Assistance request for mob killing

[Idoru]

I am probably going to be hit with a comically oversized mallet for this, but actually the way WoW dealt with that issue seems pretty straightforward and effective to me: Engaging a mob that already is in combat with another player, who is not grouped with you, is perfectly possible, however you don't get any experience and loot from it.

Yep, couldnt agree with that statement more. I think the system works perfectly in WoW. You even get those from different factions helping you out (well, on PvE realms anyway). Id love to see something similar introduced here, would dispense with the need for another confiirmation box (being able to be used to spam a player and annoy them when in combat) and would allow people to assist at will. I can see some complaining about the lost training points on weapon skills and armor skills though (as also happens in WoW but none complain). But, that seems a bit more realistic than the current system.

[Nikodemus]

I believe the complainers forget something about PS. Its RPing game, where every NPC is like us. ^[SARCASM] If there were 2 players fighting and third would join and kill one of them, would the surviving complain about lost training points? [/SARCASM]

Mentality of way to many people there is screwed. If you think you may be one of them, please wake up and start thinking as RPer.

[Roderyck Slywolfe]

I believe the complainers forget something about PS. Its RPing game, where every NPC is like us. If there were 2 players fighting and third would join and kill one of them, would the surviving complain about lost training points?

Mentality of way to many people there is screwed. If you think you may be one of them, please wake up and start thinking as RPer.

Wouldn't it be more RP-like if you could jump into any battle? After all, being told you HAVE to be in a group to attack a monster is a forced event, which is the opposite of RP.

Granted it would anger a lot of players if you took PP from them, but I'm certain in future updates, there will be MANY more MOBs. As it is now, when there are 150+ players online, you have to sit and wait your turn. Where's the RP in that?

[Nikodemus]

Err, simple question, why are you quotting me? EDIT: and then writing what you wrote.

And there is no RP at all involved into current killing NPCs the way most do it.

[Roderyck Slywolfe]

My reference is to you commenting that joining a combat already in progress is not RP.

Unless I misunderstood. 

[Nikodemus]

yes you misunderstood

[Roderyck Slywolfe]

Then, my apologies, friend 

I still believe jumping into the fray is more an RP element than not being allowed.

[evil scotsman]

To a certain extent the mere existence of PP is perhaps non-RP, however that aside I tend to agree that if your character is the type to wade in and help kill a mob, then it should be freely allowed, however it may be the case that to allow this at present would mean a complete overhaul in the experience/PP system to allow a more balanced system that would allow a certain sharing of experience with players, after all, if your going to help kill a mob, then there should be a reward of some sort, and if we're going to get away from the grinding, levelling, hack and slash MMOrpg genre, and really promote RP, then you can expect 'knight errant' types to assist you if they think you may be in trouble, and really, in an immersive RP world wouldn't you be grateful and offer to share your kills? if you were the sort of character who did this that is

If we truly wish for an immersive RP experience, then we have to expect others to act in ways that are IC for them, certain characters will happily pass by on the other side of the road, or even stand by while you get killed, and then finish off the damaged but victorious mob and get the loot, there are others who will risk life and limb to assist others without thought of reward, I feel we should have the freedom to help or not as our character demands, to expect reward, or merely gratitude, or simply be altruist, as long as it's IC then it should be allowed.

I do see the various problems involved with this, and as yet can see no coherent way of dealing with those I do see, obviously the system in place at present rewards the victor with experience points, and loot in random amounts, and this is consistent with many if not all MMO games, so there must be a reward for assisting another player, however this also causes problems for those who wish to advance their stats, since the one assisted in this way may feel that they have been robbed of part of this reward, and in fact this assistance may not have been required or in fact desired.

I feel perhaps a 'karma' system may perhaps be a partial answer, leaving the initial attacker with the experience, and rewarding assistance by the accumulation of karma 'points', although i'm not certain how these would be used, perhaps an easier passage through the DR after death, linked to karma might be an option to be explored also.

I admit it's a problem that has no simple solution, tied as it is with a non-RP experience/PP system, and the desire to offer assistance to those who may be in need of it.

In fact the solution may lie far ahead in the development of the game, perhaps the system is the best compromise for the present state of play, and that other factors may prevent a successful resolution until the game is as ready for it as some of the players seem to be.

[bilbous]

So if I enjoy fighting the most challenging monsters I can and you step in and deny me my accomplishment should I be grateful? or should I turn around and force you to kill me too?
Oh wait that takes a /challenge... If you are going to allow people to get involved in others' fights you really should allow for "misplaced" attacks.

[Seneche]

I would say that the idea about the pop up box with a macro would work best. As far as the idea of someone helping you and getting no prog points, that may work, but it could be abused in a way where an extremely low leveled player attacks something extremely high, and runs while an equally high friend kills it. Then the weak one gets an easy ride for points. How could that be prevented is the next question, the only thing that I can think of is limiting it to you have to do 50 - 75% of the damage to get any points, but other than that I don't know. If that issue could be solved, I's agree more with that.

[Cyl]

I would say that the idea about the pop up box with a macro would work best. As far as the idea of someone helping you and getting no prog points, that may work, but it could be abused in a way where an extremely low leveled player attacks something extremely high, and runs while an equally high friend kills it. Then the weak one gets an easy ride for points. How could that be prevented is the next question, the only thing that I can think of is limiting it to you have to do 50 - 75% of the damage to get any points, but other than that I don't know. If that issue could be solved, I's agree more with that.

The 50%-75% idea has extreme griever potential. Just imagine a noob trying to gain his first few levels in anything, while a stronger player keeps on killing his rats before he can do considerable damage.

A solution to the "running noob" you describe, would be that standing by or running away would remove your claim on the NPC.

[Zwenze]

Wasn't the original term of 'kill stealing' used to describe a bug, which allowed player B to attack a mob Player A had already attacked and also prevented Player A to attack the mob again? If so, then of course, we're not saying 'please, dear developers, give it back to us'

My idea is about the possibility to share mobs, because not everyone likes the idea of a mob to be reserved by attacking it. With a simple (i just presume it to be simple) option in the options window, one could determine, how he thinks about sharing, by deciding for one of the three possibilities: always accept, ask each time, never accept. But however someone decides, the looting rights should be reserved for the first attacker, to prevent high level players of abusing the feature against low level players, or to have a second option to determine the looting rights: first damage, most damage, last damage.

Either way, i just think it would be more realistic.

You made some good points. I agree that it might be annoying not to be able to attack a npc who has been attacked by another player before. It happened to me that I got attacked by an ulbernaut but could not attack back because another player attacked that ulbernaut before, run through me so that the ulbernaut switched his attention to me. I dont know if this is fixed, but I guess not. I think attacking rights can need an overhaul. At least when an npc hurt me I want to be able to make an counter attack.

Now imagine following scenario with three players a, b and c.

Player a made the first damage but has loot rights set to most damage.
Player b made the most damage but has loot rights set to last damage.
Player c made the last damage but has loot rights set to first damage.

In such cases of 'cyclic looting rights' the devs need to set a prefered looting right. I could imagine other systems of looting rights and whatever the devs will implement there will be people who will complain. Furthermore I think 'looting rights' cannot be based on realism.

Realistic would be that the first looter gets the loot and people will have an argument about ninja looting. Not a good alternative as the GMs would be called to every second loot: "Buahhaa, player x took my shiny loot and wont give it back".

Fair would be a random loot distribution based on damage done. The player who made x% damage has a x% probability to win the loot. But this would allow high level players to griev.

The issue seems to be pretty complex, but the current solution is not the best one IMHO. My proposal:
The option you proposed to have an "Exclusive fight" or "Share fight" is fine. First attacker sets the mode of the npc. When the npcs switches attention to another player the mode is switched to if the other player has another option set. Furthermore the other player must be able to make counter attacks.

Experiance is shared according to damage done. The first attacker can loot for 10 seconds exlusively. Then all players can loot.

Kind regards
Zwenze

[Nikodemus]

The idea of this thread has big issues only if "griefiers" grief online 24/7.
Some people will talk about griefing, while others will tell about the damage caused to RPing, because of lack of freedom. Because the more the basic rules of the real world in a game are changed, the more you restrict RPing inside it.

Besides, if that happens, this means there are too many people wanting to kill things. Maybe some of them should change their proffesion if they find the previous too hard?^^ This is very natural way of life.

In the end all the philosoply, that "I go killig things and do not disturb it" is at the very beginning of PowerLeveling. In reality it is you who has to defend most of the time. Of course many of us are attackers, but most of the time we all are defending ourselves against the threads. Invasions from stone labyrinths, NPC rogues and so on. The idea of this thread is for mayority.
People fear that idea, completly because of OOC reasons. RPing is like you would behalve in real life under certain conditions. You don't hunt aligators to increase your skills. You hunt them for the money.

The skills come by the way! Always. What matters is who takes the .. "loot"

[Unnamed_Source]

There's always the third possibility, treat NPC killing like duals. ie  "Do you want to accept a challange by Ubernaught" ... "Tefusang doesn't accept your challage" .. There, all solved and every one keeps there fights to a one on one basis be that PK or NPCiK, that is, if and when they accept.

[Under the moon]

Let’s switch gears a bit and equate this with something else: Building a house.

Joe starts to build a small house to sell, but does not seem very good at it. At one point, a wall is starting to fall on him. Bob (who is a complete stranger, and about equal in skill), sees the danger Joe is in, and runs over to help, then decides to stay and help finish the job. Sue also comes by, and decides she could brush up on her hammering skills, so joins in.

At the end of the day, the house is built by the three complete strangers. Joe owns the house, as he started it, but Bob and Sue get a bunch of experience helping put it together. Now, you might think Joe is losing out on experience, as Bob and Sue did most of the work. But this is not the case, as he was able to watch the other two ply their skills, and learned from that. Next time he goes to build something, he will be better due to their help. Joe -could- be a nice guy, and offer up some of the money for the sale of the house, but that is his choice.

If Joe had up and vanished while the house was being built, then rights would now belong to Bob, followed by Sue if Bob did the same.

Now for some numbers:

If Joe had build the house entirely on his own, he would get 100% experience added to his house building skill, but it would have taken a lot more time.

With Bob helping, and doing half the work, Joe and Bob only get 50% base experience each, but get it twice as fast (and with less danger), plus, they would get a certain percent bonus for working together (as it is always easier to learn with more than one person doing a task). So each may get 60% of possible experience.

Now we get to Sue, who is very good at the skill, and does about the same amount of work as Joe and Bob put together. So, Sue gets 50% base experience, plus 10%ish extra for working with others. Joe and Bob both get 35% with the bonus. Plus, since Bob and Joe were working with someone who was better than them, they get a free training bonus without having to pay a teacher!

So, is this unfair to Joe, who loses about 65% experience on building the house, but gets to keep all the money if he wishes, and also gets free training (to be converted to actual skill when used)? Add into that how much faster the house was built.

Is it unfair to Bob, who gets 35% of the experience, plus the extra training just for stopping by to help out?

Is it unfair to Sue, who could have skipped the small house and built a mansion instead, based on her skills?

All in all, I think this would be a better way of doing things (but only if PP was shot, killed, and buried in a deep grave).