PlaneShift
Gameplay => Wish list => PvP,PK and Thieving => Topic started by: Mummas on February 15, 2005, 05:53:00 pm
-
You need pking in a game. A RPG without pking is just not fun. I mean, think about it, walking through a forest where the creatures are high level and all you have to worry about are the creatures itself.
Now imagine that, the fact you see players all the time doesnt worry you as you know if they want to hurt you they can\'t, so basically all you do is ignore them or join forces with them fighting monsters.
Now if you were going through this forest with the fact that players could do anything to you, wouldnt that make the game more exciting? If you see a guy summon something or cast a spell on you you start getting a rush and quickly have to decide whether you run or fight.
And for newbs you dont want them trying to level and everytime getting screwed over by high level players who get amusement out of killing all the low lvl players as soon as they come into sight. Thats why you would have a section where you could not pk other players, an area where newbs could train without worry about getting attacked. And once they conquer that area they can move out more into the higher lvl areas and most likely team up with other players but also experiencing the players who like to pk.
I think the system World of Warcraft uses is awesome.
-
Another thing that is \"essential\" and \"awesome\" is the search button
-
locky locky this posty
-
pk and thieving are the most important things for a thief, an assassin, a spy (this happens in the real world so it need to happen in planeshift)
And for newbs a neutral area like Mummas said.
this is !!!!ESSENTIAL!!!!
-
Yes the idea of not giving a lippy git a slap fills me with distaste, seriously, its a cool idea. in a game im a long turn member of we had a secret dueling field, where we battled over honour or money . we fought to \'yield\'. it was rearly fun
-
forced pk\'ing causes nothing but grief and troubles
it can be to easily abused, once a few players reach a higher level, they can control a server with abuse, and thats not something anyone wants in a agme but trouble makers
pk\'ing can be fun and part of a game, if implemented right and still allowing those who donot want to risk this type of gameplay the ability to not take part
-
the arena should allow you to attack any player inside or something, so then someone who wants to pk just just go there, and then that would add to a more exiting PvP environment
-
I agree, PK should not be forced on players. this can be very frustrating for those new players who can barely wield a sword. Takes me back to a MUD(text rpg) I used to play, went something like this:
*An Orc* has arrived from the East.
*An Orc* hits your head.
*An Orc* kills you.
You are dead.
I do not want to see this type of gameplay in PlaneShift, it brings nothing but competitive behaviour and so-called \"leetness\" among the power players.
-
What\'s wrong with a little competition?
-
apparently, killing computer controlled opponents is about all the challenge anyone here is interested in.
shame really.
-
Hmm, if everyone is so scared of getting \"owned\" and \"pwned\".. then why not make it so that the first few levels theres an area you can train at that you cant get killed. After that, you can make it so you can only kill people close to your lvl to make it fair and challenging. Not so its just fun to pick on the lower lvls or to keep a killing spot all to yourself.
-
ummm... i would have to strongly disagree. pking, yes itis fun but noits not essential. if you just want to pk then you might as well play an action game rather than an rpg....
-
Originally posted by dying_inside
ummm... i would have to strongly disagree. pking, yes itis fun but noits not essential. if you just want to pk then you might as well play an action game rather than an rpg....
Perhaps you\'re right, if the \"role\" that you are playing is that of a person living in a world that defies the laws of nature (not physics; that is another thing entirely, and obviously, this is fantasy). How can one be an assassin if the best one can accomplish is to walk about asking targets \"Will you let me try to kill you?\" It is, quite simply, laughable. Currently, there is no dauntingly powerful town guard to apprehend criminals who are caught, so obviously this may pose something of a problem, and more obviously, players would whine to no end if they could be killed by a player they had not decided to duel, and could do nothing about it. To say that PKing is not a valid part of an RPG, however, is as devoid of common sense as saying the same of powerleveling. The essence is in the roleplaying, and so long as that requirement is met, everything else becomes not only acceptable, but appropriate, indeed an \"essential\" part of the game world, as those roles do indeed naturally exist, whether discouraged, tolerated, or encouraged.
I would actually be rather put out if I never needed to deal with an unsought attack or other unexpcted danger or situation, and it became clear that it was never intended that I would. What role is so sheltered that one does and has done to them only exactly what they choose, and who would honestly enjoy playing such a role? To be blunt, that would be pathetically boring, and I would be inclined to spend a large ammount of my time in Yliakum using it as a chat room, as I do now (and also as a testing grounds for the project, and it is currently exactly that). That is the current situation, but hardly a goal worthy of Talad\'s vision.
The game as it is, as has been stated many a time, is still in the very early stages of developement, and many things one might expect of a finished game are nowhere to be seen, and most of these are rather distant prospects. There is no organized society in Planeshift, no vast cities, no living politics, no wars and treaties, no NPC-run guilds with their own agendas, no schools, no houses, no live and shifting economy, no black market, no thieves, no assassins, no law enforcement, no laws...in short, none of the thrilling sense of a real, other world that is implied by the goals set for Planeshift as it has been described. It is a tech demo, and cannot yet support such things; but to say that they should never be included is...*shakes her head* I haven\'t the word for it. Depressingly cynical and bland, perhaps.
-
First and foremost, an online game is entertainment. Just as I stated in the thread \"Earning the Right to PvP\", this puts it in a different category than a single person game. You can go to a movie, read a book in a library, got to a sports event-whatever-but in none of those entertainment venues do you ever have the right to interfere with someone elses enjoyment. If you do, you will get your rights curtailed.
YOU might enjoy it but it certainly isn\'t neccessary. I\'d like to see quests, AI and game mechanics so \"organic\" and branched that they create a level of RP-ability as yet unacheived by any game. But clearly none of that is essential to market an MMORPG either.
\"Historical\" is a two-edged and unacheivable goal for an MMORPG however, even in Medieval times, the percentage of \"succesful\" murderers or thieves (free lance ones I mean, not offically sanctioned ones) was extremely low. Most vile and evil things were not done by individuals but by institutions who coveted and protected that \"privelege\".
So, when I hear people say they MUST have non-consentual PvP, I wonder why they never ask for robust and relentless law-enforcement authorities as well. That would be historically and RP accurate. I\'ve never heard an open PVP advocate ever asks for prison, trials, endentured servitude, amputation or execution for \"law breakers\". I also never see anyone asking for random, hugely high level monsters, which was a part of PnP RP, and is just as \"valid\" as non-consentual PvP in creating \"realism\".
Yes, there were some long-lived theives or murders. They usually spent long stretches in prison, in the stocks or in exile. Dueling is another matter, one of honor not impetuousness, conducted under strict rules. That\'s why there is an arena.
The only justification for non-consentual PvP I can accept, is outlined in \"Earning the Right to PvP\". I wouldn\'t mind being killed by someone so committed that they earned the privelege in a manner such as I outlined. It would be extremely refreshing and useful, particulary for a game that has 99.99% ruled it out already, if the next time anyone posted about the \"essential-ness\" of non-consentual PvP that they also outlined the risks and punishments they would be willing to accept to have it.
Otherwise, just start politicing for a PvP server because I think that\'s the only way you will possibly get what you want out of PS.
Edit:
I do see a few threads have been resurrected where some sort of consequences for PvP are discussed. I\'ll give um a read.
-
Originally posted by Ivniciix
First and foremost, an online game is entertainment. Just as I stated in the thread \"Earning the Right to PvP\", this puts it in a different category than a single person game. You can go to a movie, read a book in a library, got to a sports event-whatever-but in none of those entertainment venues do you ever have the right to interfere with someone elses enjoyment. If you do, you will get your rights curtailed.
First and foremost, a single-player game is entertainment. A \"massively multiplayer online role playing game\" is roleplaying with massive numbers of other players, and that is the entertainment. If one does not find that entertaining, one can simply play an ordinary RPG. The the idea that the structure of the game should eliminate perfectly reasonable possibilities to protect players\' right to use a public server without roleplaying with other players is childish, naive, and entirely unreasonable. If my character became a victim because the system allowed for it (provided that the game was more complete, and the progression system more well-refined to set realistic limits, which I find to be a higher priority than advancing the game environment), I would not consider myself a victim, and would not give grief for it.
YOU might enjoy it but it certainly isn\'t neccessary. I\'d like to see quests, AI and game mechanics so \"organic\" and branched that they create a level of RP-ability as yet unacheived by any game. But clearly none of that is essential to market an MMORPG either.
It may not be \"necessary,\" in the literal sense, but it is certainly essential (food for thought: that comes from \"essence,\" and does not mean what most people seem to take it to mean, i.e. \"necessary\"). What you cite here is also essential to the concept, and I heartily approve. In response, however, I will say that \"what it takes to market\" a product is rarely what is best for the product or the consumer.
\"Historical\" is a two-edged and unacheivable goal for an MMORPG however, even in Medieval times, the percentage of \"succesful\" murderers or thieves (free lance ones I mean, not offically sanctioned ones) was extremely low. Most vile and evil things were not done by individuals but by institutions who coveted and protected that \"privelege\".
Granted, though this is hardly because the practitioners were somehow protected by the institutions of which they were a part. No, they were professionals, and simply did not get caught. There were plenty of mysterious deaths that most likely were unsolved murders. If one is not so skilled, however, one is unlikely to last long, due to the likelihood of being killed on sight by not only the town guard, but the more zealous townspeople. If getting caught means death and confiscation of all possessions, it is unlikely to become a widespread problem within the game. Only the most deadly and feared of the known criminals would survive for long, and they are unlikely to be bothered with going on a random and unprovoked killing spree. Considering that silencing ones victims would be impossible, there would be no unknown criminals. Here, I\'m afraid, dead men do tell tales (when they return from the Death Realm, that is).
So, when I hear people say they MUST have non-consentual PvP, I wonder why they never ask for robust and relentless law-enforcement authorities as well. ...I also never see anyone asking for random, hugely high level monsters, which was a part of PnP RP, and is just as \"valid\" as non-consentual PvP in creating \"realism\".
Read my post. I just did.
Yes, there were some long-lived theives or murders. They usually spent long stretches in prison, in the stocks or in exile. Dueling is another matter, one of honor not impetuousness, conducted under strict rules. That\'s why there is an arena.
That is RP-centric, and belongs in breakable in-game laws with consequences for breaking them, not in the structure of the game itself.
The only justification for non-consentual PvP I can accept, is outlined in \"Earning the Right to PvP\". I wouldn\'t mind being killed by someone so committed that they earned the privelege in a manner such as I outlined. It would be extremely refreshing and useful, particulary for a game that has 99.99% ruled it out already, if the next time anyone posted about the \"essential-ness\" of non-consentual PvP that they also outlined the risks and punishments they would be willing to accept to have it.
This is the only sort that would survive for long, if what I propose were to be implimented. However, making it otherwise literally impossible is ridiculous.
Otherwise, just start politicing for a PvP server because I think that\'s the only way you will possibly get what you want out of PS.
Who is this aimed at? Certainly not me, as I mostly agree with you, some slight deviations notwithstanding. Other posters here? *shrugs*
-
quote:
The the idea that the structure of the game should eliminate perfectly reasonable possibilities to protect players\' right to use a public server without roleplaying with other players is childish, naive, and entirely unreasonable.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is it unreasonable, when there are dozens of other games designed and/or broadly allowing non-consentual PvP, for some one to want to make a game without it? As for childish, that does in fact describe most people I\'ve met on open PvP servers in other games. Naive is thinking that anything other than a system that deals harshly, unremitingly and consistently with open PvP will be anything other than a gank-fest. To do so-treat PvP as possible but extremely hard to do without dire and immediate negative consequences-IS realistic.
quote:
Read my post. I just did.
------------------------------
Umm...barely I\'d say and certainly without any contribution to actually fleshing out the details of those consequences. If non-consentual PvP is ever to be part of PS, I think that\'s the direction any conversation about it needs to go in.
quote:
Who is this aimed at? Certainly not me, as I mostly agree with you, some slight deviations notwithstanding. Other posters here? *shrugs*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yes...mostly at other posters.
As for describing a system that \"otherwise makes (non-consentual PvP) literally impossible, try to think of it (Earning the Right to PvP posts) as a detailed \"bargaining\" position subject to \"negotiation\" as equally detailed counter proposals are made. It\'s \"Why?\" on steroids with a big dose of \"How\" thrown in! :)
-
Originally posted by Ivniciix
quote:
The the idea that the structure of the game should eliminate perfectly reasonable possibilities to protect players\' right to use a public server without roleplaying with other players is childish, naive, and entirely unreasonable.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is it unreasonable, when there are dozens of other games designed and/or broadly allowing non-consentual PvP, for some one to want to make a game without it?
I believe it is unreasonable to exclude it from a game because it is a fact of life (although one that most societies do their best to make as rare as possible) and is vital to a more believable game world.As for childish, that does in fact describe most people I\'ve met on open PvP servers in other games.
Yes, but is expecting to use a public server as if it were private not childish, or, at the very least, foolish? Naive is thinking that anything other than a system that deals harshly, unremitingly and consistently with open PvP will be anything other than a gank-fest. To do so - treat PvP as possible but extremely hard to do without dire and immediate negative consequences - IS realistic.
\"Gank-fest,\" as you put it, is an apt description, which is why I suggested what I did. That is, not a system built into the game itself, but into the game world, and possible to circumvent or simply ignore if you are skilled or strong enough (which should be incredibly difficult to achieve). I should add that even the most skilled and strongest would not last long with the whole of several cities on their trail.
quote:
Read my post. I just did.
------------------------------
Umm...barely I\'d say and certainly without any contribution to actually fleshing out the details of those consequences. If non-consentual PvP is ever to be part of PS, I think that\'s the direction any conversation about it needs to go in.
\"Barely,\" yes. I was not aiming for a doctoral thesis, but merely offering the bare bones of what such a system would entail. To say that I offered no contribution to actually fleshing out the details of those consequences is wholly inaccurate. Did I not say that, ideally, guards would seek the death of a PKer and confiscate their possessions? Simplistic, yes, but solid on a basic level.
As for describing a system that \"otherwise makes (non-consentual PvP) literally impossible, try to think of it (Earning the Right to PvP posts) as a detailed \"bargaining\" position subject to \"negotiation\" as equally detailed counter proposals are made. It\'s \"Why?\" on steroids with a big dose of \"How\" thrown in! :)
I heartily disagree with the concept of earning the \"right\" to PvP. The system suggested there, again, makes it literally impossible to do any PvP at all until that point (not theoretically impossible, because of Town Guard interferance). Ideally, the Guard would make it anything but feasible, but it would be possible. If you are concerned about PKing on roads, consider that, as the Planeshift community grows, it will become increasingly unlikely to find oneself alone with another PC on a main road (and a PKer would thereafter find it difficult to come near a city where (s)he had been reported and escape with his/her life). As for killing in secluded areas, that did happen, and was successful often enough; furthermore, truely evil characters, not simply those that are the projections of childish players, and therefore the only ones who might put so much thought and effort into it, are as rare as such people actually are/were. As you said, only the best, often members of some sort of organization or secret society, would last for long; but in this case, it would happen naturally, based on the structure of society within the game world, and players would not have the jarring realization that things that should technically be \"possible\" are, in fact, not possible in any way. I have played evil characters in games such as Baldur\'s Gate, and while I did do some thievery and some murder in that context, I did not do it openly, nor indiscriminately, because I was afraid of finding myself hunted and slain by Enforcers. That is what I am looking for, here, not a world of total anarchy where the weakest and newest players cannot possibly survive, which would be the case if open PvP were implimented now; the game is not ready for it. But it should happen, eventually.
-
So let\'s explore some \"real\" attributes of a life of thieving and/or murder that might carry over into a game world.
Even though this thread isn\'t specifically about thieving, I think it\'s fair to lump non-consentual theft with non-consentual PvP, at least for the sake of discussion.
Although not set in Medieval times, Dicken\'s Fagan, offers a good starting point for veiwing the life of pick-pockets and petty thieves. The first thing that\'s apparent is that Fagan and his boys are not heroic nor are their victims. They don\'t target strong, aware people but rather fat, distracted, self-satisfied merchants, ladies and burghers....people usually represented in MMORPG\'s by NPC\'s, not players. My point is that the sort of characters players play are greatly more prepared not be the victimized by petty theft than those a \"real\" thief would target...especially a new thief.
The \"path\" to acquiring thieving skills in real life is slow and notably unrewarding while marked with frequent failures and punishments ranging from a simple beating to incarceration or worse. I\'m not sure any of those consequences would make for fun game content but it seems to me they are essential to creating a realistic thieving experience. To be valid in game terms, the experience needs to be \"real\" for the perpetrator, not just the victim.
The other example from Dickens and also earlier literature relates to actual techniques for theft. Musicians, jugglers and entertainers were frequently lumped in the common peoples mind with thieves and pick pockets...and with good reason. The distraction and crowds that an entertainer drew created a better environment for thieving. People are less likely to notice being jostled or bumped when in a situation where it\'s common. Even an average fat, merchant is much more likely to notice and thwart a pick pocket if he\'s walking alone down a well lite road.
Which rasies the question of how much the success of a thieving ability ought to be tied to various environmental modifiers and not just a simple skill level number. Also, any game that allows people to learn how to steal ought also to have mechanisms or skills people can learn to defend against it. One\'s thieving skill needs to be weighed against many unknowable player as well as learnable situational variables to be in any way fair.
Using Dickens again, some other common themes that greatly enhanced success are thieves working in pairs or teams. some to distract and some to steal. Success is also greater if law enforcement is \"corruptable\" i.e. can be bribed. The flip side of that is that it greatly reduces profits while avoiding more serious consequences.
Implementing even parts of this starts to sound like a thieving game exclusively so, at the very least, is likely to be put off by the development team until many, many more pressing issues are addressed. However, I think these are the sorts of things a game which allows Player on Player theft must address to be in any way fair and acceptable to those opposed to it in any form presented in a game up to this time.
As for murder, where to start? Modern laws differentiate punishment for killing someone due to circumstances and yet the Nations of the world can\'t agree on a uniform code. Thankfully, a game set in a generally Medieval frame doesn\'t have to reflect these varying moral codes. However, to adopt a completely simplified, one law-fits-all-situations code of justice is also not particularly RP-centric either. This is, for me, an excellent reason to just leave it out of the game altogether for being too dang complicated to deal with in any acceptable way...and is also the reason, from what I\'ve read, that it won\'t be part of PS.
However, in the interest of fairness, let\'s explore a bit. Firstly, why kill another player? What\'s the motivation in game terms? Certainly it can\'t simply be \"Because I want to\". PS already allows duels and Guild Wars which, with an enhanced alignment system or broader selection of Guild options as discussed in other threads, ought to allow for the great majority of PvP situations to be handled that are actually RP driven.
So now we come to \"evilness\'. As Rick Moranis (Dark Helmet) said in Space Balls \"Evil will always defeat goodness because goodness is soooo STOOPID!\". It follows than that evil must be \"smart\". :) That implies some reasoning or reward from an \"evil\" killing. Looting the victim six ways to Sunday and leaving them naked is pretty much not acceptable to anyone except those who get their kicks by destroying other peoples fun...even though it is the logical outcome of being killed in a remote area. It\'s quite simply to costly for players to make an enjoyable gaming experience for the RP player PS is aiming at.
The best rewards I can think of relate to oppositions and conflicts created due to an alignment system that\'s built into the game...not just some nutjob saying \"I\'m RPing a psycho killer!\". I think that to be in anyway acceptable, any and all PVP must arise from imperatives, choices and goals that players agree to make and pursue with their characters. One example of this was planned for Warhammer Online before the project was stopped (although the DaoC developer has just signed on to revive it).
Two classes of players were allowed, upon completing certain goals and quests, choosing certain skill paths and attaining proficency in them (That game also didn\'t have set \"levels\") to hunt and kill each other. These were necromancers and witch hunters...two professions specifically opposed to each other in the Warhammer environment. They had every RP reason to be in conflict. Players had to conciously direct their character along this path and then engaged in their own sub-game due to their dedication. It\'s worth noting that the Warhammer realm was set in the heart of a strong kingdom with a robust constabulary where random murder was so unlikely to succeed, it was considered unneccesary to even have it in the game. However, both Necromancers and witch hunters had to deal with some attack-on-sight NPC\'s depending upon where they chose to travel.
At any rate, there is another model for PvP that, while not non-consentual, could easily provide a great enough pool of players to beat up on to create an \"enjoyable\" PvP experience while retaining and reinforcing PS\'s RP values... especially if it was expanded to create more than just one set of opposing paths.
The only thing is, as I understand it, the PS world is largely a harmonious society without any of the stresses that would create appropriate conflict scenarios among players. So, again, we\'re back to talking about hugely rewriting the game to create any sort of valid reason for PvP.
-
Originally posted by Ivniciix
So now we come to \"evilness\'. As Rick Moranis (Dark Helmet) said in Space Balls \"Evil will always defeat goodness because goodness is soooo STOOPID!\". It follows than that evil must be \"smart\". :) That implies some reasoning or reward from an \"evil\" killing. Looting the victim six ways to Sunday and leaving them naked is pretty much not acceptable to anyone except those who get their kicks by destroying other peoples fun...even though it is the logical outcome of being killed in a remote area. It\'s quite simply to costly for players to make an enjoyable gaming experience for the RP player PS is aiming at.
I am going to have to say \"whatever.\" If one really wants to roleplay, one will have to accept that among the characters played by others, there will be some who are unscrupulous, ruthless, and greedy, and that these will be inclined to kill and loot or simply rob when the opportunity presents itself (and some may kill under a contract for pay). These characters exist in all RPGs. The difference in an MMORPG is that some of them may be controlled by other players, and not by AI and scripts. Again, I point out the fact that Planeshifters play on a public server. Obviously, one goal in this is to keep players from destroying each others\' fun, and to do this, we would need to prevent bug exploitations and other such unnatural advantages. However, we must recognize that some characters will indeed want to exploit other characters, and that a realistic and enjoyable RP world (\"for the RP player PS is aiming at\") would have to account for this, as well as other things. Forget saying that this may ruin some players\' fun, because players who would hold themselves victimized by such a possibility are not interested in true roleplaying, and are therefore not in the spirit of either Planeshift itself as an RP-centric game, nor of the concept of a public server for any roleplaying game. The goals stated for Planeshift are quite different than what would cater to such a player, IMO, and those players may be \"destroying the fun\" of those attracted to the stated goals of PS by griefing about it.
The only thing is, as I understand it, the PS world is largely a harmonious society without any of the stresses that would create appropriate conflict scenarios among players. So, again, we\'re back to talking about hugely rewriting the game to create any sort of valid reason for PvP.
Can you really suspend your disbelief about the core nature of sentient beings enough to convince yourself that there are no people in Yliakum who seek conflict, or who seek to exploit others? I certainly cannot, least of all among the Diaboli and Enkidukai; the culture and prevailing psychological traits of those races certainly allows for some to be as such.
Aside from that, I agree with you. I have said myself that the game as it now stands is completely unable to support open PvP in any form, because it is simply too undeveloped. Furthermore, it can indeed be thought \"too dang complicated\" to be feasible. But I, for one, am interested in making things complicated. I like \"complicated.\" And by no means am I saying \"give me what I want, and give it now!\" I am simply expressing my ideas for the future of the game and my interpretations of the stated goals. And I am quite enjoying this little conflict, myself. I only hope I am not spoiling anyone\'s fun.
-
think about it.... if you make it to where any one can attack you at any time and take your stuff every one would be attacking each other not monsters cuz well you would get better loot off of players..... now what you could do is make a /command that turns on and off pk.... you could only pk some one that has it on... simply by changeing the color of the player name from green to red to let people know who has pk on and who doesn\'t... this would keep the newbies save every where and any one else that does not want to be attacked by other players.. i do believe that is why they placed the duels system in game......
you all just can\'t settel with haveing to ask for a fight between players you just wanna run up and kill them with no warning or anything.. thats just greedy and mean......
Thank you
Gravalden
-
Originally posted by Gravalden
think about it.... if you make it to where any one can attack you at any time and take your stuff every one would be attacking each other not monsters cuz well you would get better loot off of players..... now what you could do is make a /command that turns on and off pk.... you could only pk some one that has it on... simply by changeing the color of the player name from green to red to let people know who has pk on and who doesn\'t... this would keep the newbies save every where and any one else that does not want to be attacked by other players.. i do believe that is why they placed the duels system in game......
you all just can\'t settel with haveing to ask for a fight between players you just wanna run up and kill them with no warning or anything.. thats just greedy and mean......
Thank you
Gravalden
Greedy and mean? Perhaps. Not all of us want to roleplay perfect saints, altruistic vessels of the forces of good, every single time. That is quite the point. Roleplaying. Yes, some characters are greedy and mean. That is no reason to take it out on the players. The problem is that people are always putting a \"=\" between \"player\" and \"character.\" A character is not a projection of oneself into the game world, and treating it as such is not roleplaying. Granted, some traits, indeed, perhaps many, are likely to find their way from a player into the character that he/she creates. This helps to create a believable character. But no matter how alike they may be, the character is not the player.
Aside from that, players would not be fighting each other constantly if there was a powerful town guard to arrest or execute offenders.
-
i use the word player to describe the beings in the game that are controled by a player... plain and simple
if some ones character was not controled by a player it would then become a NPC non \"player\" character as aposed to a PC player character.... and i know the diffrence between player and character i\'m an AD&D vet.... NOW THATS A REAL RPG. only dice a character sheet and what ever your mind comes up with.....
what i am saying is this plain and simple.....
IF you make it where any one can attack any one at any time, any where, \"characters\" would kill other \"characters\" more often then npcs cause of the chance of MUCH better loot,
NOW if you make a /command that allows a \"character\" to turn on and off the pk system. when on your name would be red and when off it would be green.. you would only be allowed to attack a \"character\" with a red name any where at any time.... \"characters\" with green names could not be attacked..
Because there will always be the people that do not want to be attacked by other \"characters\" at any time anywhere...
puting this system in will make the game cater to both the people who want a really indepth role playing experince and to the people that don\'t want to get to far into it.....
making the game liked by more people and hated by less....
Thank you
Gravalden
-
Originally posted by Gravalden
i use the word player to describe the beings in the game that are controled by a player... plain and simple
if some ones character was not controled by a player it would then become a NPC non \"player\" character as aposed to a PC player character.... and i know the diffrence between player and character i\'m an AD&D vet.... NOW THATS A REAL RPG. only dice a character sheet and what ever your mind comes up with.....
Emphasis mine. You understand the difference between character and player, and yet you advocate the blurring of that line that is the basis for complaints about PKing, victimhood, and ruining people\'s fun? *shrugs* Clearly, we do not see \"eye-to-eye,\" as it were... And I agree with you that D&D is much more flexible and thus allows more completely for roleplaying than a game such as this could, by its very nature.
what i am saying is this plain and simple.....
IF you make it where any one can attack any one at any time, any where, \"characters\" would kill other \"characters\" more often then npcs cause of the chance of MUCH better loot
Only if they are evil characters, or the characters of powergaming dorks who don\'t roleplay and are themselves at least slightly evil/sociopathic. The former will be rare enough, and the latter will likely be driven away by other, unappreciative, angry players. Evil characters will certainly not be the norm, and thus, most will still be fighting NPCs.
NOW if you make a /command that allows a \"character\" to turn on and off the pk system. when on your name would be red and when off it would be green.. you would only be allowed to attack a \"character\" with a red name any where at any time.... \"characters\" with green names could not be attacked..
See, here, you again associate players and characters far too closely, to the point that you are even using the word \"character\" with a kind of pointed sarcasm. \"You\" are not attacking characters, let alone other players. Again, I say that characters are not projections of their players.
Because there will always be the people that do not want to be attacked by other \"characters\" at any time anywhere...
People are not, indeed cannot be attacked in this game. Anyone who believes otherwise is getting far too deep into the game, and far too personally attached to his/her character.
puting this system in will make the game cater to both the people who want a really indepth role playing experince and to the people that don\'t want to get to far into it.....
\"People that don\'t want to get too far into it\" are actually getting further into it than the roleplayers. The roleplayers recognize and maintain the difference between player and character, and don\'t develop serious emotional attachments to their characters and what happens to them. Those who do not roleplay are trying to place themselves within the game world (maybe because they don\'t feel like constantly thinking about what their character would do, as opposed to acting as they naturally would), and take those things that happen to their characters far too personally.
making the game liked by more people and hated by less....
Making the game liked by people who don\'t roleplay, which stands very much against Planeshift\'s ideals. At least, that is the way I see it, and no, I am not presuming to dictate what Planeshift\'s ideals are, I am citing them to prove my point, as they have already been stated. The game is meant to cater to roleplayers.
-
i began using the word character to describe some ones avatar to cater to your way of puting it... thats all
but you have to remember that there are the people out there that will get INTO IT WAY TO FAR... and they are the people that take role playing to far.. i under stand that you are saying the player is the person and the character is the avatar in the game...
i\'m purely using the word player as a over all way of explaning player and character... i don\'t mean to blurr the lines if thats the way you see it.....
when i said
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
puting this system in will make the game cater to both the people who want a really indepth role playing experince and to the people that don\'t want to get to far into it.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the people who would like the indepth role playing expreince.. i mean the normal run of the mill rpers... and the other is just normal every day gamers who like the medievil style game..... and well there are lots of them and they will end up playing planeshift it happens...
i understand why planeshift was made... to make a purely role playing world where every one will enteract with each other in a purely role-playing fasion..
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\"People that don\'t want to get too far into it\" are actually getting further into it than the roleplayers. The roleplayers recognize and maintain the difference between player and character
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sadly some poeple out there don\'t..... and they will be the frist to compline about this sort of thing....
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People are not, indeed cannot be attacked in this game. Anyone who believes otherwise is getting far too deep into the game, and far too personally attached to his/her character.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i did not mean for my statement to sound as if the person and the avatar are one in the same... i ment for the sake of having fun some one would not way thier avatar to be attatcked by another players avatar.....
cuz well its a kill joy..... we all want this to be fun or entertaining...
like i said some people will get that attached to his/her avatar...
say you as a player are playing the game and you are having a good time enjoying a nice RP. then from out of no where another player makes his avatar kill yours just cuz he can. well you become kind of mad cuz you got sent to DR.. it happens to every one at one point you get pissed at a game..... so there you sit mad at the game cuz you have to make your way back out of (so i\'m told very hard to get out of) the death realm....only to make it back to where you were and that same player has his or her avatar there waiting for your avatar to return killing it at frist sight...... this makes you not wanna play the game any more... kill joy... you can\'t have a good rp experince when your avatar keeps geting killed off...
yes i do agree that there would be more players that want to role play a good avatar then players wanting to role-play evil avatars but the evil ones whould cause more anger at the game as a whole making less people want to role play in a hastle realm...
i have not quite figured out the quote system but i will..
sorry
Thank you
Gravalden
-
Illegal activities such as thievery and murder (in other words, open PvP) do not belong in the game so long as it still lacks effective law enforcement to prevent/discourage it (in other words, town guard, and quite powerful, at that). Otherwise, you would be correct to say that criminal characters would become a \"killjoy.\"
P.S.- To quote, surround the quoted text by quote tags like so: [quote][/quote].
-
Much as I\'m wary of interrupting battling behemoths, I\'ve got a suggestion...
In one old, old multi-player rpg I played (I can\'t even remember the name, but it was free!), pick-pocketing/thieving was allowed, and consensual duels to the (penalty-pointed) death were common.
The reason this was never a bore was that everyone knew exactly what level everyone else was; a character\'s level was displayed along with their name. You\'d duel with players of a similar level (for fame and experience points; if they were more than 1 level below you, you got hardly any points for a kill, more than 1 above you you got lots of bonus points on a sliding scale!), and if an absurdly high-level character tried to attack a new player, _everyone_ could see what was happening.
Consequently, it hardly ever happened.
Similar story with pick-pockets; by its nature it was more covert, but you would get a message with the name of the player and his/her level attatched; if it was someone of a similar level, well, take your lumps - you can get them back by attacking them! If it was a total mismatch, you could report them to the Mods.
This happened a little more often, to be honest, but still relatively rare; with good rpg-ers, what\'s the point in going after a new fish; it\'s not like they\'ll have anything good :p The showing-levels-thing solved a lot of problems.
Now, Planeshift doesn\'t have such a rigid level system I know, but surely something similar could be implemented? Off the top of my head, I quite like the idea of \'hours played\' as an indicator; at 0, 24, 72, 168 etc. realtime hours (or whatever series of numbers you like/are appropriate - I don\'t know how long the typical player plays Planeshift!) a character has been actively logged in to the gameworld, their names would be displayed in a series of different colours; this wouldn\'t interfere with the immersion particularly, but it would let everyone know where they stand.
Also, as a new player, I think it builds off an existing system; I know players not-displaying weapons are similarly new, then weaponed-players, then weaponed-players-with-Guild-Affiliations. OK, it\'s not invariably right, but it\'s a reasonable, rough guide!
Hope this idea at least stimulates debate; an honour system for players, with an obvious visual element, and differentuated \'levels\'; town guard could be very interested in a fight between 2 mismatched characters, for example, as would other, law-\'aligned\' player-characters!
-
Originally posted by Ulgi Manhammer
Much as I\'m wary of interrupting battling behemoths, I\'ve got a suggestion...
blah... blah... blah...
Hope this idea at least stimulates debate; an honour system for players, with an obvious visual element, and differentuated \'levels\'; town guard could be very interested in a fight between 2 mismatched characters, for example, as would other, law-\'aligned\' player-characters!
DEBATE? read any other post on this forum. It is all one gaint bebate between \"battling behemoths\"
As to the title of the post; PKing or Player killing is not essential as there are many games that do not allow it.
As to your idea of levels; It probably will not happen. Most of the games have levels. Not haveing a level system makes PS somewhat unique. Plus, I have seen the level system abused. How? well if I am level 20 and your level 30 you can not attack me, but I can attack your friends who are level 20.
-
Let\'s be courteous when _starting_, guy, and not immediately be dismissive of \'the other side\'s\' arguments - we\'re all just suggesting ways we think PS could go in future :)
_I_ didn\'t say I thought PKing was essential, that\'s just the name of the thread :) But I don\'t think it\'ll hurt PS much if it\'s carefully applied, and is more likely to help it.
Also, you\'ll note I wasn\'t advocating a \"levels system\" either; just a way whereby you can easily identify veterans from newbies from midcarders. This system could have one of the _advantages_ of a more formalised levels systems, in that it could be used as a limitation to PKing/thieving, without in any way changing the underlying progression system PS uses.
To use your example, a \'level\' 20 jerk attacks a \'level\' 30 niceguy\'s friends; well, what\'s the harm? Those actually fighting are of roughly the same experience, and should be _reasonably_ evenly matched; perhaps the initial combat will go against our \'niceguy\' faction, but they\'ll be ready next time, and can band together to deal out vigilante justice to the jerkish evildoer!
I\'m not sure this counts as \'abusing\' the system, though I know you\'ll be right - whatever the mechanics of _any_ game, there _will_ be an exploit for unscrupulous players. That doesn\'t mean we shouldn\'t consider new features :)
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
-
Let me try that again, this time with a smile. :)
Planeshift is using a system that does not lend itself to an easy way to do a level based PvP system. For this reason I doubt that level restricted PvP would be implemented.
The system you mentioned makes me think of EQ\'s PvP server. It had (maybe still has) a 5 level range. You had to be within five levels. I personally think this system was only good for \"griefers\" or RPK. With this kind of system, mugging players is really the only PvP interaction you see. Players just roam arround looking for other \"blue\" cons and attack them when there health is low.
With a level system you can not form a large powerfull group and own an area. There is always someone higher or lower than you in an area. When you meet one some who is out of your range then you might as well be playing on a non-PvP server.
In addition players do not pick fair fights. You seem to indicate that players would battle it out, because they would be close in level. These kind of battles are rare. More often you get five on one, or attacked when your low on health, or the other player is loaded with overpowered weapons for there level.
My intent here is not to whack you in the head. It is to get you to flesh out any kind of system you would propose. If you read the \"does anyone get it\" post you will see that the Devs concern is that PvP will kill the RPG part of the game, by creating a Shadowbane like atmosphere.
...And welcome to the forums.
-
>>Let me try that again, this time with a smile. :)
Ditto! :P
I see your points, and they\'re not easy to refute! However, I\'ll put in a few of my suggestions...
Let\'s remember the only reason you limit PvPing is to stop jerks abusing it and ruining the game for others - you can\'t guarantee that you\'ll only get nice folk on your server.
A) a simple colour-coded-name/guild affiliation system, based on real-time hours played, lets everyone know experienced everyone else was _without_ changing the way PS works.
B) This should NOT automatically stop players of different colours attacking/theiving off of each other, it just says \'this player doesn\'t have the experience, goods or equipment you do - why do you want to bully him?\'
C) Safe zones (e.g. cities) could be set up as non-PvP areas, where new players could learn game mechanics, and regular players relax a little.
D) \'Guild\' staffed by NPCs, the Watch of a particular city? Say a new player signs up to this Watch-Guild (pays protection money on a regular [?] basis); she\'ll display a Watch-Guild-sign under her name as normal. Then, if she enters a PvP zone and a player (or players) try to attack, firstly they\'ll see she\'s signed up, and then they\'ll get a warning notice reminding them of this. If they kill her anyway?
Well, if they ever try to enter the city where the new player signed up to the protection of the Watch (all cities? All nearby cities?), they\'ll be attacked and killed on sight by appallingly high level Watchmen. They\'ll lose (permenantly?) direct access to the goods and services in that city.
E) Mid- or high- colour characters could not sign up to these Watch guilds (or get limited protection if they do? i.e. Watchmen could be bribed by bandits to look the other way), but could instead join player-controlled Guilds. Say a player joins a Guild (just pays protection to one?) and is attacked by \'bandits\' (or another guild? Guild War!). They\'ll see that he\'s under a Guild\'s protection (i.e. a Guild display sign), and get a warning reminding them of that. If they persist in attacking him, they immediately become fair game to the protecting Guild, and can be attacked anywhere, anywhen, even in a \'Safe Zone\'. Guilds could hire (or have on their rosters, I bet :P) experienced players who want to be assassins (set a theif to catch a theif...) for this very purpose!
EDIT: You know what, never mind.
Reading around in this forum, obviously my experience of rpg games is very atypical. I\'ve never even heard of griefing, powergaming and the rest. I now find the whole subject uniquely depressing...
Ideas left up for posterity, pride, and pomposity! :P
-
The problem is your not seeing is the make-up of the community. People throw around terms like ?griefer?, ?powergamer?, and ?Random Player Killer?, like these people are psycho?s. The truth is they are just people. Most of them are sane. I am sure there might be a few who are playing the game from one of our wonderful prisons we have here in the USA, you know the ones with the cable TV and internet access so they can run their gangs from inside the prison. The point is that if the game allows you to do something then the game designers are encouraging that behavior.
Griefers are more than likely just bored of the PvE content, and not good enough to win in arena style combat.
Powergamer is an overused term for someone who can play more hours than most, or is just better than most.
RPK and elitists style players just think Role play is geeky and should not be playing an RPG but they like they way the female avatars look so they play anyways.
Unless you put all of your players through some sort of initiation ritual that weeds out players that do not contribute to the fantasy setting of the game, before issuing them a password to play the game, then limiting the player interaction with game mechanics is the best choice.
Even with a perfect community all playing nice nice, someone would eventually sep on someone else?s toes and start a ?pie fight? scenario.
How this all plays out, is the point of this forum, but it looks like PS will be limited to Guild war, Duels, and small Arenas. My personal hope is that something like Mob-for-a-day ? will be implanted.
--
Mob-for-a-day is a registerd trade mark of Knucklehead limited. (JK)
-
Hm, I am coming into this a bit late, and I have not read much of this ,but I am interested in implimenting PvP settings that will actually make people happy. Of course, the current system is acceptable for most, and we still have arena zones coming eventually. But this part caught my eye:
Originally posted by derwoodly
How this all plays out, is the point of this forum, but it looks like PS will be limited to Guild war, Duels, and small Arenas. My personal hope is that something like Mob-for-a-day ? will be implanted.
What do you mean by mob for a day? The player is open to be attacked by everyone? There is a request for a GM command to make themselves open to attack by anyone that I am looking into. It possibly could be altered to meet other condtions.
-
Stfrn,
Well, If you still need to know:
Mob-for-a-day (TM) is a system that lets players attack other players by bieng a Mob, i.e. rat, rouge, teffu, e.t.c.
Please note that Mob-for-a-day is not really trade marked. The (TM) is a joke.
Let me also apologize for that last post. I just reread it and it seems disjointed to me. To refrase, I think any system that lets you turn on and off your pk status will be abused. In describing a PK system you have to plan on lots of players trying to turn your fantasy world into their grand theft auto fantasy world. I also don\'t think super powerfull NPC guards will work either. NPCs are just not smart enough. If they were you would not need PvP at all. If you can make NPC guards that intelegently track down thieves and arrest them, then you could make intelegent thieves that would sneak up on players and rob them when they least suspected it. Even if you could do this, I am not sure you should.
-
That system will probably be abused.. but there could be made a few tries with the best ideas. Instead of NPC guards, we could have Human players that act like that in case of seeing abuse, and besides a society tends to level it selfs.. I\'m sure that if High level players see abuse by other high level players they will surely intervene, and we still have those specialized players that would be the guards, NPC or not. Once caught, the abusive player would have some consequences, have to pay a large amount of money, be denied the use of weapons until he pays or others. If he manages to escape after have abused the rulles (and I imagine that would be pretty, pretty hard), or a High a player that \"makes justice\" caughting lotts of those abusive players, well I guess a legend begins right? Of course we could have some zones were noobs (like me) could feel safe, but if I ever want to take a peek out there I\'ll feel safe unless someone break the law. Other places like arenas or faraway forests could have completely free will PvP, if you want to risk to do that hard quest go ahead.
Other thing are the monsters.. In many places there should be monster roaming for kiling players or at least, pursue you after they see you. For what I\'ve experienced you hav to pass pretty close from them to activate a reaction.
-
Merlin, Welcome to the PK forum!, please ingnore all the dust and clutter.
I see you are scoffing at my Mob-for-day scriblings. What is it that you do not like? Perhaps you only read part of this post? Or perhaps you misunderstood me. I am not in favor of PC gaurds or bounty hunters. I believe all the town guards will be NPC characters. What I said in the last post was that NPC\'s can not be made smart enough to be effective in controlling the human population. Mostly, they are just window dressing to make the town seem more like a town.
Mob-for-a-day would let you play a moster but you could not attack outside your zone. You could not for instance become an Ubernaut and run to town and attack newbies. You would not be a guard either. More than likely you would be something mundane like a rat, and you would be limited to your the area near your spawn point and could not talk to other players other than to use canned in character messages like \"skweak skweek\". The fun part would be to let team up with other rats and attack in mass then run off with the loot!
Picture this... you log in as \"mob\" when you are online you find yourself in the sewers with a camera angle about 30cm off the floor. You run arround a bit and see the usual carnage in the sewers, only players are running right towards you! Blam your dead in one hit! Then you respawn almost instantly as another rat in a different location. This time, you stay as far away as you can from other players, unill find one that is having some trouble fighting off several other rats. Then you join the attack and sucsessfully kill him! As a rat you would be limited to removing only one food item as loot from the corpse. Things could get more fun if you worked out a coded rat converstation. Some thing like one skweak for yes two skweaks for no.
In general however, mob play would be tougher than character play. The idea would be to get players who had played the game a while and wanted to try something different. The goal is to make it fun for both sides, both the hunter and the hunted.