PlaneShift
Gameplay => Wish list => Topic started by: Shaded on March 02, 2003, 05:57:46 pm
-
first of all i need to admit that i personally wouldn\'t call me a roleplayer. i like doing quests, like medival atmo but most of all i am intrested in the warfare (and the whole background production processes of ie weaponry, siege warfare and stuff) of an mmorpg. so i thought a bit about Pking in PS after i read the description with the arena concept.
hmm, well sure this arena PKing concept may have some reasons like being killed to often in other games and stuff and finding it annoying to deal with the consequences so the developers decided just to allow it in arenas. because they want to create an roleplaying game and no egoshooter.
on the other side there r already cool concepts of how to provide both in just one game, the roleplaying and the advanced warfare parts. i also disliked to to step into a town and over all heads was the \"has killed recently\" sign like in some other games UO, EQ ...
but i am fascinated by preparing sieges and big battles through planing with my clanies in DAOC for example.
DAOC is a wonderfull example looking at that aspect of the game (it lacks in others). there r homelands u can do all the RP u want. after u crossed the bordercastles into the frontier zones u r on a battlefield with different rules for being killed by players than being killed by mobs
--
(no disadvantage from a player kill because u died by defending yar homeland (attack is the best defense) and there were fortresses to claim which gave advantages in gold to the clan holding them. if the fortresses were located in enemy territory (daoc had 3 frontier zones for every realm one) even bigger advantages. who is intrested in the concept and needs some explanation just pm me.)
--
.
the most intresting thing in there was the warfare, together with yar clanfriends u were able to produce siege warfare and use it against armies or against the fortresses... the logistics for doiung so were enourmous but it made fun.
so i wonder if this thought of just allowing pking in arenas is somewhat immovable settled by the PS creators?
or if it just was set as long as the game is in such an early phase of development for not complicating everything.
anyway, i made up my mind a bit and just wanted to suggest another system for later development.
assumingly everybody independent of the race starts in Yliakum, later explores the stone labyrinth and then???
what about creating the surface diffrent?
let\'s say the surface would b controlled by guilds or clans worshipping the diffrent other gods mentioned in the history...
lets say these guilds and clans control areas with cities and fortresses. lets say between these areas needs to b a frontier zone. the frontier zone depends on the fortresses captured and hold which need money to maintain them and for possible upgrades (armour for the npcguards or defense installations). maintaining one is not costy but the money u need to pay for them increases rapidly by their number. and the main source of money for a guild is the economy between the cities which r guarded by these forts or allied cities of the neighbour \"empires\".
for players not belonging to any clan or guild there is no disadvantage, in every bigger city is an arena...
and they can do roleplaying everywhere. for guild members there is also no disadvantage except on territory which belongs to a guild the own guild is at war with.
only enemy clan/guildmembers r allowed to b killed without consequences. the consequenzes for the killed one r also not disadvantaging except he/she reawakes at the bindpoint and needs to walk all the way back if there is a job to b finished in the area where killed (a job like defending the own guilds fortress for example).
so everybody is free to join a guild/clan and contribute in that aspect of the game or not.
btw. it needs to b ensured that higher developed special items r not located in areas which could b controlled by clans/guilds (just by not offering any fortresses to raid or stuff.)
some nice addition would b building these fortresses and their defense installations by the players. (abilities like mining and stuff needed), but therefore the game needs a system for not allowing this everywhere (like some sort of department where a guild/clan needs to get a land deed first.) depending on the castles size is also the area it controls.
dunno if this may b considered too complicated to realize, but hey, this is just a suggestion, so hopefully there will b some comments on this topic.
-
i do really hate reading those long posts, but i have.
I think there are going to be guild wars, or atleast that\'s what i think i heard. It isn\'t just limited to the arena.
-
Balancing between Player-Killers and Non-Player-Killers is quite tricky and requires some hard made decisions because there are advantages and disadvantages to every one made.
1.) Arena PK\'ing - this allows PKers and Non-PKers to duke it out in the Arena whenever they feel like it. However, it detracts from the realism effect with not being able to kill outside the Arena.
2.) Territory Killing - this stands along the same lines as Arena, but infringes on the Role Player\'s side if they do not wish to be killed but need to go some place else.
3.) Full-Out Killing - this totally impedes on the RPers side of the game because it will be a basic bloodfest. Sure, the PKers will be thrilled, but it depends on what the Dev wants their game to be. Do they want the MMORPG to be enriched with content and plotline development or do they want tons of power-gamers invading and forcing out those who are not into killing anything but mobs?
4.) Creation RP/PKing - Let me define this off the rip. At character creation you can choose to either role play or player kill and cannot change after that. A bit harsh if someone wishes to eventually PK or retire from PKing, but it balances things quite a bit. RPers cannot be attacked and PKers will be looking over their shoulder every two seconds.
Choices one, two, and four are the best to do, but can cause a lot of problems in the future. Personally, I would stick with a mixture of one and two. I\'m a hardcore gamer and I enjoy slaying other players (or getting \"deaded\" as my fianc? calls it), but sometimes I just want a break to interact with my friends.
Oh, sidenote - Arenas can be used for full-scale wars as well, it just has to be set up by a Game Moderator.
-
Kahlisi i think u didn\'t get my suggestion correctly.
it is a variant of case 2. but
RP players should b able to stand in the middle of a battle without needing to fear anything. u r not part of one of the rivalising clans u just may watch the spectactle , because the game engine doesn\'t allow to aim on somebody not envolved into the argument. (to ensure such people r not used as spies is another topic but which could b dealt also by interrupting communications for the area an army passes. which i admit means an influence on RP gamers. but i don\'t think it is worth talking about or? i mean it doesn\'t affect the gameplay.)
-
Yea, Keldorn is right, there is supposedly goign to be guild wars where you declare war on a guild and if you are in one of them, you can be killed/kill outside of an arena as long as its the opposing guild (or maybe one of your own guild members ;) )
-
Thanks for the information kiern.
hmm, honestly it is hard to find information about this, is there somewhere a description of how the system will b like?
i mean the next question would b: r u than able to get killed anywhere even as \"level 1\" newbie?
-
Shaded - I don\'t think I posted anything about your idea... I was merely listing out the different sorts of PK/RP ideas which have already been used with the advantages and disadvantages. Not everyone on these message boards has seen all the various types of systems tried before in games, I\'m helping them along as well. So just chill.
Secondly, only being able to kill people in Territories that are not in your Clan/Guild. Well, what happens if a player wishes to defect from the Guild by assassinating the Leader?
I am all for Clan/Guild wars and rivalries - they\'re loads of fun and the Territory idea is a good thing. However, woudln\'t it be a pain as a Game Master to have to constantly be changing the Clan Boundaries when one Clan fails and another takes its place? What happens if there is a siege on one Clan\'s base and the Clan loses their holdings to an enemy - who will change the game mechanics for lines (because that has to be coded in for the PK/non-PK areas so innocents don\'t get jacked)? What sort of things would be needed to even raise a Guild in-game large enough to have Boundaries/holdings for such wars? Would the Guild Leaders themselves set up Territories? What happens if all available space for the Guild lands is taken up and people still want to create more?
Having Racial/Tribal areas is one thing (like between the Klyros and Kran for example) because they will always be fixed into the storyline. Guilds and Clans, the individual ones not the idea of one, is completely different. Not all Guilds are here to stay, as we can see from the Forum devoted to that. ;)
It is far easier (less headaches for GMs) to have Guild/Clan duels in an Arena environment or to declare war on one another like Kiern stated. This is a good idea, do not get me wrong, and it would be loads of fun to have around. However, think of the maintenance it would require - is it worth it?
-
A couple of weeks ago I started a thread about NPC guards for a guild town/castle/citadel/ditch and how the guild leader could set which PCs he wanted dead if they came near his town. This is easily modifiable with players as the guild leader could bring up his diplomacy menu and decide that he hates his brother so his guild should suffer as a result (or something). Then anyone from either guild is automatically pitted against any one of the opposing guild until peace breaks out (erk!) Aah, peace...
-
I read Kahlahisishasi whatever good typist\'s posts (I couldn\'t read the retarded Shaded\'s posts) The developers have their minds set, and your not going to change them NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU POST, believe me, it\'s not going to happen.
From what I understand, there will be wars in arenas.
Wether or not guild wars are in a arena, I have no idea.
-
I agree arenas are good because their has to be some safe place to heal. The only thing is everybody stays at the edge of the arena so i they get attacked by a strong guy they just run.
Thats what I think :]
-
Originally posted by MANTA
The only thing is everybody stays at the edge of the arena so i they get attacked by a strong guy they just run.
I, for one, am not ashamed to say I\'ve ran like a pansy before, even in an Arena environment. Of course, it all depends on the Character Class everyone plays. Who is to say that no one will/won\'t hunt you down?
Arena is the safest bet in any game to keep the role players and the player killers equally happy. The largest gripe most PKers have about a non-open PK environment is the RPers can mouth off and not back it up.
Oooh, that would be an idea!
Say there is a system, an Annoyance Ranking - if a person is grumpy about how another player treated them they can go to a special NPC, enter the player\'s name and a negative point is set against said offender. After one player accumulates a certain amout of negative points they are automatically warped into the center of the Arena as punishment.
To keep people from abusing such a feature, a player would only be able to issue an \"Annoyance Point\" every 24 real-life hours.
I know it\'s a zany idea, but I got so sick of newbies who mouth off to me in several games and not being able to \"layeth down the smacketh\" properly for a lesson on manners.
(Edit: eck, typo demon struck me again.)
(Edit #2: added in a bit more to flesh the idea out.)
-
Kahlisi, although I like the basic idea, there is a big chance of abuse. The main problem is that any large enough group will get the power to kill someone wherever he is.
Example:
You want someone killed,
you hire someone from a mercenary guild (or something like that),
he lets a group of fellow mercs file a complaint at the NPC,
he (alone or in a group) waits at the edge of the arena,
the victim gets teleported in,
the merc kills him,
the end...
-
Of course there\'s a chance for abuse - there is a chance for abuse in every game with everything. There is even a chance of abuse with the \"Guild Territory\" area if a large enough group bum rushes a nearly unprotected Guild House because most members are AFK or logged off.
I do not have all the answers for the Annoyance System, nor am I really wanting to see it implimented that badly. Secondly, limitations can be set on how many points a person can receive in a period of time, and how many points it takes to be teleported into the Arena.
On the flipside, say someone had a bad day and decided to take it out on several people, and those people filed annoyance points. If the cap to get shipped into PK-Land is five points, and they have four, maybe they can do a good deed and have someone file a positive point to reduce their negative score; this could even be done at the same NPC for the Annoyance Points.
To add to the \"Positive Point\" idea, mayhap gaining enough positive points can have advantages... Having your name engraved on a Weapon/Armorpiece (example: instead of Stiletto Dagger it would become Kahlisi\'s Stiletto Dagger). The more points you gain the better things you can do with them.
Again, the Positive Points would have timers on them for giving and receiving so no abuse is possible. To keep people from making random characters and assigning points, it can be only something registered people can do instead of people who are using it as a free trial.
-
assassination for sure may take place whereever the assassin wants but in a guild area it is a high risc because of the npc guards and the players there doing their business so newbies r somewhat safe there.
the problem of players being afk could b solved by the amount of npc guards protecting the castels and the secured territory. if no player is online their amount rises. the more players of a guild r online it declines. winning against an only npc guard protected fortress should b impossible by instant respawn if there r no defenders online. this also could b controlled by time so the instant respawn or removing the castle lord (u kill the lord the castle is yours) will not work if the guild logs out in the middle of the battle because then the attackers still have half an hour (or whatever) time to finish the siege.
the gamemaster thingy is not needed. let\'s say u use that system building fortresses only according specific rules so never two of them r too close together. on the server then these could b mapped in a hexagonal system. if a guild raids a castle and claims it the server will notice because it has to spawn new npc guards so there need to b a territory control mechanism anyway. and daoc already showed us how it works.
-
I can\'t really see how the devs can\'t include guild wars, to me its one of the main reasons of playing. Where and how ? Who knows, Im sure the devs and the rest of us will be happy.
The Arena war system idea is good as far as I can see. But I would realy like storming the castle of an enemy guild slaughtering and looting.( ) It just insnt the same to meet at an arena to fight it out. But then again, for the biggest battles it may be a good idea. Tactics an so on should be just as important as the number and level of fighters. A really good strategist should along with his little gang be capable of taking down an huge army of fools.
-
well, time will tell. i gonna play what makes most fun so who cares which game it will b (actually downloading another open beta software :) )
-
There is no answer to this question. There is no one perfect way. In the end PKers will go to games meant for pk. Non-Pkers will go to games that restrict pk. My opinion is that a game should be judged on whether it is pk or not on the percentage of ground where unhindered PK is allowed. I think PlaneShift leans toward non-PK.
I don\'t agree with the labels \"PKer\" and \"Role Player\". One is not the opposite of the other. Just because you like PK, doesn\'t mean you are not a role player. On the other hand, just because you are against pk, doesn\'t mean you are a roleplayer. Anyone who has played an mmorpg before has seen all types.
-
I think people are not looking at the possibilitys of an arena.
Arens arent big coloseums like in Rome....This is what I think people are thinking when you say arena.
When arenas are built, they can have diffrent rules such as there has to be teams or so many people. THis means that there can be Arenas built specificly for guild wars...
Players beign able to build arenas would be awsome, then you could make the perfect lay out.....Diffrent abilitys such as house building and minning/digging would relaly come into play and tie the game together in many asspects, this would also make alot of people happy if they could pay a high leveal person to buld a specialised arena to their liking...THink about special guilds for Castle seige and archer arenas.....Mabye I am getting ahead of myself but I think it would be fun.....
P.S.
Shaded are you that lazy to move your fingers to the \"E\" key? Or do you have a Learning disability or something? (I am tlaking aobut how he/she always just types \"b\" insted of \"be\")
-
There is no answer to this question. There is no one perfect way. In the end PKers will go to games meant for
pk. Non-Pkers will go to games that restrict pk. My opinion is that a game should be judged on whether it is pk
or not on the percentage of ground where unhindered PK is allowed.
u didn\'t made up yar mind about the structures i was talking about. there is a system which pleases both kind of players.
a system which ensures even RP guilds could exists without being harmed by the - pk is not the right word for it - let\'s say combat guilds.
just in summary: to play medival war u need a guild. a guild is able to declare war on another guild (which also needs to be a combat guild). guilds r able to own land by holding fortresses which control the land in their surrounding with cities and such stuff. Roleplayers don\'t need to care about who controls the city because the npc merchants deal with everybody except members of guilds the own guild is at war with. but these normally r not able to make it into the shops because they get attacked by the guards on sight.
as long as your guild is not at war with any other u don\'t need to fear any pking because the systems does not support to aim non enemys as target for blows. so this way a roleplayer is able to stand in the middle of a battlefield just watching. this is the basic idea of the system. there r more rules but these r just there to ensure even guild wars r fair. this includes also an temporary interruption of all communications in a specific area when armies passes by.
but that is all a roleplayer needs to know.
so when discovering that the communications r interrupted u know somewhere near is going to b war and u will not b able to warn anybody.
Thnx estafan for pointing that arena thing out.
but i wonder why i should go into an arena if the war doesn\'t have any effect on the enemy guild... like taking their land and resources to strengthen my own economy.
anyway, u r able to play war so this already is a good thing. it now just depends on the arenas size...
and - it is lazyness
u care about speech? i just care about sense.
-
I see your point, but supposed roleplayers, i.e. non-pk participants, will be affected. If I wanted to play non-pk, and I suddenly couldn\'t talk to any of my friends just because some people I\'ve never met, and I personally don\'t care about, want to fight, I\'d be quite unhappy. The fact is, pk and non-pk don\'t mix. One will always be affected negatively by the other, whether it is territories becoming useless, or balancing issues. PK and non-pk don\'t belong in the same game. Even if two instances of the world are created (different servers), the rules of one type of game will affect the other - spell use, etc.
If anyone ever played on a supposed PK server on EQ, you know exactly what I mean.
-
let\'s say u r a role player and u r out for a walk and u c an army on the move towards your friends castle, what would u do?
in real life they just could kill u to shutup and not telling anybody. how to ensure in VR the fairness is there as well, if they were not given that ability?
how would u solve it?
btw. EQ is old ;)
--edit
btw. there is nothing better than having a bbq with some roleplay firends in a fresh raided castle.
i am not good in speaking elvish or stuff but i like listening/reading it, it adds spice to a game that i don\'t want to miss.
-
Here is my suggestion.
Either anyone can kill anyone else whenever or whereever they want (real life)
or
No one can kill anyone else.
Any other way will have people using loopholes. Even arenas offer loopholes, but they are minimal, and I would have no problem with them.
-
Even arenas offer loopholes
Exactly what loopholes are there in an arena system?
You dont want to be pked dont go into an arena. Seems relatively simple to me.
-
It matters how the arena boundries are set. If someone can enter the arena to fight, then just leave the boundries to escape the consequences, that sucks. I was thinking that people could step in and work as a spotter, but I forgot that anyone in the arena would be in the conflict. I don\'t know what I was thinking there. Overall, I think arenas are ok, but they are a poor substitute for real pvp. Someone who is looking for pvp should just look for a different game.
All I\'m saying is, I don\'t think pvp and non-pvp can exist in the same game without affecting the other.
-
Originally posted by Shaded
let\'s say u r a role player and u r out for a walk and u c an army on the move towards your friends castle, what would u do?
snip snip blah blah
You sir, are an idiot.
-
Originally posted by Tiraid
It matters how the arena boundries are set. If someone can enter the arena to fight, then just leave the boundries to escape the consequences, that sucks. I was thinking that people could step in and work as a spotter, but I forgot that anyone in the arena would be in the conflict. I don\'t know what I was thinking there. Overall, I think arenas are ok, but they are a poor substitute for real pvp. Someone who is looking for pvp should just look for a different game.
All I\'m saying is, I don\'t think pvp and non-pvp can exist in the same game without affecting the other.
1st paragraph:
lets say an arena would b a square.
the point u and yar guild enters could b top left, your opponents bottom right.
the castle to siege is in the middle.
the exit is on the castles island as well in a short distance from it.
fair?
2nd paragraph: i disagree.
-
If you\'re in the same guild as your friend they CAN kill you if your guild is in war with them.
BTW. Please, mind your spelling... It\'s ok if you write like that in CS, but this is a forum.
-
Sure pking has drawbacks... befuddled rpers, melancholy noobs, molested llamas, ect...
However, a possible way to implement pking into the wonderful world of rping might be to take away the pk\'s identity. Say, after 5 kills in 80 hrs IGT the pker perma-loses his/her name. So, KulDuud666 is reduced to \"a murderer\" or \"a freak who gets his dandies fondling adolescent goats\" or something along those lines... Or a pk could take a stat point hit every time they pk\'d thereby reducing the threat of professional pkers while giving players the freedom to make their own decisions and suffer the consequences. The best rules are the ones that are not perfectly enforced, but have high penalties.