If you read Paxx\'s post about open PvP in Planeshift, you should understand the problems with having GM\'s as Judges. GM\'s are not perfect, the chances of everyone liking the GM\'s decission is slim to none.
That is why I suggested to have two honorary assessors as well. The two assessors should be selected by random by the game. It is quite easy to count all players, give them numbers and select two by random. Beeing selected, the two Players should be able to choose, whether they want to be assessors or not. Then the two players should appear at a defined place within a reasonable time. If one does not, the trial has to be suspended.
The effect is: having three different persons who choose whether the accused is guilty or not, it is not only a GM`s job. My proposal to let the judge choose the level of the punishment could be modified: If the accused is found guilty, the three could choose a level of punishment by themselves. I imagine a range from 0 (not guilty) to 100 (lifelong punishment). The three choose a number out of it and the game will calculate the average. The crimecounter of the culprit is set to the resulting number and the game chooses based on the crimecounter the following punishment.
Having skills decrease over time discourages the casual game player. For many players PS may not be there main MMORPG that they play. having time based skills will heavly favor the dreded power gamer.
You are right. When a person can see dropping his skillpoints, it would be very disencouraging. But what about a very slow decrease, which you realise only in days or weeks periods? And to eleminate the demotivation, the game could visibly remember the highest skilllevels achieved. Not enough, these maximum skilllevels can be reached easily by practising the skills again. So the lowering of the skills is only to see as a notifier for the player which skills he doesnt use. That would be more realistic (as you forget over time) , but also encourages players to specialize in specific areas of skills. That would also prevent unrealistic combinations of skills which I have seen in many other games.
I don\'t like the idea of have PvP take the place of good monster AI. Both NPC\'s and monsters should have the best possible intelegence you can give them.
I vote also for the best possible intelligence for the AI. But I think that guarding could be a good job-opportunity for players. It is not recommended to substitute the AI, but wouldnt it be cool to fight with cityguards together against a pack of bandits?
We would only need a board at a central place where you can go and see what jobs are open. You get money each time you catch (kill) someone the AI has marked. Cityguards only get money when they do the job inside the given city while headhunters could make their job also in the wilderness.
For instance if you one shot kill someone, do the guards attack or not?
I would say, it depends on the fact if the victim has seen the attack or not. If not, the aggressor is not marked, so the AI wont attack. If yes, the contrary is the case.
If your defense is ultra high can the guards even hit you?
The guards should adept on the level whom they are attacking. That would be a fair compromise between having fun (the chance to escape) and justice.
That should answer the question about the defense.
Do you gain exp if a guard kills you?
Why should you gain xp when you get killed? The contrary should more be the case...
Can another player attack you while the guards are attacking you?
What would the police do, if you would take out a weapon in order to kill a person which got caught by them? You would be attacked also.
I would propose that all cityguards form one local group. So NPC and PC would attack together, but only in order to \"catch\" the aggressor. Never interfere with the law... (may it only in order to help :rolleyes: )
Bye,
amogorkon
