Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Developers should think of their players as absolute scum
Creslin321
Member Posts: 5,359
Well now that the provocative title brought you in, you may as well read the post 
.
There's been quite a few games that have tried for the "open" sandbox feel by having relatively unrestricted open PvP with full loot and minor penalties for "murderers." The thinking here is that, yes there will be some gankers, but the "good" players will band together and form their own police force to protect against the gankers. Frankly, I think this laissez-faire outlook is incredibly naive.
This thought is supported by the fact that, much to the developers' surprise, nearly all of the open-PvP full loot games that I have played have turned into gankfests in short order. UO pre-Trammel had a lot of good things going for it, but before statloss, gankers were a major problem. DF (at least when I played) was basically more of a ganker-PvP game than an RPG, and I hear MO is the same way.
So why does this happen? Why does it seem like the developers just can't design a sandbox game that has PvP without it turning into an absolute gankfest?
Simply put, I think it's because the developers think that their player base will be made up of "decent" people that will not want to murder, backstab, scam, rob, and otherwise violate the other players in any way they can. WRONG. Even if 90% of your player base is decent, the rotten 10% is basically like a cancer on your game. Their abuse will either push the majority of the decent players away or corrupt them. And even if some of the decent players survive and don't become "tainted," everyone is going to perceive the game as a gankfest.
When designing the game system, developers NEED to think of their players as absolute scum, and design the system to handle that. They say when you write technical documentation, you should write it so your grandmother can understand it. Well, when you design a game system, you should design it as if your players are Charles Manson and Jeffery Dahmer. At every design system regarding PvP or flagging, you need to ask yourself "What would Manson and Dahmer do if we use this system?"
For example, you may think it's okay to have a flagging system that punishes you for killing "your team" but rewards you for killing the "other team." But wait! What would Manson and Dahmer do? Do you think Manson and Dahmer could make characters on opposing factions and then exploit the system by killing each other to get rid of any penalty they get for team killing? You're damn right they would, they would do that, and then they would fu#king eat you.
What about a system that makes it so "reds" (murderers) can't enter towns? Do you think Manson and Dahmer would just make an alt to go into towns for their "red" character thus completely circumventing the system? Yeah, I think Manson and Dahmer would do that.
In conclusion, the system really has to be designed to be fairly bulletproof. Some good examples are restricted PvP zones or very harsh stat loss for "reds." Can M&D kill players in a zone that hard denies any kind of PvP? Nope. If M&D get bumped down 5 or 6 levels when they get killed because of stat/level loss, will they be able to murder many people before grinding again? Nope.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Comments
To plug a certain Ultima Online description which wholeheartedly supports your point of view.
UO swiftly became a gangland simulation where you could brave the crowds of pickpockets and suicide bombers at the bank, and then run as quickly as you could past the gauntlet of hidden bandits to your home in the woods, where you would then be beheaded with a halberd while frantically fishing in your backpack for your keys, at which point your slayer would chop you into parts, make a small campfire on the spot, and then eat you.
Hahahah yes I think I remember reading something like that before
. And yeah, it's funny because what they describe LITERALLY could happen. You could butcher and cook a player.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
http://www.primeonline.com/ <== PvP game based around factions, with looting (not full looting) and what could turn out to be an awesome sandbox feel.
The problem with most PvP sandbox games is that they think everyone wants FFA PvP because its more free, but the truth is, most people want an enjoyable PvP experience which includes working together -- and the best way to do that is to make it more factionally focused rather than rely on the players to make up their "own" factions.
Sure you could put things in place, like a penalty for killing other players in a FFA setting, kick them out of towns, or things of that nature, but really, why be penalized for doing something you're really supposed to do in game. You should be killing other players, but you shouldn't be able to completely dominate those that can't defend themselves... (hence, safe areas).
In a more factionally specific game such as the one linked, it kind of polices itself.
The problem with FFA PvP ruleset, especially with full looting, is that a small number of players use their freedom to take away the freedom of other players. All it takes is a few bad apples to ruin the bunch. Which is particularly true of Ultima Online. In the original game, the majority of players weren't PKers or thieves, in fact it seemed like less than 10% of players were. But it was that small fraction of players who did do these things that left a lasting, and bitter, taste in many players mouths.
Which is why I don't understand the obsession of trying to re-create FFA PvP rulesets. Ultima Online worked (kind of) because it offered a myriad of other gameplay options for gamers. Those who weren't interested in PvP, or heck even PvE, had a number of things to do in the game. And of course there were virtually no other alternative MMOs at the time, so if you wanted to play in an online virtual world, you had to put up with the few e-thugs that got their kicks out of killing and dry looting other players that were minding their own business. These days, you can't re-create that, because there being several options of non-PvP MMOs around means that the gamers who prefer not to PvP simply avoid a FFA PvP game, and thus the game becomes niche as very few people actually enjoy that specific ruleset.
I'd love to see some more sand-box games that don't fall into the trap of FFA PvP. There are a lot of people who enjoy exploration, customization (no classes), creation, and creativity, which a sandbox MMO could provide. Just look at how popular a game like minecraft has become. Yet still, developers ignore this segment of gamers, which seems silly considering that there's a much larger untapped market for non-FFA PvP sandbox MMOs than there are for FFA PvP MMOs, yet the only sandboxes we seem to get lately are rife with FFA PvP... and those that aren't are themepark games on rails.
I'm all for sandbox with zero pvp.
No bitchers.
Interesting post.
"Even if 90% of your player base is decent, the rotten 10% is basically like a cancer on your game. Their abuse will either push the majority of the decent players away or corrupt them. And even if some of the decent players survive and don't become "tainted," everyone is going to perceive the game as a gankfest."
I think the operative point was the 10% of jerks that drive away the other players. It does taint the FFA PVP games. I play regularly with friends who played UO and were GM/customer support for a different MMO. Their experiance with the greifsters there has essentially convinced them to NEVER play a game with any sort of forced PVP.
It also makes sandboxy games that tend to go that direction much more niche. Meaningful faction based PVP, occuring in some sort of seperatable space, with more than just two factions, seems to be the best alternative.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Now to reply to the thread like I had not read the OP.
"Game companies already do treat their players like absolute scum." Heyooo!
Sent me an email if you want me to mail you some pizza rolls.
I think the problem is that You cannot effectively police yourselves if you don't have the proper tools to do so. How can you effectively police people for murder when the best you can do is slap them on the wrist?
In order to effectively police the player base, you have to be able actually "hurt" them. In most MMOs that equates to longevity. If you can remove peoples time played, then you can effectively police them. Time played is represented in game by accrued wealth, possessions, or progression.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
Very good post, OP. The open world FFA PvP ruleset, accompanied with full loot attracts the jerks. FFA PvP wouldn't be so painful, what makes it really bad is the fact that you have to spend your gaming time with people whose only fun is to ruin others' day.
I'm all for sandbox games without forced PvP. Can't wait for one.
You're basically describing UO at release. In UO, guards would literally teleport and insta-gib you if you were PKing or stealing in a town. And you could become "red" by killing people in the wilderness and thus not allowed inside of towns.
The problem was that this system was very exploitable. All you need is an alt character or a buddy who is not red to be a mule for your main. You just give the alt your loot and have him bank it and buy whatever you need. There's no real deterrent here.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I'm guessing that by "towns" you really mean safe zones that will be relatively large and have monsters to hunt etc. is this correct?
If so, then this is fairly similar to what UO had after the statloss patch. They made it so if a "red" died they lost some stats or skills (can't remember which one). This patch did do a lot to curtail PKing, but maybe not enough.
My preference would be to just have the safe zones be completely PvP free.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
i dont understand why so few games implement a toggleable pvp status. even if it was a setting you could only turn on/off in the character selection menu before you go into game.
perhaps pvp status could give a higher exp yield, etc.
it seems really strange that this feature is not in ALL games. it would give everyone what they want, no one would be unhappy, it would produce maximum player populations (with all else being equal and on the level) and create some very interesting politics and economic relationships.
Because for many its exploitable.
PVP ON: Kill someone
PVP OFF: Taunt that same person for not being able to kill you back....
Also, your FFA PVPers STILL would complain, they want to be able to kill anyone, any time. If its flaggable, then you can't kill the ones who don't want it, and thats simply not FFA...
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
Real world, this works because "players" (cops) can "ban" (arrest) other players and put them in jail.
Somehow Devs think that good players have nothing better to do than chase the same "ganker" (perp) around and ensure they stay clean. In the real world, do you think we would have anyone left in Law Enforcement if they had to arrest to same "murder" (ganker) over and over again, every day - like Ground Hog Day?
Nope... So put in a vote system and if 2/3 population of characters over X level vote "Ban", the player in question goes into "Jail" for X days. That ganking character cannot be played for X days. Eventually they will stop, just like in the real world.
You punish someone enough times for the same crime, they will either stop doing it or die in jail as the Time Served goes UP every time for the same crime. Eventually their "character" goes to Jail for "Life" (permanent ban).
Unlike the real world though, unjustly accused people can still re-roll a new character if they really really want to try again at the game of "XYZ" (life). So from that aspect, perma-banning someone is less severe than a life sentance to prison. Yet, people cry about 3 day bans in a video game.. Hmm very interesting
If the toggle button is on the login screen as suggested, this problem does not occur. Beside that the ffa-pvp guys still are a small minority in the mmorpg-world, but they are by far the loudest crowd...
Currently playing: EverQuest
Waiting for Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen
There's something I fail to understand about UO ruleset styled open world PVP.
If the goal of the system is to punish players who murder, with the idea that eventually they will stop murdering...
Then why provide them with game mechanics that allow them to murder in the first place?
That doesn't really help. Nothing stops the guy from logging out, toggling, and logging back on.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
Have you ever played EVE ONLINE. alot of scum all around, although there are some people that are kewl, alot that are scum. Worst, using in-game mechanics to scam/cheat/steal is okay. The dev's in EVE ONLINE support the scum. what's that make them? scum supporters.
==========================
The game is dead not, this game is good we make it and Romania Tv give it 5 goat heads, this is good rating for game.
Not to mention the issues that a PvP flagged character has interacting with non-PvP characters that are on their "side." For example, what happens if a non-PvP character heals or buffs a PvP character? Do they get flagged at that point? Can the PvP character not get heals from other players?
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Policing in a video game lol, dont we have enough rules and regulations in real life?
Your argument is valid, but I think at the same time there is a reason to allow open-PvP with severe murder punishment instead of restricting murder outright.
Basically, it just makes the game more realistic and adds a sense of danger. It's one thing to be a complete ass when you know the victim of your assery can't do anything about it. It's another thing when you know that if you push this guy hard enough he may just decide to eat 3 weeks worth of stat loss and kill you.
It's not about making the punishments so harsh that NO ONE ever murders, it's about making murder a very serious affair. If you decide to murder someone, it's a big deal and it's really going to cost you. So you better be damn sure that it's worth it.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
i would say that players with different statuses would be unable to interact. no buffing, fighting, group, or even trading. since this is not a permanent feature for a toon, it wouldnt really cause THAT many disruptions. as for players going back and forth between the statuses, so what? they still can only fight people who are in PVP mode anyway.
if someone wants to hit you once, and then stand there for the 20-60 second log off period without moving, somehow not die, change statuses to PVE only, and log back in, just to try to slightly annoy a PVP player...well, i guess i cant solve EVERY problem, just think this is the best solution ive heard, when everyone else seems content to become increasingly polarized and bitter....
this fails to address the issue. if a player doesent want to get PKed, he's not really going to care that his ganker is out there receiving some mildish punishment....this solution fails to saticfy EITHER party, since everyone can still die, and ganking has been made less fun.