I think some people are mis-interpreting the OP here.
Some older MMOs had FFA PvP with a bounty system that allowed the community to police itself and punish 'murderers' in its own way (usually by making them a target who can be killed without consequence and encouraging the community to hunt them down by offering a reward). In my opinion those systems are the best for preventing ganks as it reduces the likelihood of players ganking for the sake of it and instead only doing it when they have a reason to. This kind of system works best in sandbox MMOs though to be fair...
It also creates a soft separation between those who want to PvP and those who don't. Everyone is permanently flagged but the gankers are more likely to go after their own kind due to the way the system works.
It all balances out nicely in the end and allows the PvPers a FFA playground and the others the thrill of playing in that environment without the frustration of battles that are decided before their opponent even attacks.
Except it's easily circumvented by having a character that is strictly for PvP you log on to cause havoc with and log out when you are done and other characters you play differently with. Your premise only works if you have 1 character pr account but even then, people are just going to buy a second account
A pvp character may be blocked from advancing in pve (a buffer buffs him and is flagged, too) outside special stuff, moreover the game may require work to work off your sins, even the number of pked people, one by one
IF a player spends a month getting the character up, and then has to spend time working off every kill, unless he just wants to constantly loose stuff (exp mostly, that is why this works best in sandboxes and grind games), i have no problem with him ganking.
The effort vs reward ratio (if set up properly) evens things out, some dedicated people will still pk for whatever reason, roleplay, anarchistic tendencies. What it filters off is what we want filtered off, impatient half-wits oneshotting lowbies quipping "gf, n00b"
Which is the kind of people wow pvp servers are overfilled with, fixed factions just mean free targets in that environment.
how much pvp do you see in a wow pve realm ,where this consent system is in place ? one fight per month ? two fights per month ?
Plenty, but it goes on in battlegrounds and arenas.
Sorry, but I can't condone the rampant slaughter of PVE'ers just because it's fun for the people with the upper hand.
the counter argument looks like this:
I can't condone the protection of PvE'rs by invisible artificial mechanics.
while i'm not a ganker, nor a pvp'er, BG's and arenas are by themselves insufficient unless a game can incorporate them into its world in a relevant way. Back to Wintergrasp and Told Barad, that's good. It's consensual, it's very much like a BG, and its relevant to the world. If every BG had such functions - aka not just another BG where all that's at stake is 250 honor points - then I'd agree with you fully.
bg's and arenas are miningames. they are holding little to no relevance to the game world.
Maybe most of us realize MMORPG is just a video game. Not everyone have the imagination that the so called whatever MMORPG is a real world.
I said "game world" not "real world".
Ya I mean why is it so important that the fighting have to be done in this so called virtual game world. Most of us realize this world isn't real and is just a game. I mean all this I don't want to play a game, I want a virtual world!
Fighting can't be done in battle ground, it break immersion! That makes the game world unreal... whatever.
Originally posted by bcbully From what I've seen, option two. Harsh penaties, and penalties carried out by players, like bounty hunters and authorities. Give the players the tools, and they will police pk'n. No need for safe zones or guards for that matter.
This.
We only need to look at Age Of Wushu for an example.
Like someone already mentioned, ensuring that all PvP is consensual would be a good first step. Then you would only have to tackle the possible numbers and power differences.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Asheron's Call has a cool system, there is a full on PK server, and non-pk servers where you can flag yourself for combat.
The main thing that encouraged players to fight with honor was the fact that your reputation means quite a bit, being a douche will not get you far at all.
Not to mention that in AC if you had skill, skill topped all, a level 50 mage could beat a level 150 mage if you ducked and weaved and played smart.
I can't condone the protection of PvE'rs by invisible artificial mechanics.
Yep, I understand.
What I run up against in this sort of discussion is I don't understand why developers allow PK and then try to create mechanics trying to prevent ganking.
I end up in this loop:
If ganking is allowed, why punish it?
If ganking is punished, why allow it?
It just doesn't make sense to me.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
the DAOC way, where unless you RVR you don't interact with the enemy at all. no ganking what so ever. I have never EVER been ganked in DAOC as well as GW2 which has a very similar system.
Why do people say that the only reason people do not kill each other in real life because of the consequences? There were nearly zero consequences for thirty thousand years and most of those people did not kill the first they saw when they went exploring the world.
Owpvp or ffa pvp does not add realism, it just adds some pvp.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Best way to prevent ganks? Consensual PVP. If you're looking for a fight, then flag. If you're really looking for a fight, then flag and start killing quest givers.
edit: splling...damn old crap-top with unreliable keys.
Best way to prevent ganks? Consensual PVP. If you're looking for a fight, then flag. If you're really looking for a fight, then flag and start killing quest givers.
edit: splling...damn old crap-top with unreliable keys.
This is a best way to controll ganking.
That's the definition of a WoW PvE server.
It's also the best way to make sure world PvP almost never happens.
Edit: Which is fine with me. But I think there are better ways to manage world PvP if that is a focus.
Best way to prevent ganks? Consensual PVP. If you're looking for a fight, then flag. If you're really looking for a fight, then flag and start killing quest givers.
edit: splling...damn old crap-top with unreliable keys.
This is a best way to controll ganking.
That's the definition of a WoW PvE server.
It's also the best way to make sure world PvP almost never happens.
Edit: Which is fine with me. But I think there are better ways to manage world PvP if that is a focus.
It also only works in a MMO where the PVP is irrelevant. The more that world PVP affects advancement, resource or territory control the more such a systems breaks or completely defeats the other game mechanics.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Neither. Disabling pvp entirely will prevent the most ganks.
If you're relying on punishment for ganking, then it depends very heavily on what the punishment is. A 10% chance of being permabanned will be a stronger deterrent than being fined 1 copper.
how much pvp do you see in a wow pve realm ,where this consent system is in place ? one fight per month ? two fights per month ?
Plenty, but it goes on in battlegrounds and arenas.
Sorry, but I can't condone the rampant slaughter of PVE'ers just because it's fun for the people with the upper hand.
the counter argument looks like this:
I can't condone the protection of PvE'rs by invisible artificial mechanics.
while i'm not a ganker, nor a pvp'er, BG's and arenas are by themselves insufficient unless a game can incorporate them into its world in a relevant way. Back to Wintergrasp and Told Barad, that's good. It's consensual, it's very much like a BG, and its relevant to the world. If every BG had such functions - aka not just another BG where all that's at stake is 250 honor points - then I'd agree with you fully.
bg's and arenas are miningames. they are holding little to no relevance to the game world.
Maybe most of us realize MMORPG is just a video game. Not everyone have the imagination that the so called whatever MMORPG is a real world.
I said "game world" not "real world".
Ya I mean why is it so important that the fighting have to be done in this so called virtual game world. Most of us realize this world isn't real and is just a game. I mean all this I don't want to play a game, I want a virtual world!
Fighting can't be done in battle ground, it break immersion! That makes the game world unreal... whatever.
Then why don't you do away with the whole world thing and play a MOBA'S, you obviously want to strip it down to the fight bit anyway.
"It's a sandbox, if you are not willing to create a castle then all you have is sand" - jtcgs
I vote for FFA PVP with significant punishment have less ganking.
But seriously, what FFA PVP game have significant punishment for ganking? Why allow people to do FFA PVP but punish them? That dont' make sense.
But FFA PVP obviously have more ganking. In faction pvp, you are usually more protected because most people around you are people with the same faction.
But seriously, what FFA PVP game have significant punishment for ganking? Why allow people to do FFA PVP but punish them? That dont' make sense.
Uncharted Waters Online has FFA PVP in most of the world, at least at sea. I've been attacked seven times in more than a year of playing the game. Only one of those attacks was by a group, and I was in a group of five at the time. Strong enough deterrents for piracy do work, but they have to be pretty brutal to be effective.
A better question is "what is the purpose of PvP?" If PVP is all about fighting a toon with better intelligence than the canned AI that mobs have then...
...ganking lowbees makes about as much sense as a level 90 with 300K HPs fighting a level 1 mob...or even more to the point, an invisible level 90 sneaking up on a level 1 mob... or a group of 6 level 90s doing the same... in other words it is laughable, no-challenge, nonsensical behavior.
Think about that PVE analogy: It is very stupid behavior that could only be enjoyed by very stupid people. And yet, we see hundreds of "we don't want no stinking penalties" "if you don't want to get ganked don't play in a PVP server" and equally idiotic posts that are beside the point.
News flash: real PVPers want to play against human-controlled toons because it's more fun and we want the challenge. period.
Ganking someone 50 levels below me or ganking a single player with my zerg of 20 is a waste of time and it's nothiing more than griefing. If I'm level 90 the fun is in fighting other level 90s. If I'm with 20 other players, the fun is in fighting 21 enemies.
People don't avoid ffa PVP servers because they're carebears. They avoid them because they are populated with a disproportionate number of anti-social asshats who get their jollies from ruining another random stranger's 1 hour of after work play time.
Any "solution" you come-up with has to have the above understanding firmly in mind. Ganking is not just a slightly bad thing, it is a PVP killer that only asshats enjoy.
So... ideas? Invulnerability on the fly: someone more than 2 levels below you is invulnerable to your attacks. Programmed up/down scaling: 20 vs. 5 in the general vicinity of a fight? Upscale the 5 or downscale the 20 to even the playing field... it can be done on the fly--GW2 does it (with some success) in dynamic events.
I'd much rather play in a PVP server with mechanics to make every PVP fight more meaningful. Casual, no-challenge ganking is for anti-social scrubs.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard None of those.
The question is between these 2. As the option 1 is present in WoW and its clones and almost nobody accuses them of being a gankfest, and if the ffa pvp ruleset with significant punishments will prevent more ganks than option 1, therefore ffa mmos will not be necessarily gankfests.
Comments
A pvp character may be blocked from advancing in pve (a buffer buffs him and is flagged, too) outside special stuff, moreover the game may require work to work off your sins, even the number of pked people, one by one
IF a player spends a month getting the character up, and then has to spend time working off every kill, unless he just wants to constantly loose stuff (exp mostly, that is why this works best in sandboxes and grind games), i have no problem with him ganking.
The effort vs reward ratio (if set up properly) evens things out, some dedicated people will still pk for whatever reason, roleplay, anarchistic tendencies. What it filters off is what we want filtered off, impatient half-wits oneshotting lowbies quipping "gf, n00b"
Which is the kind of people wow pvp servers are overfilled with, fixed factions just mean free targets in that environment.
Flame on!
Ya I mean why is it so important that the fighting have to be done in this so called virtual game world. Most of us realize this world isn't real and is just a game. I mean all this I don't want to play a game, I want a virtual world!
Fighting can't be done in battle ground, it break immersion! That makes the game world unreal... whatever.
This.
We only need to look at Age Of Wushu for an example.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Asheron's Call has a cool system, there is a full on PK server, and non-pk servers where you can flag yourself for combat.
The main thing that encouraged players to fight with honor was the fact that your reputation means quite a bit, being a douche will not get you far at all.
Not to mention that in AC if you had skill, skill topped all, a level 50 mage could beat a level 150 mage if you ducked and weaved and played smart.
Yep, I understand.
What I run up against in this sort of discussion is I don't understand why developers allow PK and then try to create mechanics trying to prevent ganking.
I end up in this loop:
If ganking is allowed, why punish it?
If ganking is punished, why allow it?
It just doesn't make sense to me.
Owpvp or ffa pvp does not add realism, it just adds some pvp.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
This is a best way to controll ganking.
That's the definition of a WoW PvE server.
It's also the best way to make sure world PvP almost never happens.
Edit: Which is fine with me. But I think there are better ways to manage world PvP if that is a focus.
Ganking is not something that you control. I also dont believe you can talk about OWPvP and also talk about "consensual fighting." The two dont mix.
For those who are so worried about getting ganked, why would you roll on a pvp server to begin with?
It also only works in a MMO where the PVP is irrelevant. The more that world PVP affects advancement, resource or territory control the more such a systems breaks or completely defeats the other game mechanics.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Neither. Disabling pvp entirely will prevent the most ganks.
If you're relying on punishment for ganking, then it depends very heavily on what the punishment is. A 10% chance of being permabanned will be a stronger deterrent than being fined 1 copper.
Then why don't you do away with the whole world thing and play a MOBA'S, you obviously want to strip it down to the fight bit anyway.
"It's a sandbox, if you are not willing to create a castle then all you have is sand" - jtcgs
I vote for FFA PVP with significant punishment have less ganking.
But seriously, what FFA PVP game have significant punishment for ganking? Why allow people to do FFA PVP but punish them? That dont' make sense.
But FFA PVP obviously have more ganking. In faction pvp, you are usually more protected because most people around you are people with the same faction.
It is really the opposite way around. People are complaining about no OWPVP game to play.
I'm sure those carebear are already rolling on pve server or dont' bother with OWPVP game.
Uncharted Waters Online has FFA PVP in most of the world, at least at sea. I've been attacked seven times in more than a year of playing the game. Only one of those attacks was by a group, and I was in a group of five at the time. Strong enough deterrents for piracy do work, but they have to be pretty brutal to be effective.
A better question is "what is the purpose of PvP?" If PVP is all about fighting a toon with better intelligence than the canned AI that mobs have then...
...ganking lowbees makes about as much sense as a level 90 with 300K HPs fighting a level 1 mob...or even more to the point, an invisible level 90 sneaking up on a level 1 mob... or a group of 6 level 90s doing the same... in other words it is laughable, no-challenge, nonsensical behavior.
Think about that PVE analogy: It is very stupid behavior that could only be enjoyed by very stupid people. And yet, we see hundreds of "we don't want no stinking penalties" "if you don't want to get ganked don't play in a PVP server" and equally idiotic posts that are beside the point.
News flash: real PVPers want to play against human-controlled toons because it's more fun and we want the challenge. period.
Ganking someone 50 levels below me or ganking a single player with my zerg of 20 is a waste of time and it's nothiing more than griefing. If I'm level 90 the fun is in fighting other level 90s. If I'm with 20 other players, the fun is in fighting 21 enemies.
People don't avoid ffa PVP servers because they're carebears. They avoid them because they are populated with a disproportionate number of anti-social asshats who get their jollies from ruining another random stranger's 1 hour of after work play time.
Any "solution" you come-up with has to have the above understanding firmly in mind. Ganking is not just a slightly bad thing, it is a PVP killer that only asshats enjoy.
So... ideas? Invulnerability on the fly: someone more than 2 levels below you is invulnerable to your attacks. Programmed up/down scaling: 20 vs. 5 in the general vicinity of a fight? Upscale the 5 or downscale the 20 to even the playing field... it can be done on the fly--GW2 does it (with some success) in dynamic events.
I'd much rather play in a PVP server with mechanics to make every PVP fight more meaningful. Casual, no-challenge ganking is for anti-social scrubs.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
This poll shows that, unlike some people are saying in the threads about pvp, ffa pvp dont implies necessary in more ganks.
The question is between these 2. As the option 1 is present in WoW and its clones and almost nobody accuses them of being a gankfest, and if the ffa pvp ruleset with significant punishments will prevent more ganks than option 1, therefore ffa mmos will not be necessarily gankfests.
Simple logic.