenge to the game.

But won?t this idea also hinder trade outside of a city?  I think that?s fair to assume.  But if we place the only supply of valuable raw resources outside of a city, then we have made those resources scarce.  By scarce, I mean that it will cost effort, time, or money (for bodyguards) to get resources.  This may seem absolutely insane, but please remember that we are also looking to build an economy within PS.  Basic economic theory teaches that in order for an economy to function, resources must be scarce (read this if has been a while since econ101).  We can debate the morality of PvP and PKing all we want, but the ultimate issue is creating an economy that will support a society (because societies build around economies, not the other way around).  Basic economics dictates that resources must be scarce, and we need to do more than just have random placement of gems.  We need to make them difficult to acquire.  This would place value on them and the products they buy.  These products will in turn place value on our society, and then we would have a great game.

A second reason (if that one was not enough) for having anarchy outside of a city (which should make intuitive sense because only a city should be civilized) is that the role of guilds and certain professions will have increased importance.  Guilds would have to figure out a way to get resources into the city safely.  Doing so would spur economic growth in very important sectors like mercenaries, body guards, curriers, etc.  Why are these sectors important?  Because they drive demand for weapons, spells, and other quest-oriented skills.  And by allowing the demand for these products to flourish, we would promote the very heart of the game, skills and quests.

If my 2 cents was not clear, I support a safe-zone within a city and anarchy outside of a city.

A Cal State professor has delved into the topic.  See this article to read an informed opinion that supports what I am saying.

[Fextina]

Bad idea.

What if I want to carry my precious ring that gives me +5 Wisdom and one that I worked for a week to get? Just gone when some mobs kill me?

I think There should be designated areas where PvP can take place.

[difficult]

No offense, but it is a realistic idea.

Example:  I work for four months to save up for an iPod.  Walking down the street somebody sees my white earbuds.  He runs up from nowhere and snatches my iPod.

Do I get to respawn?  No, I lost 500 bucks and 1500 mp3\'s.

If I did respawn, then my iPod would mean very little to me (not nothing, just a lot less) because there is no chance of losing it.  Do you worry about every piece of lint to fall off of your clothes?  No, because you know that there will be more.  But since there is a chance of losing my iPod in real life, I value it very much (and so do other people).  This value has turned the iPod into a \"fad\" which adds culture to our world.

I propose that we implement this culture-adding scenario in PS.  It\'s not a bad idea, just a different idea that asks you to think outside of a childish box.

[derwoodly]

Mr. Difficult,

You made a couple of statements that bothers me, and even though I should just to ignore what looks like a troll post, I will respond.

     \"No offense, but it is a realistic idea.\"

Realism has been thrown out as a reason for putting something in the game.  
 
    \"just a different idea that asks you to think outside of a childish box.\"
 
Your idea of a game with winner take all PK has been tryied before, it is hardly an \"out of the box\" idea.  The stab you in the back and take all your stuff goes back to the days of Diabolo One, and further.  It is simply not a new idea.  Even if it worked, it still would not be new.

This idea is not even new to this board.  If you did a search you can find many many threads that talk about a winner take all PvP game.  This is hardcore PvP.  Most do not like it.  It means the top 1% will be doing all the killing. For them it will be fun.  Every day they will get stronger and richer.   For the other 99% they will be very poor pesants.  Unlike the real worl where the pesants have no choice, players do have a choice.  They log off and play an easier game.  This means over time your world population will shrink and the game world will die.  When this happens the Developers will put in safe zones, bounty hunters, Pk tags, exp penalties, loot restrictions, no drop items, character nerfs, unbeatable NPC gaurds, free trails, bing-friend promotions, new colors, double exp bonuses, new furniture for player housing, Easter egg hunts, new stormy weather, and neon blue hair.  Then the game will be truly dead.

[Ineluke]

Wow that was a mouthful.
 I think there should be anarchy outside but that upon returning to the city you will be marked and there will be no safe zone for them anywhere.  Furthermore when you kill a pker you will recieve an exp bonus. The reason people do not just take things in real life is because there are consequences to that. There simply need to be some real consequences to killing a person in the game. We need to model the game after real life as far as that goes...

[difficult]

Originally posted by derwoodly
Realism has been thrown out as a reason for putting something in the game.  

I agree that this gameplay and setting is rooted in fantasy, but the whole reason for playing a game online (which includes PS) is to bend reality into a desirable form.  PS is inherently real and draws upon realism in most of its core.  Only the content/background are fictional, the rest is based on some dichotomy.  This is why you are dead wrong when you say that realism has been \"thrown out\" for a reason of adding things to the game -- why then are they working so hard to create \"realistic\" models?  If realism were truly thrown out, as you seem to believe, then the developers and PS community would be content with stick figures or some other less-real, less-pretty form.

We generally have two camps in this PvP and Pking subforum: those who want to model player interation like the Real world (or as close to it as possible), and those who want to model player interaction using childish rules.  Yes, they are childish, and no, I\'m not trolling.

My whole point is that it\'s the economy stupid.  Let go of all other pre-conceived notions about what this game should be, and start worrying about the in-game economy.  In order to create an enjoyable and vibrant game with realistic user interactions, we need to ensure an economic base exists.  This is my argument for a safe-zone in the cities and anarchy outside of the cities.  I am asking for a system to place value on goods and create a scarcity of resources.  This is simple economic reasoning that cannot be ignored.
 

Originally posted by derwoodly Even if it worked, it still would not be new.

I never said it was new.  I was simply adding my support to it using rational, logical, and very reasonable economic analysis.  Thinking outside of a childish box is an individual process, not a revolutionary idea.

Originally posted by derwoodly This is hardcore PvP.  Most do not like it.  It means the top 1% will be doing all the killing. For them it will be fun.  Every day they will get stronger and richer.   For the other 99% they will be very poor pesants.

You\'re absolutely right about this and about the effects of \"hardcore\" pking.  My solution is compromise, and with improvements like experience points for killing pkers (as has been suggested), this outcome will not happen.  In fact, I envision there being more players because of the extreme competition.  Counter-Strike, although not an mmorpg, has fierce matches with \"4337\" players dominating \"n00bs.\"  But do people stop playing CS because it is hard?  No, instead they attempt to master it and get better.  This is why CS is as popular as it is.  We cannot have a simple, feel-good, everyone-wins game.  There has to be losers in order for there to be winners.  Difficulty is the only way for PS to be successful.

Originally posted by derwoodly
Then the game will be truly dead.

We both can agree that this would be an undesirable outcome.

[Ineluke]

Originally posted by difficult

Originally posted by derwoodly
Realism has been thrown out as a reason for putting something in the game.  

I agree that this gameplay and setting is rooted in fantasy, but the whole reason for playing a game online (which includes PS) is to bend reality into a desirable form.  PS is inherently real and draws upon realism in most of its core.  Only the content/background are fictional, the rest is based on some dichotomy.  This is why you are dead wrong when you say that realism has been \"thrown out\" for a reason of adding things to the game -- why then are they working so hard to create \"realistic\" models?  If realism were truly thrown out, as you seem to believe, then the developers and PS community would be content with stick figures or some other less-real, less-pretty form.

We generally have two camps in this PvP and Pking subforum: those who want to model player interation like the Real world (or as close to it as possible), and those who want to model player interaction using childish rules.  Yes, they are childish, and no, I\'m not trolling.

My whole point is that it\'s the economy stupid.  Let go of all other pre-conceived notions about what this game should be, and start worrying about the in-game economy.  In order to create an enjoyable and vibrant game with realistic user interactions, we need to ensure an economic base exists.  This is my argument for a safe-zone in the cities and anarchy outside of the cities.  I am asking for a system to place value on goods and create a scarcity of resources.  This is simple economic reasoning that cannot be ignored.
 

Originally posted by derwoodly Even if it worked, it still would not be new.

I never said it was new.  I was simply adding my support to it using rational, logical, and very reasonable economic analysis.  Thinking outside of a childish box is an individual process, not a revolutionary idea.

Originally posted by derwoodly This is hardcore PvP.  Most do not like it.  It means the top 1% will be doing all the killing. For them it will be fun.  Every day they will get stronger and richer.   For the other 99% they will be very poor pesants.

You\'re absolutely right about this and about the effects of \"hardcore\" pking.  My solution is compromise, and with improvements like experience points for killing pkers (as has been suggested), this outcome will not happen.  In fact, I envision there being more players because of the extreme competition.  Counter-Strike, although not an mmorpg, has fierce matches with \"4337\" players dominating \"n00bs.\"  But do people stop playing CS because it is hard?  No, instead they attempt to master it and get better.  This is why CS is as popular as it is.  We cannot have a simple, feel-good, everyone-wins game.  There has to be losers in order for there to be winners.  Difficulty is the only way for PS to be successful.

Originally posted by derwoodly
Then the game will be truly dead.

We both can agree that this would be an undesirable outcome.

Bravo that is an impressive and insightful post. I imho you\'ve nailed the problem on the head. Now to see if anything will be done about it.