But what is being offered up is ways to punish the player, not the character, for taking part in that aspect of gameplay. These threads are all the same - a quest for a revenge system against other players. Nothing presented so far adds any value to the PVP gameplay.
You're not asking for player choice. You are, in your own words, looking to penalize or punish other players.
Tell me, my old friend, who does the PK who just killed and looted a poor crafter character who was minding his own business affect? Not the pixels of the dead character, no... he just affected the player behind the keyboard. And therefore he deserves to be equally affected in return (if caught).
It is obvious that the only way to keep random PKing at bay is to affect the people who do it the same way they affect others. By ganking that crafter and stealing his possessions, he stops the player owning the character from enjoying what he likes, crafting. The PK should be put out of PK business when caught, stopped from enjoying his sick hobby of killing defenseless people for a time long enough to make him think twice the next time he plans to do it.
As you said, all those threads end the same way... the PKs want to be able to affect other players negatively, but they don't want to be affected negatively as a player in return.
I agree, but the design should be such that there are consequences to action on a character level. Looking to punish the player for gameplay that is allowed in the game is counter-productive. A dev should either disallow the particular gameplay or create a manner of consequences directly related to the action. Player on Player revenge systems are not the way to do it.
"stopped from enjoying his sick hobby of killing defenseless people" At that point it is a manner of the design of the rest of the game that surrounds and supports the PVP and economic gameplay, and the reasons behind that aren't always clear to the player.
For example, I can't figure out at all why the Aion devs think it adds any value to let max'd players rampage through opposing faction mid-level zones, killing players that, even grouped, don't stand much of a chance. However, I completely understnad why low level characters are attackable in the PVP zones of PotBS.
It depends on the game, but the main thing is character-based consequences and not player-based punishment. It's a community, it's a game, and it's a business.
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
And what was the game with battles of thousands of players See I doubt in your reputation of a PvP player, because you sound like a PvE player. And PvP is a pure competition in clan war, siege, or arena, where you fight for a real prize, not in friendly manner. There is no such a think like fair fight, except if you fight with yourself, in all other cases the opponents are not equal, even in sports. Sometimes wins the stronger player, sometimes the wiser, sometimes the faster, sometimes the skillful. But in all cases in open PvP you shall be better than you are on arena to win.
Look, no matter how much you are trying to goad me into it, I do not intend to enter into a pissing contest with you. You are unlikely to provide any proof of your PvP merits and I don't feel like digging up mine for your indulgence. Your first attempt to establish yourself as an authority in this matter was rather feeble already.
In competitive sports, as it is in competitive PvP, the objective is to establish who is the better player. Rules are put in place in order to make sure everyone is on a relatively level playing field and that everyone, players and onlookers alike, can enjoy a good competition. If the players' attributes and skill are the only things that can offset equality, then everything is working as intended.
You do not balance out skill. Ever. It defeats the purpose of getting good at a game. Giving players a chance to learn and improve their skill and then letting them apply their gained skill and knowledge to their advantage to gratifying results is one of the cornerstones of good game design. Winning should be the reward of being good in a game.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
And you are both wrong.. both is competition. And with that said.. there is not something like equality and fair chance. Not in sports, not in e-sports, not in instanced arenas battlegrounds, not in rated arena/battlegrounds, not in rated leagues of different multiplayer games(like starcraft).
Because in 90%+ of all cases the one (group or) player is clearly better than (the other).. even the most advanced match making algorithm does not change that a lot(maybe from 95% to 85%). Battles were actually every side could win are rare in any case. In most cases the winner is already set before the game.. just none of both actually know it til a few seconds/minutes into the game.
Or as example.. do your really think that any nation partaking in the FIFA World Cup does have the same chance? Clearly not. Some have just better players, more teamwork, and better tactics as other.. some are clear outsider and will never win(like US team) and some are favorites(like Brazil) with a high chance of winning. (those can change from year to year)
And a open world scenario just delivers even more randomness into a battle.. it is still competition. Though there is not a lot of competition in slaying others, where you exactly know, that they have not the slightest chance(like low level ganking)
But seriously.. that is now clearly off topic.
Ofcourse all parties are not equal but the competition is fair. Finding out which team is the best one is the whole point (d'uh).
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
And you are both wrong.. both is competition. And with that said.. there is not something like equality and fair chance. Not in sports, not in e-sports, not in instanced arenas battlegrounds, not in rated arena/battlegrounds, not in rated leagues of different multiplayer games(like starcraft).
Because in 90%+ of all cases the one (group or) player is clearly better than (the other).. even the most advanced match making algorithm does not change that a lot(maybe from 95% to 85%). Battles were actually every side could win are rare in any case. In most cases the winner is already set before the game.. just none of both actually know it til a few seconds/minutes into the game.
Or as example.. do your really think that any nation partaking in the FIFA World Cup does have the same chance? Clearly not. Some have just better players, more teamwork, and better tactics as other.. some are clear outsider and will never win(like US team) and some are favorites(like Brazil) with a high chance of winning. (those can change from year to year)
And a open world scenario just delivers even more randomness into a battle.. it is still competition. Though there is not a lot of competition in slaying others, where you exactly know, that they have not the slightest chance(like low level ganking)
But seriously.. that is now clearly off topic.
Ofcourse all parties are not equal but the competition is fair. Finding out which team is the best one is the whole point (d'uh).
What do you think takes more skill? Fighting on even chances or fighting against overwhelming odds?? You dont know the lvl of team work you need in games like Darkfall or Mortal Online to fight off zergs of bigger numbers, its far more than you would need on an arena where everything is fair.
And you are both wrong.. both is competition. And with that said.. there is not something like equality and fair chance. Not in sports, not in e-sports, not in instanced arenas battlegrounds, not in rated arena/battlegrounds, not in rated leagues of different multiplayer games(like starcraft).
Because in 90%+ of all cases the one (group or) player is clearly better than (the other).. even the most advanced match making algorithm does not change that a lot(maybe from 95% to 85%). Battles were actually every side could win are rare in any case. In most cases the winner is already set before the game.. just none of both actually know it til a few seconds/minutes into the game.
Or as example.. do your really think that any nation partaking in the FIFA World Cup does have the same chance? Clearly not. Some have just better players, more teamwork, and better tactics as other.. some are clear outsider and will never win(like US team) and some are favorites(like Brazil) with a high chance of winning. (those can change from year to year)
And a open world scenario just delivers even more randomness into a battle.. it is still competition. Though there is not a lot of competition in slaying others, where you exactly know, that they have not the slightest chance(like low level ganking)
But seriously.. that is now clearly off topic.
Ofcourse all parties are not equal but the competition is fair. Finding out which team is the best one is the whole point (d'uh).
What do you think takes more skill? Fighting on even chances or fighting against overwhelming odds?? You dont know the lvl of team work you need in games like Darkfall or Mortal Online to fight off zergs of bigger numbers, its far more than you would need on an arena where everything is fair.
Not really? The more people the less cohesive they are. There is a reason why in games using a smaller amount is always better take WoW.
For the most part it is easy getting 10 people together to do the same thing right, its much harder trying to get 25 people to get something right.
With more people there are more problems to go wrong, not everyone listening, making it where someone has to look over everyone to see if they are doing what they are suppose to, in the time the person has a chance to die because they were not paying attention to themselves but instead the other half of the players.
Theres a reason why BGs are so easy, even fighting off a huge group to your few you still have a fighting chance most of the time. Its why Arenas are much harder and considered a much harder competition.
But really none of you know anything unless you are the few that have went to regionals and have placed, that is where real pvp players are. Not trying to compare the incomparable.
Complete equality is a farce. You’ll never find it anywhere unless you’re somehow playing yourself and this goes for regulated or completely free markets. Is this bad? No, I don’t think it’s bad. Inequality is the driving force behind innovation for those who want to maintain the lordship over the mountain and those who want to replace the lord.
In open-world PvP those imbalances are more acute because there are variables that can’t be accounted for such as NPC intervention or aid from other parties, that’s just part of “open world” and it’s something that we must live with when the decision is made to allow it. Despite the previous statement having a negative connotation I believe open-world PvP can increase immersion and help foster alliances and partnerships as well as conflict and wars. All of those reasons are very good for the game because it means players are generating content which helps get players engaged into the game and the world.
The topic has a very negative connotation by stating ‘punitive PK systems’. Maybe a better choice would have been ‘thoughtful PK systems’. PvP isn’t a bad mechanic, in fact it drives much of the MMO content these days and it adds a level of uncertainty and fluidity that single player games do not so the need to come up with a ‘thoughtful’ system is paramount instead of what we’ve been getting, which is nothing more than PvP as an afterthought.
When I think of a ‘thoughful PK system’ I think of risk vs. reward and in-game justice. Many of the PvP systems you find today shift all of the risk to the attacked player because the attacker has nothing to lose. These games have no gear durability hit, no looting of player gear or coin, no death penalty, and no in-game justice system to discourage a possible engagement. Some games even allow a same faction player to on-demand toggle flag to kill their own faction and these types of things do not provide any positive immersion into the game or community. There is no other decision made by the player except, “hey, there’s a target I’m gonna attack”, there is no forethought into what the possible ramifications are or what he might lose if his attack fails or backfires. This is what needs to be addressed; the attacked target cannot bear the consequences alone and both sides need to have some ‘skin’ in the game.
Things get worse when it comes to same-faction or FFA PvP systems. These types of systems are typically slapped on mechanics that are horrid for most. Take for instance Archeage. Their system allows anyone (in a PvP zone) to toggle same-faction PK at any moment with only a 30 second timer to turn it off. This discourages same-faction cooperation because you can never tell who will decide they are ‘done with the area’ and ‘gank’ you on their way out. People often seek areas where there are potential allies in engagements but this type of system encourages you to find an area without anyone around, for obvious reasons. The only real fix for this is to use the SWG way of players flagging in a town and the only way to unflag would be to go back to town and talk to the same NPC. There is, however, a justice system in game that seems to work ok. Every time you commit a crime – killing a player of your own faction is a crime – you leave evidence behind which can be reported by anyone that happens across it. You accumulate crime points and if you reach a threshold, the next time you are killed in PvP combat you get put on trial (automatically). Penalties are in the form of being put in jail for a real amount of time and most people see anywhere from 5-30 minutes of ‘jail time’ and players on the jury can elect to give the defendant an innocent verdict or a small range of ‘jail time’ options giving the players some input into the severity of the verdict.
In the end, the game developers need to assess what type of PvP they want and if it fits with the lore of the game and how far they want the PvP system to go in their game world. I would implore any future game developers to put real thought into the game mechanic choices they decide to introduce into the world. PvP is a massive part of any game and with that comes the responsibility to think it through from start to finish or we’ll continue to have systems like what we keep getting where it only feels as though PvP was an afterthought and nothing more.
The above post is some of the reasons I love the faction vs faction PvP in Achaea, and to an extent, Lusternia. In Achaea, There are only 2 "open PK" areas, which are very high-level bashing areas. The entire world may become "open PvP" to opposing factions, ONLY IF they declare "hostility" with eachother. And only enlisted soldiers (yes, you actually have to enlist in your factions army) become open PvP to eachother, so you can't be ganked by the other faction if you're not an enlisted soldier in your faction. It creates a very balanced PvP system where you can choose to participate or not participate in faction warfare.
Lusternia is nearly the same, but with a "village influence" system. Factions can do quests to "influence" villages (bashing areas) to become loyal to them, and then they can defend those villages from other factions bashing in them. So it appeals to both questers and PvPers, because you need to do quests to raise village loyalty, but you need PvPers to defend those villages. Everyone gets to play, not just PvPers and not just questers.
But really none of you know anything unless you are the few that have went to regionals and have placed, that is where real pvp players are. Not trying to compare the incomparable.
I have. Well... not in WoW, but in GW.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Comments
I agree, but the design should be such that there are consequences to action on a character level. Looking to punish the player for gameplay that is allowed in the game is counter-productive. A dev should either disallow the particular gameplay or create a manner of consequences directly related to the action. Player on Player revenge systems are not the way to do it.
"stopped from enjoying his sick hobby of killing defenseless people" At that point it is a manner of the design of the rest of the game that surrounds and supports the PVP and economic gameplay, and the reasons behind that aren't always clear to the player.
For example, I can't figure out at all why the Aion devs think it adds any value to let max'd players rampage through opposing faction mid-level zones, killing players that, even grouped, don't stand much of a chance. However, I completely understnad why low level characters are attackable in the PVP zones of PotBS.
It depends on the game, but the main thing is character-based consequences and not player-based punishment. It's a community, it's a game, and it's a business.
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
Look, no matter how much you are trying to goad me into it, I do not intend to enter into a pissing contest with you. You are unlikely to provide any proof of your PvP merits and I don't feel like digging up mine for your indulgence. Your first attempt to establish yourself as an authority in this matter was rather feeble already.
In competitive sports, as it is in competitive PvP, the objective is to establish who is the better player. Rules are put in place in order to make sure everyone is on a relatively level playing field and that everyone, players and onlookers alike, can enjoy a good competition. If the players' attributes and skill are the only things that can offset equality, then everything is working as intended.
You do not balance out skill. Ever. It defeats the purpose of getting good at a game. Giving players a chance to learn and improve their skill and then letting them apply their gained skill and knowledge to their advantage to gratifying results is one of the cornerstones of good game design. Winning should be the reward of being good in a game.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Ofcourse all parties are not equal but the competition is fair. Finding out which team is the best one is the whole point (d'uh).
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
What do you think takes more skill? Fighting on even chances or fighting against overwhelming odds?? You dont know the lvl of team work you need in games like Darkfall or Mortal Online to fight off zergs of bigger numbers, its far more than you would need on an arena where everything is fair.
Not really? The more people the less cohesive they are. There is a reason why in games using a smaller amount is always better take WoW.
For the most part it is easy getting 10 people together to do the same thing right, its much harder trying to get 25 people to get something right.
With more people there are more problems to go wrong, not everyone listening, making it where someone has to look over everyone to see if they are doing what they are suppose to, in the time the person has a chance to die because they were not paying attention to themselves but instead the other half of the players.
Theres a reason why BGs are so easy, even fighting off a huge group to your few you still have a fighting chance most of the time. Its why Arenas are much harder and considered a much harder competition.
But really none of you know anything unless you are the few that have went to regionals and have placed, that is where real pvp players are. Not trying to compare the incomparable.
Complete equality is a farce. You’ll never find it anywhere unless you’re somehow playing yourself and this goes for regulated or completely free markets. Is this bad? No, I don’t think it’s bad. Inequality is the driving force behind innovation for those who want to maintain the lordship over the mountain and those who want to replace the lord.
In open-world PvP those imbalances are more acute because there are variables that can’t be accounted for such as NPC intervention or aid from other parties, that’s just part of “open world” and it’s something that we must live with when the decision is made to allow it. Despite the previous statement having a negative connotation I believe open-world PvP can increase immersion and help foster alliances and partnerships as well as conflict and wars. All of those reasons are very good for the game because it means players are generating content which helps get players engaged into the game and the world.
The topic has a very negative connotation by stating ‘punitive PK systems’. Maybe a better choice would have been ‘thoughtful PK systems’. PvP isn’t a bad mechanic, in fact it drives much of the MMO content these days and it adds a level of uncertainty and fluidity that single player games do not so the need to come up with a ‘thoughtful’ system is paramount instead of what we’ve been getting, which is nothing more than PvP as an afterthought.
When I think of a ‘thoughful PK system’ I think of risk vs. reward and in-game justice. Many of the PvP systems you find today shift all of the risk to the attacked player because the attacker has nothing to lose. These games have no gear durability hit, no looting of player gear or coin, no death penalty, and no in-game justice system to discourage a possible engagement. Some games even allow a same faction player to on-demand toggle flag to kill their own faction and these types of things do not provide any positive immersion into the game or community. There is no other decision made by the player except, “hey, there’s a target I’m gonna attack”, there is no forethought into what the possible ramifications are or what he might lose if his attack fails or backfires. This is what needs to be addressed; the attacked target cannot bear the consequences alone and both sides need to have some ‘skin’ in the game.
Things get worse when it comes to same-faction or FFA PvP systems. These types of systems are typically slapped on mechanics that are horrid for most. Take for instance Archeage. Their system allows anyone (in a PvP zone) to toggle same-faction PK at any moment with only a 30 second timer to turn it off. This discourages same-faction cooperation because you can never tell who will decide they are ‘done with the area’ and ‘gank’ you on their way out. People often seek areas where there are potential allies in engagements but this type of system encourages you to find an area without anyone around, for obvious reasons. The only real fix for this is to use the SWG way of players flagging in a town and the only way to unflag would be to go back to town and talk to the same NPC. There is, however, a justice system in game that seems to work ok. Every time you commit a crime – killing a player of your own faction is a crime – you leave evidence behind which can be reported by anyone that happens across it. You accumulate crime points and if you reach a threshold, the next time you are killed in PvP combat you get put on trial (automatically). Penalties are in the form of being put in jail for a real amount of time and most people see anywhere from 5-30 minutes of ‘jail time’ and players on the jury can elect to give the defendant an innocent verdict or a small range of ‘jail time’ options giving the players some input into the severity of the verdict.
In the end, the game developers need to assess what type of PvP they want and if it fits with the lore of the game and how far they want the PvP system to go in their game world. I would implore any future game developers to put real thought into the game mechanic choices they decide to introduce into the world. PvP is a massive part of any game and with that comes the responsibility to think it through from start to finish or we’ll continue to have systems like what we keep getting where it only feels as though PvP was an afterthought and nothing more.
The above post is some of the reasons I love the faction vs faction PvP in Achaea, and to an extent, Lusternia. In Achaea, There are only 2 "open PK" areas, which are very high-level bashing areas. The entire world may become "open PvP" to opposing factions, ONLY IF they declare "hostility" with eachother. And only enlisted soldiers (yes, you actually have to enlist in your factions army) become open PvP to eachother, so you can't be ganked by the other faction if you're not an enlisted soldier in your faction. It creates a very balanced PvP system where you can choose to participate or not participate in faction warfare.
Lusternia is nearly the same, but with a "village influence" system. Factions can do quests to "influence" villages (bashing areas) to become loyal to them, and then they can defend those villages from other factions bashing in them. So it appeals to both questers and PvPers, because you need to do quests to raise village loyalty, but you need PvPers to defend those villages. Everyone gets to play, not just PvPers and not just questers.
I have. Well... not in WoW, but in GW.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky