Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Open world PvP without ganking. Is it possible?

123468

Comments

  • IcewhiteIcewhite Elmhurst, ILPosts: 6,403Member
    Originally posted by Disdena
    "why would you want a game that's designed to allow people to run around slaughtering each other like maniacs, and then complain about it?"

    Confused developers?

    Like we mentioned to Creslin, lo those many posts agone now--the question isn't can you do it (certainly you can, force-toggle flags if level difference is less the 5, for example), the question is: Is your proposed cure in fact worse than the disease.

    Devs have devoted a lot of thought and effort to this puppy, so has every player who's ever been angry about being ganked.

    The answer is: In a game world, we accept certain facts, premises in order to make a game PVP-friendly.  Thus far, no one's found any very convincing ways the have those ^ premises, but not "ganking".

    You either change it all, or really...don't screw with it.

    Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.

  • bunnyhopperbunnyhopper LondonPosts: 2,751Member

    Why don't we make a game right, where everyone who plays it knows that they can be attacked at any time by anyone right (crazy I know). Everyone has the choice to choose to play this game with this ruleset, everyone who picks it up knows exactly what they are getting.

     

    But heres the cool twist...

     

    Anyone who does actually attack someone, who hasn't been sent a written letter by the "victim", expressing their willingness to be attacked at said time and place. Well we delete the attackers account, send some heavies around to their house to trash up the place a little and maybe kick their dog for good measure.

     

    Or maybe would could make an open world pvp game and just make it so no one can actually attack anyone at all, that will fix the ganking sharpish. Still doesn't seem enough, how about if you look funnily at that pver near you you get permadeath or something? I mean it's a sign of being morally corrupt isn't it.

    "Come and have a look at what you could have won."

  • nate1980nate1980 Evans, GAPosts: 1,829Member
    Originally posted by Disdena
    Originally posted by Kyleran


    All depends really on whether you are trying to build a more realistic virtual world, where a harsh justice system would make sense, or a PVP focused game, where it would make no sense at all.  Why restrict people from doing what they really want to?

    There was a problem with part of your post: it was in parentheses, not italicized, not bolded, not underlined, not brightly colored, and not a huge font. I fixed it for you.

    This is a question that people should not be ignoring. Implementing a way of punishing gankers via justice system or automatic penalties is ridiculous in a game where you're supposed to go around attacking other players, which—shockingly—is the case for open world PvP games.

    What is the goal, here? What's the perfect game at the end of this discussion? A game where anyone can attack you but no one ever does because of the consequences? What is the allure of a game like that?

     

     

    Originally posted by solarine

    There's something very important the anti-ganking players don't seem to understand about how many so-called "gankers" view PVP-ruleset-MMO-gaming... 

    To what you'd call a ganker, the whole point of the game [in a PVP ruleset server] is to fight the other players.

    Questing, crafting, exploration, progression... these are merely means that serve to take you to the "end", which is of course, fighting other players.

    I wonder if this phenomenon is easier to notice in a game like Planetside, where there is absolutely nothing else to do besides gets into fight with enemy players. There is no questing or crafting, progression is automatic like in EVE. The only things you can do are fight or prepare for a fight. In such a game, you would clearly never spare an enemy just because they had a circumstancial disadvantage. Those enemy players exist solely to make your side lose the war.

    Because then PvP will be more like it is in real life. In short, we now have a virtual world to live in. Just like in real life, there would be very few murderers in the virtual world, and far more law enforcement officials than murderers. Just like in real life, we can have organized wars over resources, land and etc. and it'd be far more fun than random PKing.

    The OP isn't the only one with a dream that in a virtual world MMORPG, a guild could build an actual kingdom, castle and villages, with political powers to trade, diplomacy, and even war with other kingdoms, with the chance to conquer other kingdoms and create an empire. However, this all requires intelligence, organization, and maturity.

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,453Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by 5thofFikus
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by laokoko

    Doesn't matter.  If people dont' want to get ganked, just don't play a game which you can get ganked, or play on a pve server.

    You see, people shouldn't complain if they get ganked in DF, MO, EVE or whatever.  They choosed to play the game.  If they dont' want to get ganked, just play another game.

    That's my thought but apparently that's not an option. For some reason.

    Try to prevent ganking and see what happens.

     

    I don't understand your comment. The reference quote essentially means "if you don't like ganking then don't play a game where you can get ganked".

    For instance, I dont' really like the permadeath mechanic though I can conceive of a few ways I might be able to tolerate it. However, because I don't like permadeath I don't play permadeath games.

    I don't play them and complain about it. I acknowledge that permadeath is not for me and I just leave those games for people who like it.

    But this conversation just goes round and round and always has.

     

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,453Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ericbelser

    Step one - perma death or something very close (possibly even account linked, as in you have 10 lives or whatever per account purchased)

    Step two - game mechanics where there is no such thing as a 'sure' kill; no levels and somewhere a very good or just lucky farmer can kill a knight

    Step three - realistic NPC responses; not an automatic bounty or faction system, there should be rewards for clever ambushes/murders with no witnesses or evidence...but most 'lawful' areas shouldn't want murder on the streets

    I have to say that I sort of like this. Not so much number 1 though it is intrigueing but steps 2 and 3.

     

  • IcewhiteIcewhite Elmhurst, ILPosts: 6,403Member
    Originally posted by nate1980
    Just like in real life, we can have organized wars over resources, land and etc. and it'd be far more fun than random PKing.

    You want warfare, not PVP.  It's going to begin with a different set of premises.  (One death to a customer, for instance).  Actual rules (far more than current), actual consquence (far harsher than current), not everyone can be the hero (one general, few officers, lots of grunts)... just a bunch of changes as fitting a different game with different goals.

    Most of them would be fun-minus (reduction) for the average PVP fan, your game probably won't sell too well.

    Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.

  • drbaltazardrbaltazar drummondville, QCPosts: 7,987Member

    only way i saw was a balancing !like you get downed by a world foe?the downed get a buff and the downer get a debuff.i kill athene i get debuffed he get buffed.this is the only way i saw to prevent or remove the ganking incentive!

  • DisdenaDisdena Troy, NYPosts: 1,093Member
    Originally posted by nate1980

    Because then PvP will be more like it is in real life. In short, we now have a virtual world to live in. Just like in real life, there would be very few murderers in the virtual world, and far more law enforcement officials than murderers. Just like in real life, we can have organized wars over resources, land and etc. and it'd be far more fun than random PKing.

    The OP isn't the only one with a dream that in a virtual world MMORPG, a guild could build an actual kingdom, castle and villages, with political powers to trade, diplomacy, and even war with other kingdoms, with the chance to conquer other kingdoms and create an empire. However, this all requires intelligence, organization, and maturity.

    That sounds like fun but what do organized wars have to do with open world PvP? You could very easily make a game like this with combat that's purely consensual.

    Imagine I've made a game where player guilds can do all those things you mentioned: go to war over resources, conquer other kingdoms, etc. Now sell me on the idea of allowing random PKing to happen too. Convince me to change the game so a ganker can run up to anybody and attack them without provocation.

    image
  • 5thofFikus5thofFikus Miami, NVPosts: 50Member
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by 5thofFikus
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by laokoko

    Doesn't matter.  If people dont' want to get ganked, just don't play a game which you can get ganked, or play on a pve server.

    You see, people shouldn't complain if they get ganked in DF, MO, EVE or whatever.  They choosed to play the game.  If they dont' want to get ganked, just play another game.

    That's my thought but apparently that's not an option. For some reason.

    Try to prevent ganking and see what happens.

     

    I don't understand your comment. The reference quote essentially means "if you don't like ganking then don't play a game where you can get ganked".

    For instance, I dont' really like the permadeath mechanic though I can conceive of a few ways I might be able to tolerate it. However, because I don't like permadeath I don't play permadeath games.

    I don't play them and complain about it. I acknowledge that permadeath is not for me and I just leave those games for people who like it.

    But this conversation just goes round and round and always has.

     

    People complain because it's a fixed fight. If you dont like the ganking of newbs then do something about it wasnt an option.

    that was long ago though.

  • raistlinmraistlinm new orleans, LAPosts: 673Member

    I think your op points out exactly why this answer will likely always be no, with it being in a virtual world there is no moral qualm against doing it so there will always be people who will simply find there joy in knowing that they will eventually get under the skin of another gamer.

  • dave6660dave6660 New York, NYPosts: 2,543Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Icewhite
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    (Why restrict people from doing what they really want to?)

    Golly, I dunno, Mommy says we have laws and stuff so people can get along.  Ninjas never say that tho, Ninjas have Real Ultimate Power.  These guys are cool; and by cool, I mean totally sweet.

    (Sorry man, just such an elementary question; the only place it ever turns up is in PvP threads and Junior High.)

     

    It is within the rules / laws of the game.  You just don't like the rules.

    “There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.”
    -- Herman Melville

  • bunnyhopperbunnyhopper LondonPosts: 2,751Member
    Originally posted by Icewhite
    Originally posted by nate1980
    Just like in real life, we can have organized wars over resources, land and etc. and it'd be far more fun than random PKing.

    You want warfare, not PVP.  It's going to begin with a different set of premises.  (One death to a customer, for instance).  Actual rules (far more than current), actual consquence (far harsher than current), not everyone can be the hero (one general, few officers, lots of grunts)... just a bunch of changes as fitting a different game with different goals.

    Most of them would be fun-minus (reduction) for the average PVP fan, your game probably won't sell too well.

    Warfare in games is a form of pvp.

    No one has ever said open world pvp is "for" the "average" pvp fan per say. But so what?

    In games set up for territory control, open warfare, you will still get ganking and pking. People just need to get over it, or stick to other games.

    You don't need more rules, you need people to realise that they are not going to always be safe.

     

    The thing that strikes me is, if you read some of the posts on these boards you would imagine every player ever to step foot in an open world games gets ganked left, right and centre everytime they log in. Which lets face it, is horseshit.

    "Come and have a look at what you could have won."

  • General-ZodGeneral-Zod Zod, CAPosts: 743Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Icewhite

    Originally posted by The_Korrigan
    To achieve this, you would need to have a built in "justice" system that is very harsh to mindless killers.

    Really kind of a silly thing to hope for.

    I mean, in the ultimate sandbox, you could reasonably expect medeival justice as the result of setting off on a murder spree--realistic, good for immersion.  Bunch of big guys grab you as you're walking to the stable, thump you, "try" you, and cut your head off.  Not an MMO death, a perma-death.

    But PvP players don't want consequences.  And who the hell wants to play a game that punishes you? (I know, hush up EQ fans).  PvP players want a silly-season world where you can get away with any degree of violence, and the worst consequence ever is a corpse run.

    In order for PvP to be fun, the degree/frequency of violence must by kept high and the consequences minimal.  Else there's little point for a game to even install it as a feature.

    In the Early Middle Ages, the Germanic Kingdoms generally punished murder with a fine approximately equal to the income the murdered person might expect to get in three years. Double that for a king. The amount for a woman was half to double that of a man for the same rank.
    Later in the Middle Ages, murder was generally a capital offense, and the punishment was execution.

    Mind you, we might be williing to toss them into the stocks and pelt them with some virtual fruit.  But don't let Mom see Little Johnny serving out that sentence, or lawsuits will result because you're "damaging his little psyche (or is it psycho?)".

    Actually, I wouldnt mind Perma-Death Ice (yes, im a Pk'er) I think the risk is most exciting. With P.D in effect we would have to choose our target more carefully and weigh it with our risk/reward scale... would you really want to permanently lose your char over some "random" in the lowbie zone. Also it gives the bounty system an interesting twist, say if you captured a wanted murderous individual... you have the option to either turn in the perp to face the executioners axe or shake him down for his valuables... or both >:)

    Its what MMo's need... crooked bounty hunters muahahaha... Good idea, I like it

    image
  • IcewhiteIcewhite Elmhurst, ILPosts: 6,403Member
    Originally posted by dave6660

    It is within the rules / laws of the game.  You just don't like the rules.

    Umm, okay, thanks for the red herring, Dave.

    Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.

  • bunnyhopperbunnyhopper LondonPosts: 2,751Member
    Originally posted by Truelevel
    Originally posted by Icewhite
    Originally posted by The_Korrigan

     

    Actually, I wouldnt mind Perma-Death Ice (yes, im a Pk'er) I think the risk is most exciting. With P.D in effect we would have to choose our target more carefully and weigh it with our risk/reward scale... would you really want to permanently lose your char over some "random" in the lowbie zone. Also it gives the bounty system an interesting twist, say if you captured a wanted murderous individual... you have the option to either turn in the perp to face the executioners axe or shake him down for his valuables... or both >:)

    Its what MMo's need... crooked bounty hunters muahahaha... Good idea, I like it

    If you are going to have extremely harsh punishments for killing noob characters. I'm going to bring some along in my group so good luck using aoes against us. Or I'm going to keep rolling noob alts to go out and farm your resources.

     

    If you are going to have extremely harsh penalties just restricted to the noob zones, well you may as well just have a zero pking mechanic in them instead and save both parties the bother.

     

    I'm all for permadeath, but for whacking a newer player in an OWPvP game? Not so sure about that.

    "Come and have a look at what you could have won."

  • MMOExposedMMOExposed lalal land, DCPosts: 6,255Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Grixxitt

    Thread is flawed, there are no non-combatants in open world PvP ;)

     

     

     

    thats what Flagging mechanics are for

    image

  • scotty899scotty899 townsvillePosts: 166Member

    OWPVP is a kill or be killed world. in my opinion to farm lowbies alot would be to slow down the enemy reinforcements who are trying to reach lvl cap. just my way of justifying bored jerks at lvl cap who gank lowbies lol.

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,714Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Disdena
    Originally posted by Kyleran


    All depends really on whether you are trying to build a more realistic virtual world, where a harsh justice system would make sense, or a PVP focused game, where it would make no sense at all.  Why restrict people from doing what they really want to?

    There was a problem with part of your post: it was in parentheses, not italicized, not bolded, not underlined, not brightly colored, and not a huge font. I fixed it for you.

    This is a question that people should not be ignoring. Implementing a way of punishing gankers via justice system or automatic penalties is ridiculous in a game where you're supposed to go around attacking other players, which—shockingly—is the case for open world PvP games.

    What is the goal, here? What's the perfect game at the end of this discussion? A game where anyone can attack you but no one ever does because of the consequences? What is the allure of a game like that?

    The answer should be obvious:

    When games let a minority of their playerbase ruin the fun of the majority, they end up with super tiny playerbases.

    "Joe stated his case logically and passionately, but his perceived effeminate voice only drew big gales of stupid laughter..." -Idiocracy
    "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,453Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Axehilt
     

    The answer should be obvious:

    When games let a minority of their playerbase ruin the fun of the majority, they end up with super tiny playerbases.

    But that's a moot point as "only players who want open world ffa pvp should be playing open world ffa pvp games".

    There isn't any ruining of anyone's game play when everyone who logs in should be on board. The issue is that players who have no business playing on these types of servers or in these types of games are logging in and expecting special treatment.

    However, the part that rings more true is the "tiny playerbase" part.

    I don't believe that most of these ffa pvp games would garner a huge population. That should be ok but if developers are thinking they are going to get millions of players wanting to play such a game then they have another "think" coming.

     

  • bunnyhopperbunnyhopper LondonPosts: 2,751Member
    Originally posted by Axehilt
    Originally posted by Disdena
    Originally posted by Kyleran


     

    The answer should be obvious:

    When games let a minority of their playerbase ruin the fun of the majority, they end up with super tiny playerbases.

    It's like EVE doesn't exist.

    "Come and have a look at what you could have won."

  • nate1980nate1980 Evans, GAPosts: 1,829Member
    Originally posted by Icewhite
    Originally posted by nate1980
    Just like in real life, we can have organized wars over resources, land and etc. and it'd be far more fun than random PKing.

    You want warfare, not PVP.  It's going to begin with a different set of premises.  (One death to a customer, for instance).  Actual rules (far more than current), actual consquence (far harsher than current), not everyone can be the hero (one general, few officers, lots of grunts)... just a bunch of changes as fitting a different game with different goals.

    Most of them would be fun-minus (reduction) for the average PVP fan, your game probably won't sell too well.

    I was a huge follower of Darkfall and Mortal Online before they released, and then I was let down when I seen what the community had in mind for them. The community could have played it the way I envisioned it, or they could play it the way they do now. Needless to say, I never bought either, since the people playing them have no imagination. Random ganking/PKing, grinding skills, instead of just playing the game, and so on.

    What I described may not sell well, but neither do FFA PvP full loot games.

  • bunnyhopperbunnyhopper LondonPosts: 2,751Member
    Originally posted by nate1980
    Originally posted by Icewhite
    Originally posted by nate1980
     

    I was a huge follower of Darkfall and Mortal Online before they released, and then I was let down when I seen what the community had in mind for them. The community could have played it the way I envisioned it, or they could play it the way they do now. Needless to say, I never bought either, since the people playing them have no imagination. Random ganking/PKing, grinding skills, instead of just playing the game, and so on.

    What I described may not sell well, but neither do FFA PvP full loot games.

    Darkfall was based on FPS games. The devs have come out themselves and said it is primarily a pvp game. As for having to grind, how is that the players fault?

     

    If you never bought/played either, i'm not sure how you are in a position to comment on how the players in said games are playing them.

     

    One of the most consistently popular western mmorpg games on the market is a FFA PvP loot game.

    "Come and have a look at what you could have won."

  • TimothyTierlessTimothyTierless Columnist M, ORPosts: 2,163Member Uncommon
  • itgrowlsitgrowls newport news, VAPosts: 2,951Member
    Originally posted by Creslin321

    When MMORPGs first became popular with the release of UO...I think that many of us had a dream of how the PvP in the game would work.  We thought that PvP would help support the whole ideal of a virtual world.  Feuds would be born, mighty heroes would rise to defeat villians, wicked people would methodically plot robberies or murders, while peacekeepers tried to stop them.  And every aspect of these scenarios would have created by players...it would have been marvelous.

    But this isn't really what happened.  What happened, was ganking.  Many players quickly learned that the benefits of rampant player killing far outweighed the penalties, and since UO was basically just a game, many people had no moral qualms with mass murder.  So the strong preyed upon the weak, and I think the dream was killed.  Instead of really interesting scenarios playing out, players were just constantly in fear of a "PK" killing them and then mocking them in l33t sp34k while they were essentially minding their own business.

    And that brings me to the question I would like to pose for discussion. 

    Is it possible to have a true open-world PvP system without ganking?  And if so, how could it be accomplished?

    I don't think we have ever seen an open-world PvP system that really "works" in that it makes the original dream of open-world PvP supporting the virtual world come true.  Every open-world PvP system I have seen either devolves into ganking, or is so limited that the open-world PvP system basically boils down to specific areas where people go to kill each other.

    PvP "zones" are a popular "solution" to the ganking problem, and while they can be fun, they don't really accomplish the goal that I think open-world PvP was originally intended for.  So I would like to stay away from people saying that they are the solution.

     

    most likely not, because even if they had the same system that GW2 has where it levels you down to the zone you are waiting in to gank people in, i'm sure they would probably still have gear treadmill in the game and that would infer an unfair advantage to the gankers. They need to make a UO system where they people who are ganking get attacked by guards and can't do anything in cities. It would definitely offset the problem.

     

  • bunnyhopperbunnyhopper LondonPosts: 2,751Member
    Originally posted by Xobdnas

    Swg flag system

    Wouldn't work in a sandbox/OWPvP game with any kind of territory or resource control, would kill any need for trade routes, haulers, guards, pirates etc.

     

    Go out and steal resources.. don't flag self.

    Go out and spy on enemy... don't flag self.

    Enemy comes with more men... don't flag self.

    Get a few more guys together... flag self but enemy doesn't.

    "Come and have a look at what you could have won."

Sign In or Register to comment.