And in my post that you are quoting, I was participating in the conversation in a direct way. I was explaining how a lot of players might be considered PvE, and "casual" even, when in fact they might also be hardcore PvPers in Arena games.
What, do I have to agree with and accept the OP's terms? Or anyone else's?
I think maybe you are the one doing the derailing. Let the conversations flow, and don't try to be a self styled enforcer.
As one of those PvE players, that's a hardcore MFer in Arena games, I can sincerely tell you, there is almost no way in hell you would get me to play some hybrid fuckery game with level, class, gear, and all the other asinine imbalances that PvE games have sandwiched into an open world PvP.
L2build nub
Everyone read this ^
This is the exact mentality is what will forever keep PvPMMO a second rate shit subgenre.
I found an Asian site with Asian women all over it. Which I could not read. (I think it's in Chinese.)
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
And in my post that you are quoting, I was participating in the conversation in a direct way. I was explaining how a lot of players might be considered PvE, and "casual" even, when in fact they might also be hardcore PvPers in Arena games.
What, do I have to agree with and accept the OP's terms? Or anyone else's?
I think maybe you are the one doing the derailing. Let the conversations flow, and don't try to be a self styled enforcer.
As one of those PvE players, that's a hardcore MFer in Arena games, I can sincerely tell you, there is almost no way in hell you would get me to play some hybrid fuckery game with level, class, gear, and all the other asinine imbalances that PvE games have sandwiched into an open world PvP.
L2build nub
Everyone read this ^
This is the exact mentality is what will forever keep PvPMMO a second rate shit subgenre.
And in my post that you are quoting, I was participating in the conversation in a direct way. I was explaining how a lot of players might be considered PvE, and "casual" even, when in fact they might also be hardcore PvPers in Arena games.
What, do I have to agree with and accept the OP's terms? Or anyone else's?
I think maybe you are the one doing the derailing. Let the conversations flow, and don't try to be a self styled enforcer.
As one of those PvE players, that's a hardcore MFer in Arena games, I can sincerely tell you, there is almost no way in hell you would get me to play some hybrid fuckery game with level, class, gear, and all the other asinine imbalances that PvE games have sandwiched into an open world PvP.
I'm good with that. But you are still sticking to "it can't be done any differently." I'm good with that too.
If some company could pull it off in a way that didn't suck.. I'd give it a try, just to see.
But going to be dead honest, I know that whatever might make this holy grail hybred you seek work, would need to be some totally new approach. Not any of cobbling together of older ideas that failed every time they were tried that I see paraded on these forums. Not only have I seen all the ideas mentioned here done and failed, I have seen other and better sounding ideas, and they still failed.
So, I'm not gonna burn a candle in hope for that to happen,
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
And in my post that you are quoting, I was participating in the conversation in a direct way. I was explaining how a lot of players might be considered PvE, and "casual" even, when in fact they might also be hardcore PvPers in Arena games.
What, do I have to agree with and accept the OP's terms? Or anyone else's?
I think maybe you are the one doing the derailing. Let the conversations flow, and don't try to be a self styled enforcer.
As one of those PvE players, that's a hardcore MFer in Arena games, I can sincerely tell you, there is almost no way in hell you would get me to play some hybrid fuckery game with level, class, gear, and all the other asinine imbalances that PvE games have sandwiched into an open world PvP.
I'm good with that. But you are still sticking to "it can't be done any differently." I'm good with that too.
If some company could pull it off in a way that didn't suck.. I'd give it a try, just to see.
But going to be dead honest, I know that whatever might make this holy grail hybred you seek work, would need to be some totally new approach. Not any of cobbling together of older ideas that failed every time they were tried that I see paraded on these forums. Not only have I seen all the ideas mentioned here done and failed, I have seen other and better sounding ideas, and they still failed.
So, I'm not gonna burn a candle in hope for that to happen,
So you have read all of Amaranthar's and all of my posts on this subject?
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
My question remains; If you have the option to kill people anywhere at any time, but want add multiple layers of rules for the purpose of discouraging murderous (and griefing) behavior then at what point does it become too much pointless work? In my experience this leads to edge cases upon edge cases and you're always chasing the problems. Unless you draw a line and accept what you have.
Eve drew the line at alignment loss for illegal kills and near instant death for them in high sec, however there are still countless complaints to this day and many people that will never touch the game because it's even possible. For CCP this is the game they wanted to play and these are the rules they wanted to live by.
"Can it be done?" Well, what do you consider "open world pvp"? That will lead to much better answers.
Quizzical had a response on the first page saying that it's possible and it's been demonstrated in Uncharted Waters Online, however upon inspection this isn't in the same category as Eve because there are many areas in which you cannot initiate an attack on another player thus allowing PVE or casual players the ability completely avoid pvp if they so choose. This wasn't done through a layers upon layers of rules that people will find a way around, but instead done through hard coded set rule sets that completely prevent players from engaging. You cannot engage on land, only water for example, and there are areas in the ocean that are not flagged for PVP or there are some that are on timers and are only flagged for pvp at certain times. I could be getting some of those wrong, but the point still stands that these are hard coded rule sets the player is completely unable to circumvent.
Ungood is an example of a player that is very unlikely to play your game if there is a remote chance that pvp can occur when he doesn't want it to and IMO a good example of what the OP is trying to get into their game. So to reiterate what I've said in the past; If you want it to be possible to kill anywhere, then it will happen. If it can happen, those players are not likely to want to play. So if you want those players you will have to forgo the "open world" pvp for something perhaps a little less "world" or less "open".
And in my post that you are quoting, I was participating in the conversation in a direct way. I was explaining how a lot of players might be considered PvE, and "casual" even, when in fact they might also be hardcore PvPers in Arena games.
What, do I have to agree with and accept the OP's terms? Or anyone else's?
I think maybe you are the one doing the derailing. Let the conversations flow, and don't try to be a self styled enforcer.
As one of those PvE players, that's a hardcore MFer in Arena games, I can sincerely tell you, there is almost no way in hell you would get me to play some hybrid fuckery game with level, class, gear, and all the other asinine imbalances that PvE games have sandwiched into an open world PvP.
L2build nub
Everyone read this ^
This is the exact mentality is what will forever keep PvPMMO a second rate shit subgenre.
So sensitive
Just stating the obvious truth.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
And in my post that you are quoting, I was participating in the conversation in a direct way. I was explaining how a lot of players might be considered PvE, and "casual" even, when in fact they might also be hardcore PvPers in Arena games.
What, do I have to agree with and accept the OP's terms? Or anyone else's?
I think maybe you are the one doing the derailing. Let the conversations flow, and don't try to be a self styled enforcer.
As one of those PvE players, that's a hardcore MFer in Arena games, I can sincerely tell you, there is almost no way in hell you would get me to play some hybrid fuckery game with level, class, gear, and all the other asinine imbalances that PvE games have sandwiched into an open world PvP.
I'm good with that. But you are still sticking to "it can't be done any differently." I'm good with that too.
If some company could pull it off in a way that didn't suck.. I'd give it a try, just to see.
But going to be dead honest, I know that whatever might make this holy grail hybred you seek work, would need to be some totally new approach. Not any of cobbling together of older ideas that failed every time they were tried that I see paraded on these forums. Not only have I seen all the ideas mentioned here done and failed, I have seen other and better sounding ideas, and they still failed.
So, I'm not gonna burn a candle in hope for that to happen,
So you have read all of Amaranthar's and all of my posts on this subject?
I can't honestly say ALL, but I have read a lot of them.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
And in my post that you are quoting, I was participating in the conversation in a direct way. I was explaining how a lot of players might be considered PvE, and "casual" even, when in fact they might also be hardcore PvPers in Arena games.
What, do I have to agree with and accept the OP's terms? Or anyone else's?
I think maybe you are the one doing the derailing. Let the conversations flow, and don't try to be a self styled enforcer.
As one of those PvE players, that's a hardcore MFer in Arena games, I can sincerely tell you, there is almost no way in hell you would get me to play some hybrid fuckery game with level, class, gear, and all the other asinine imbalances that PvE games have sandwiched into an open world PvP.
I'm good with that. But you are still sticking to "it can't be done any differently." I'm good with that too.
If some company could pull it off in a way that didn't suck.. I'd give it a try, just to see.
But going to be dead honest, I know that whatever might make this holy grail hybred you seek work, would need to be some totally new approach. Not any of cobbling together of older ideas that failed every time they were tried that I see paraded on these forums. Not only have I seen all the ideas mentioned here done and failed, I have seen other and better sounding ideas, and they still failed.
So, I'm not gonna burn a candle in hope for that to happen,
So you have read all of Amaranthar's and all of my posts on this subject?
I can't honestly say ALL, but I have read a lot of them.
I think what we need to do is define what the penalties are, why they are there, and what they accomplish. After all these years people just don't trust anyone. And I can understand that.
Ancient_Exile has given some details, things like Guardians and Faction penalties, but it's really not enough to get a clear picture. And if there's one thing we've seen plenty of, it's "promises" that end up being vacuous.
And in my post that you are quoting, I was participating in the conversation in a direct way. I was explaining how a lot of players might be considered PvE, and "casual" even, when in fact they might also be hardcore PvPers in Arena games.
What, do I have to agree with and accept the OP's terms? Or anyone else's?
I think maybe you are the one doing the derailing. Let the conversations flow, and don't try to be a self styled enforcer.
As one of those PvE players, that's a hardcore MFer in Arena games, I can sincerely tell you, there is almost no way in hell you would get me to play some hybrid fuckery game with level, class, gear, and all the other asinine imbalances that PvE games have sandwiched into an open world PvP.
L2build nub
Everyone read this ^
This is the exact mentality is what will forever keep PvPMMO a second rate shit subgenre.
I've seen the same kind of attitude from some that feel they are of the topmost echelon when it comes to PvE. It is a personal issue rather than one of game or play type I think.
This thread is a startling example of why the two camps cannot coexist.
Well I can only speak for myself and my own experiences with MMO's for the last 30 some odd years on this.
Originally they did CoExist, back in the days of AOL online game, where they were text based games, Gemstone IV, being a great example of this, where there was a single game world where thousands of players coexisted, that had open world PvP. But keep in mind, in these games, there was a strong drive for realism, like needing to have a sheath to store a dagger, and having belt pouches that you attached to your belt, Etc. Back then, PvP was considered a "Necessary part of Role Play" this is because, well in games like D&D, PvP was in fact allowed, you could attack anyone and anything, including other players. So players were in fact able to settle their differences through violence if that is how they wanted to handle things, and the idea of PvP being a part of role play was in fact started in those Pen&Paper games. However, keep in mind those games were often small groups of reoccuring people, typically the same 4 - 10 people every week for game night. So it was a very controlled group.
Even later in online games like Gemstone IV and Dragonrealms, while yes, you went from 4 - 10 people now to a world full of 1,000+ people all playing at the same time, it still was a group of people looking for a role playing game. Not just people looking to be trolls and asshats.
But even way back then, people would use the excuse "I am role playing evil" as a justification to a complete asshat.
And that got old fast.
Jump to EQ, and suddenly they removed PvP, and now, the game and game world is far more prolific. Sure they still had their PvP servers for the players that believed that PvP was the golden chalice of role play, but they didn't hold a candle to the populations that the PvE servers held.
A new world is born, and Game Developers realized that PvP was not "All That" , that PvP was not needed to make a fun, realistic game world, nor was it needed for Role Play. This of course was not met well by the people that wanted to bully and abuse other players, and the name calling like "carebear" and the like started, but PvE thrived, because those players didn't want to deal with the griefing asshats.
However, some players enjoyed the thrill and challenge of facing other players, this has held true in many games over time, going right back to games like chess, where the best challenge was another player.
So some developers opted to make games where the PvP was important, it was not a role play thing, but a important part of the game, and the game world changed again, Arena games, Battle Royals, Realms vs Realms, these games where PvP was the game were born. And the players that enjoyed PvP flocked to those games and if the numbers tell us anything, they are loving the hell out of that.
These two groups are more than happy to leave each other to their own games, as they are enjoying what they have.
Case in point, I have never in my life while playing an Arena game, heard someone say "You know what would make this game great? If you could put a bullet in my ass while I was harvesting a flower so I could make some mint tea later"
I have also, in my entire like of playing PvE games heard someone say "You know what would make this game great? If you could put a bullet in my ass while I was harvesting a flower so I could make some mint tea later"
Which leaves us with one small subset of gamer that was left out in the cold. The griefing asshat, that wanted to put a bullet into someone's ass while they were harvesting a flower to make some mint tea later, these players that wanted to use PvP to bully, abuse, and harass other players.
And even then, there are games that have been made just for them, often dubbed as survival games, where the whole idea is to bullet into someone's ass while they were harvesting a flower to make some mint tea later
Funny how these players don't want to play a game designed for others just like them.. maybe because.. NO ONEwants to take a bullet into the Ass while they are Harvesting a flower to make some mint tea later ?
So that is kind of where we are right now in the game development era.
Gee, well, why can't we design a game that makes it more problematic or difficult for people to behave like bullies or a**shats? Why can't we make a PVP/PVE game that discourages players from bullying, abusing, and stalking/harassing other players?
Note: Role-Playing a criminal, a villain, or an enemy soldier/combatant in an MMORPG does not automatically equate to being a bully, abuser, stalker, harasser, or griefer.
Anyway, why is someone trying to harvest a flower to make some mint tea later in a dangerous wilderness all by him or herself? Did you know that, even in modern times, it can be dangerous to walk in the wilderness alone and unarmed? It can even still be dangerous if a person isn't alone or unarmed. Wild animals can be dangerous sometimes. There can also be crazy or evil people lurking in wilderness or remote areas.
ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK! DON'T FEED THE ANIMALS!
It's not just that. You've talked about a variety of safeguards. Factions- so for a (semi) PvE player they will probably play a form of "good" alignment faction, and their main antagonists will probably be Chaotic Evil. Sure, every PK wannabe will play CE. But they'll have to venture into Faction controlled lands and face the other safeguards. Guardians, wandering and useful in defense. Guard patrols, as Guardians. Possibly Guard Towers and camps, to add more safeguards. PvP friendlies, who will get Faction bonuses (part of progression) for aiding against Factional incursions. Alarms to inform Faction guards, guardians, and players. And finally, a Justice system in the case of players going against their Faction (PKers against their own, and closely aligned Factions).
It's not a game for pure PvEers, but it sounds like a hell of a game. And it definitely won't be a Wide Open gank fest because of those safeguards.
Yet he just ignores all that and uses games with "outs" in their fake justice systems as proof that it can't work as intended. And now, in this last attempt at being ignorantly negative, he talks about safety inside cities. As if that's where players want to play their entire game, and claims that was good enough but still didn't work.
It just boggles the mind how some people will completely ignore the points made, and stick to their only claim, using predictable failures to support their claims. Logic is a skill that some people never bother to "level."
My response couldn't fit, so (...to be continued..)
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
You mentioned in a previous post something about using a mountain
range (probably inhabited by powerful and dangerous Mobs) to divide the
good/not so evil Factions & Provinces from the evil/not so good
Factions & Provinces. Not saying that couldn't work, but it just
feels a little contrived. So what about a powerful NPC Empire (a
Faction which no Players could join) controlled by both AI & Game
Masters which divided the good & evil Factions? Of course, this may
also feel a bit too contrived. But maybe not so much. It would seem
more realistic if good & evil Factions/Provinces/Territories existed
side-by-side on game world map. Though perhaps there might be a more
of concentration of Evil Factions/Provinces/Territories in one direction
or another (North/South/East/West).
One
might argue that Players of one Faction could plan a Mass Invasion/Zerg
in an attempt to overwhelm the NPC soldiers & guardians, so that
they could wreak havoc on the PCs (Player Characters) in that
Province/Territory as they saw fit. Of course, this might not be so
easy if the Player Characters of that Faction were altered in time and
began fighting alongside the NPCs.
Also,
birds (such as carrier pigeons, etc.) could be used to send messages to
Allied Factions. And there could be even more instantaneous types of
magical or divine/infernal communication methods possible between
Factions and their Allies. So, it could be a bit of a risk for one
Faction to attempt an All-Out Invasion of another Faction. Considering
that Allied Factions of their intended target might join the fray. Or
that another Faction might decide to Invade/Zerg the Province/Territory
of the Invading/Zerging Faction while most or all of the PCs are not
present in their own Province/Territory. If you get my meaning.
EDIT: Also, Allied Factions might not always find it in their best interest to cooperate with each other in any and all situations. For example, if Resources in the game world are limited (and/or have a longer period in which they are regenerated/replenished), then even Allies might have disputes over Resources in Provinces/Territories/Areas which are not currently Claimed or Inhabited by an existing Faction. And/or Resources which are present in War Zones/Battlefields/Contested Areas. Control of Trade Routes and the possibility of taxing travelers might be another reason for Allies to find themselves at odds.
EDIT #2: Furthermore, there's the very real possibility of spies within the ranks. As in a player who has a character in one Faction, while his or her actual loyalties lie with another Faction. Plans being laid for Mass Invasion/Zerg by one Faction might then quite possibly be relayed to the Faction which is the intended target quite surreptitiously.
Post edited by Ancient_Exile on
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
I think what we need to do is define what the penalties are, why they are there, and what they accomplish. After all these years people just don't trust anyone. And I can understand that.
Remember, laws (or rules in this case) don't prevent crimes. They simply give a consequence for an action.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
I think what we need to do is define what the penalties are, why they are there, and what they accomplish. After all these years people just don't trust anyone. And I can understand that.
Remember, laws (or rules in this case) don't prevent crimes. They simply give a consequence for an action.
But if a player suffers those consequences enough times, it's quite possible that he/she might be encouraged to change his/her behavior.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
I think what we need to do is define what the penalties are, why they are there, and what they accomplish. After all these years people just don't trust anyone. And I can understand that.
Remember, laws (or rules in this case) don't prevent crimes. They simply give a consequence for an action.
But if a player suffers those consequences enough times, it's quite possible that he/she might be encouraged to change his/her behavior.
If's and maybes don't solve problems though. The consequences will never stop those that wish to do these things, at most they'll slow them down. Just depends on what your goal is.
I think what we need to do is define what the penalties are, why they are there, and what they accomplish. After all these years people just don't trust anyone. And I can understand that.
Remember, laws (or rules in this case) don't prevent crimes. They simply give a consequence for an action.
But if a player suffers those consequences enough times, it's quite possible that he/she might be encouraged to change his/her behavior.
If's and maybes don't solve problems though. The consequences will never stop those that wish to do these things, at most they'll slow them down. Just depends on what your goal is.
I don't know. Depends on the severity of the consequences. And if perhaps the potential consequences become more severe the longer or more frequently the player exhibits certain kinds of behavior.
In my mind, one of the most important goals is to keep the game world playable - fair, fun, and balanced for the majority of players for the longest amount of time possible. There IS a difference between someone who honestly wants to role-play a criminal or villain and someone who just wants to grief, stalk, or abuse other players just because he can. Unless he or she is insane, a criminal or villain will still have a reason or reasons for doing what he or she does. A player who has his character do things without rhyme or reason beyond trying to ruin the game for other people is not the kind of player I would want to encourage. So I believe that systems must be put in place to discourage that kind of behavior. My ultimate goal would not be to punish individual players but to help make the game world enjoyable for the most amount of players possible. If some players don't like the game because they aren't free to kill whomever they please any time anywhere without consequence, too bad. They can go play another game where that is possible. I don't care.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
I think what we need to do is define what the penalties are, why they are there, and what they accomplish. After all these years people just don't trust anyone. And I can understand that.
Remember, laws (or rules in this case) don't prevent crimes. They simply give a consequence for an action.
But if a player suffers those consequences enough times, it's quite possible that he/she might be encouraged to change his/her behavior.
If's and maybes don't solve problems though. The consequences will never stop those that wish to do these things, at most they'll slow them down. Just depends on what your goal is.
I don't know. Depends on the severity of the consequences. And if perhaps the potential consequences become more severe the longer or more frequently the player exhibits certain kinds of behavior.
In my mind, one of the most important goals is to keep the game world playable - fair, fun, and balanced for the majority of players for the longest amount of time possible. There's IS a difference between someone who honestly wants to role-play a criminal or villain and someone who just wants to grief, stalk, or abuse other players just because he can. Unless he or she is insane, a criminal or villain will still have a reason or reasons for doing what he or she does. A player who has his character do things without rhyme or reason beyond trying to ruin the game for other people is not the kind of player I would want to encourage. So I believe that systems must be put in place to discourage that kind of behavior. My ultimate goal would not be to punish individual players but to help make the game world enjoyable for the most amount of players possible. If some players don't like the game because they aren't free to kill whomever they please any time anywhere without consequence, too bad. They can go play another game where that is possible. I don't care.
Unless you have rules that cannot be bypassed to prevent killing or griefing then those players you talk about in the end will still play. It's not them you would worry about, it's the ones they make quit that would be leaving or not playing.
If you did make changes so these players will never be able to grief, then yes the ones that only want to grief wouldn't play, but that's not what "laws" do as mentioned above.
If you want to allow criminals, you'll also enable griefers. It's just an unfortunate side effect that really can't be completely avoided.
I think what we need to do is define what the penalties are, why they are there, and what they accomplish. After all these years people just don't trust anyone. And I can understand that.
Remember, laws (or rules in this case) don't prevent crimes. They simply give a consequence for an action.
But if a player suffers those consequences enough times, it's quite possible that he/she might be encouraged to change his/her behavior.
If's and maybes don't solve problems though. The consequences will never stop those that wish to do these things, at most they'll slow them down. Just depends on what your goal is.
I don't know. Depends on the severity of the consequences. And if perhaps the potential consequences become more severe the longer or more frequently the player exhibits certain kinds of behavior.
In my mind, one of the most important goals is to keep the game world playable - fair, fun, and balanced for the majority of players for the longest amount of time possible. There's IS a difference between someone who honestly wants to role-play a criminal or villain and someone who just wants to grief, stalk, or abuse other players just because he can. Unless he or she is insane, a criminal or villain will still have a reason or reasons for doing what he or she does. A player who has his character do things without rhyme or reason beyond trying to ruin the game for other people is not the kind of player I would want to encourage. So I believe that systems must be put in place to discourage that kind of behavior. My ultimate goal would not be to punish individual players but to help make the game world enjoyable for the most amount of players possible. If some players don't like the game because they aren't free to kill whomever they please any time anywhere without consequence, too bad. They can go play another game where that is possible. I don't care.
Unless you have rules that cannot be bypassed to prevent killing or griefing then those players you talk about in the end will still play. It's not them you would worry about, it's the ones they make quit that would be leaving or not playing.
If you did make changes so these players will never be able to grief, then yes the ones that only want to grief wouldn't play, but that's not what "laws" do as mentioned above.
If you want to allow criminals, you'll also enable griefers. It's just an unfortunate side effect that really can't be completely avoided.
Yeah, I don't think it's possible to completely eliminate griefing from MMORPGs. People even grief others in PVE only games. It's just that players don't usually have a way to get even in PVE only games.
Also, I believe that players would be less likely to quit after being victimized by others if they have a realistic chance to fight back or get revenge. Or just seeing or knowing that the offensive player eventually suffered some sort of negative consequences for his or her actions might help as well.
Not only that, some people are way too sensitive and might think that anyone who gets in their way of doing whatever they want whenever they want is causing them grief.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
And in my post that you are quoting, I was participating in the conversation in a direct way. I was explaining how a lot of players might be considered PvE, and "casual" even, when in fact they might also be hardcore PvPers in Arena games.
What, do I have to agree with and accept the OP's terms? Or anyone else's?
I think maybe you are the one doing the derailing. Let the conversations flow, and don't try to be a self styled enforcer.
As one of those PvE players, that's a hardcore MFer in Arena games, I can sincerely tell you, there is almost no way in hell you would get me to play some hybrid fuckery game with level, class, gear, and all the other asinine imbalances that PvE games have sandwiched into an open world PvP.
I'm good with that. But you are still sticking to "it can't be done any differently." I'm good with that too.
If some company could pull it off in a way that didn't suck.. I'd give it a try, just to see.
But going to be dead honest, I know that whatever might make this holy grail hybred you seek work, would need to be some totally new approach. Not any of cobbling together of older ideas that failed every time they were tried that I see paraded on these forums. Not only have I seen all the ideas mentioned here done and failed, I have seen other and better sounding ideas, and they still failed.
So, I'm not gonna burn a candle in hope for that to happen,
So you have read all of Amaranthar's and all of my posts on this subject?
I can't honestly say ALL, but I have read a lot of them.
I think what we need to do is define what the penalties are, why they are there, and what they accomplish. After all these years people just don't trust anyone. And I can understand that.
Ancient_Exile has given some details, things like Guardians and Faction penalties, but it's really not enough to get a clear picture. And if there's one thing we've seen plenty of, it's "promises" that end up being vacuous.
I read those ideas. I believe that I even tried to explain that other games tried that, and failed.
No diss, but I see no reason to believe that rehashing an older failed idea would suddenly work.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
And in my post that you are quoting, I was participating in the conversation in a direct way. I was explaining how a lot of players might be considered PvE, and "casual" even, when in fact they might also be hardcore PvPers in Arena games.
What, do I have to agree with and accept the OP's terms? Or anyone else's?
I think maybe you are the one doing the derailing. Let the conversations flow, and don't try to be a self styled enforcer.
As one of those PvE players, that's a hardcore MFer in Arena games, I can sincerely tell you, there is almost no way in hell you would get me to play some hybrid fuckery game with level, class, gear, and all the other asinine imbalances that PvE games have sandwiched into an open world PvP.
L2build nub
Everyone read this ^
This is the exact mentality is what will forever keep PvPMMO a second rate shit subgenre.
I've seen the same kind of attitude from some that feel they are of the topmost echelon when it comes to PvE. It is a personal issue rather than one of game or play type I think.
I am not competing against them in PvE.
I should not need to explain this to you, but in case you didn't fully get this, In a PvE game, the classes, gear, levels, all that, have absolutely zero effect on anyone else gameplay. Ergo, disparity are non-issues. So making it so that you can have suboptimal builds has no impact to the game in any meaningful way.
The second you make it PvP, the nature of the game changes, and the levels, classes, gear, of other players affects the gameplay of those around them, thus making it so that anyone has a suboptimal build is a waste of design space.
Any player that thinks that has a Learn 2 Build mindset in a PvP game, is not there for the PvP, they are there to Bully other players and use their character to win fights, not their skill as a player.. fitting name of the person that said too.. don't you think?
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
And in my post that you are quoting, I was participating in the conversation in a direct way. I was explaining how a lot of players might be considered PvE, and "casual" even, when in fact they might also be hardcore PvPers in Arena games.
What, do I have to agree with and accept the OP's terms? Or anyone else's?
I think maybe you are the one doing the derailing. Let the conversations flow, and don't try to be a self styled enforcer.
As one of those PvE players, that's a hardcore MFer in Arena games, I can sincerely tell you, there is almost no way in hell you would get me to play some hybrid fuckery game with level, class, gear, and all the other asinine imbalances that PvE games have sandwiched into an open world PvP.
I'm good with that. But you are still sticking to "it can't be done any differently." I'm good with that too.
If some company could pull it off in a way that didn't suck.. I'd give it a try, just to see.
But going to be dead honest, I know that whatever might make this holy grail hybred you seek work, would need to be some totally new approach. Not any of cobbling together of older ideas that failed every time they were tried that I see paraded on these forums. Not only have I seen all the ideas mentioned here done and failed, I have seen other and better sounding ideas, and they still failed.
So, I'm not gonna burn a candle in hope for that to happen,
So you have read all of Amaranthar's and all of my posts on this subject?
I can't honestly say ALL, but I have read a lot of them.
I think what we need to do is define what the penalties are, why they are there, and what they accomplish. After all these years people just don't trust anyone. And I can understand that.
Ancient_Exile has given some details, things like Guardians and Faction penalties, but it's really not enough to get a clear picture. And if there's one thing we've seen plenty of, it's "promises" that end up being vacuous.
I read those ideas. I believe that I even tried to explain that other games tried that, and failed.
No diss, but I see no reason to believe that rehashing an older failed idea would suddenly work.
Amaranthar summarized a lot of my ideas pretty well in one of his posts:
"Factions- so for a (semi) PvE player they will probably play a form of
"good" alignment faction, and their main antagonists will probably be
Chaotic Evil. Sure, every PK wannabe will play CE. But they'll have to venture into Faction controlled lands and face the other safeguards. Guardians, wandering and useful in defense. Guard patrols, as Guardians. Possibly Guard Towers and camps, to add more safeguards. PvP friendlies, who will get Faction bonuses (part of progression) for aiding against Factional incursions. Alarms to inform Faction guards, guardians, and players. And
finally, a Justice system in the case of players going against their
Faction (PKers against their own, and closely aligned Factions)."
So I'm curious. Which game has tried any or all of these things? And which game has tried better methods to alleviate the problem of griefing.
Note: I don't think we can ever eliminate griefing entirely. (Especially considering not everyone's definition of griefing is the same.) But I believe it is possible to significantly decrease the occurrence of destructive behavior and mitigate its negative effects on the majority of a game's population.
Post edited by Ancient_Exile on
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
And in my post that you are quoting, I was participating in the conversation in a direct way. I was explaining how a lot of players might be considered PvE, and "casual" even, when in fact they might also be hardcore PvPers in Arena games.
What, do I have to agree with and accept the OP's terms? Or anyone else's?
I think maybe you are the one doing the derailing. Let the conversations flow, and don't try to be a self styled enforcer.
As one of those PvE players, that's a hardcore MFer in Arena games, I can sincerely tell you, there is almost no way in hell you would get me to play some hybrid fuckery game with level, class, gear, and all the other asinine imbalances that PvE games have sandwiched into an open world PvP.
I'm good with that. But you are still sticking to "it can't be done any differently." I'm good with that too.
If some company could pull it off in a way that didn't suck.. I'd give it a try, just to see.
But going to be dead honest, I know that whatever might make this holy grail hybred you seek work, would need to be some totally new approach. Not any of cobbling together of older ideas that failed every time they were tried that I see paraded on these forums. Not only have I seen all the ideas mentioned here done and failed, I have seen other and better sounding ideas, and they still failed.
So, I'm not gonna burn a candle in hope for that to happen,
So you have read all of Amaranthar's and all of my posts on this subject?
I can't honestly say ALL, but I have read a lot of them.
I think what we need to do is define what the penalties are, why they are there, and what they accomplish. After all these years people just don't trust anyone. And I can understand that.
Ancient_Exile has given some details, things like Guardians and Faction penalties, but it's really not enough to get a clear picture. And if there's one thing we've seen plenty of, it's "promises" that end up being vacuous.
I read those ideas. I believe that I even tried to explain that other games tried that, and failed.
No diss, but I see no reason to believe that rehashing an older failed idea would suddenly work.
Amaranthar summarized a lot of my ideas pretty well in one of his posts:
"Factions- so for a (semi) PvE player they will probably play a form of
"good" alignment faction, and their main antagonists will probably be
Chaotic Evil. Sure, every PK wannabe will play CE. But they'll have to venture into Faction controlled lands and face the other safeguards. Guardians, wandering and useful in defense. Guard patrols, as Guardians. Possibly Guard Towers and camps, to add more safeguards. PvP friendlies, who will get Faction bonuses (part of progression) for aiding against Factional incursions. Alarms to inform Faction guards, guardians, and players. And
finally, a Justice system in the case of players going against their
Faction (PKers against their own, and closely aligned Factions)."
So I'm curious. Which game has tried any or all of these things? And which game has tried better methods to alleviate the problem of griefing.
Note: I don't think we can ever eliminate griefing entirely. (Especially considering not everyone's definition of griefing is the same.) But I believe it is possible to significantly decrease the occurrence of destructive behavior and mitigate its negative effects on the majority of a game's population.
Faction Based PvP: Also Known as Realms vs Realms, and World vs World.
This has been around since Realm vs Realm existed, with DAOC being the major ground breaking forerunner of this game style.
Little known bit of history, EQ had a racial realms vs realm mode on one of their PvP Servers, (IIRC it was Tallon Zek) with sides, like "Good" and "Evil" and like the rest of the game, each race had its own faction, and even cites had their own factions.
Which was kinda funny, because Ogres and Drow were on the "Evil" team, but didn't get along, in the sense that Ogres were not allowed in Drow Cities and the PvE guards would kill Ogres if we got too close. The pile of dead noob ogres near the Drow City guards while trying to build fraction doing basic quests in their starter areas, was most likely a testament to as why this system never took off in other games.
With that bit of history tossed out, These Realm vs Realms games had PvE guards/defenders, towers, keeps, all that is just basic stuff that goes into a territory control game. As such, not being rude here, but I am not seeing a new or unique idea here.
Again, not being rude, but even in most Realm vs Realm but they had the common sense to at least remove the ability to attack your OWN faction, even in EQ's faction PvP allowed All Evil races to Hunt together, even if we couldn't enter each others cities, this allowed for safe grouping to do PvE so you did not end up shooting the tank in the back while trying to take down a boss mob.
To be fair however, That's was just common sense game design since they had a lot of PvE elements, and wanted players to engage in them.
But even then, they were still plagued by all the problems of unbalanced PvP due to levels and gear, now coupled with the added problems of stacked factions/servers which have been a thing since DAOC.
And you're plan is then to put in Team Kills along with Realms vs Realms, PvE, and class/level/gear imbalances, and thinking that it's going to work.
Now, I am not being rude here, but none of what you said is a new idea.
In fact a little of your idea has been tried, like your basic premise of having Open World, Free For All PvP in a PvE game World. Just FYI, EQ tried that one, in 1999, Rallos Zek server, IIRC. Fun fact, when players AoE buff in EQ you auto target them, so, the fight would start, the bard would play a buff song, and we would all then proceed to execute a wonderfully team based planned attack designed to drop a huge ass mob, that would all hit the bard, blowing the ever living shit out of that poor bastard.
Needless to say, that kind of Team Kill feature, does not work in PvE games, just in case you were ever wondering, which is why we removed it decades ago.
Even PvP games are not big on putting in Team Killing into their games, because that just builds hostility within the teams.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
First of all, I know that Factions are nothing new when it comes to
MMORPGs. It's just that I don't think they've ever been done right or
good enough.
Did EQ have roaming
patrols of soldiers (and aerial patrols [griffon, wyvern, or even
dragon riders?) inside a territory controlled by a Faction? Were
multiple safe areas located throughout the territory? I mean towers,
forts, and guarded campsites outside of the cities or towns.
About
this thing you call Team Kill: It seems obvious that
attacking another PC (Player Character) should be disabled if I choose
to party/group with that PC?
Didn't Ogres have a
place to level besides the Drow area? And if Ogres couldn't build
reputation (positive faction points) with the Drow w/out getting killed
that is simply poor design. Unless it was supposed to be really
difficult for Ogres to gain reputation with the Drow. Though if the
Drow and Ogres really didn't get along, it should have been equally
difficult for a Drow PC to acquire a good reputation with the Ogres.
"And you're plan is then to put in Team Kills along with Realms vs
Realms, PvE, and class/level/gear imbalances, and thinking that it's
going to work."
Here is something I posted on Page 1 of this thread:
No huge power gaps. Limited/realistic vertical progression.
Horizontal progression that unlocks new options. Limited/realistic
advantages gained by gear/equipment and items. Magic and
Divine/Infernal power would also have their limits.
Most
of the progression would be focused on gaining social, economic,
political, or military ranks within a chosen faction.
Reputation/Renown/Infamy/Influence would be very important factors.
Players would also have the ability to acquire property, buy or construct buildings, and hire & acquire NPC hirelings
and subordinates.
The talents, skills, and abilities of player characters should also be able to atrophy/regress if they aren't used enough.
Social status, wealth, political influence, and military rank could also
be reduced or lost based on the player's decisions and actions.
Player characters could also gain or lose favor with deities and/or other supernatural forces in the game world.
Post edited by Ancient_Exile on
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
Your taking what I said like it's personal, it's not.
Again, no harm meant, and it's painfully obvious that a lot of professionals also don't seem to know what is out there either, or what has been tried, and what has failed, so, nothing personal to you.
So that might be something to look into.
With that said, "Team Kill" is purely being able to kill people on your team.
The mechanics (how) are not that important as the feature itself (being able to). Regardless if can be done by total accident, tossing a frag grenade at an opponent and the AOE effect also blew up your teammate (maybe even yourself), to simply having it so that ALL other players disrupt line of sight, ergo, your attacks will hit whatever is within your crosshairs, friend and foe alike, so place that mouse pointer wisely.
This is commonly just a "realism" feature in PvP games, but today's MMO's moving to action combat this is an issue to consider with how you plan to put in PvP.
Anyway, try not to take the criticism too personal, but, reality is, nothing you have listed sounds like it would make an appealing game to someone that was not really into killing other players.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I think what we need to do is define what the penalties are, why they are there, and what they accomplish. After all these years people just don't trust anyone. And I can understand that.
Remember, laws (or rules in this case) don't prevent crimes. They simply give a consequence for an action.
But if a player suffers those consequences enough times, it's quite possible that he/she might be encouraged to change his/her behavior.
If's and maybes don't solve problems though. The consequences will never stop those that wish to do these things, at most they'll slow them down. Just depends on what your goal is.
I think you should check that article out on death penaltys, and how a player is 2-5 times more likely to be motivated by preventing loss (risk) than the reward of gaining.
You would be surprised what the risk of losing control of your character (prison) for 5 hours in age of wushu did to prevent senseless killing ie “ganking lowbies” or killing without reward.
And in my post that you are quoting, I was participating in the conversation in a direct way. I was explaining how a lot of players might be considered PvE, and "casual" even, when in fact they might also be hardcore PvPers in Arena games.
What, do I have to agree with and accept the OP's terms? Or anyone else's?
I think maybe you are the one doing the derailing. Let the conversations flow, and don't try to be a self styled enforcer.
As one of those PvE players, that's a hardcore MFer in Arena games, I can sincerely tell you, there is almost no way in hell you would get me to play some hybrid fuckery game with level, class, gear, and all the other asinine imbalances that PvE games have sandwiched into an open world PvP.
I'm good with that. But you are still sticking to "it can't be done any differently." I'm good with that too.
If some company could pull it off in a way that didn't suck.. I'd give it a try, just to see.
But going to be dead honest, I know that whatever might make this holy grail hybred you seek work, would need to be some totally new approach. Not any of cobbling together of older ideas that failed every time they were tried that I see paraded on these forums. Not only have I seen all the ideas mentioned here done and failed, I have seen other and better sounding ideas, and they still failed.
So, I'm not gonna burn a candle in hope for that to happen,
So you have read all of Amaranthar's and all of my posts on this subject?
I can't honestly say ALL, but I have read a lot of them.
I think what we need to do is define what the penalties are, why they are there, and what they accomplish. After all these years people just don't trust anyone. And I can understand that.
Ancient_Exile has given some details, things like Guardians and Faction penalties, but it's really not enough to get a clear picture. And if there's one thing we've seen plenty of, it's "promises" that end up being vacuous.
I read those ideas. I believe that I even tried to explain that other games tried that, and failed.
No diss, but I see no reason to believe that rehashing an older failed idea would suddenly work.
Amaranthar summarized a lot of my ideas pretty well in one of his posts:
"Factions- so for a (semi) PvE player they will probably play a form of
"good" alignment faction, and their main antagonists will probably be
Chaotic Evil. Sure, every PK wannabe will play CE. But they'll have to venture into Faction controlled lands and face the other safeguards. Guardians, wandering and useful in defense. Guard patrols, as Guardians. Possibly Guard Towers and camps, to add more safeguards. PvP friendlies, who will get Faction bonuses (part of progression) for aiding against Factional incursions. Alarms to inform Faction guards, guardians, and players. And
finally, a Justice system in the case of players going against their
Faction (PKers against their own, and closely aligned Factions)."
So I'm curious. Which game has tried any or all of these things? And which game has tried better methods to alleviate the problem of griefing.
Note: I don't think we can ever eliminate griefing entirely. (Especially considering not everyone's definition of griefing is the same.) But I believe it is possible to significantly decrease the occurrence of destructive behavior and mitigate its negative effects on the majority of a game's population.
I always play chaotic neutral doing what I believed was right.
Some people were killed some were spared some were saved. Sometimes I just looked the other way.
Answers
I found an Asian site with Asian women all over it. Which I could not read. (I think it's in Chinese.)
But going to be dead honest, I know that whatever might make this holy grail hybred you seek work, would need to be some totally new approach. Not any of cobbling together of older ideas that failed every time they were tried that I see paraded on these forums. Not only have I seen all the ideas mentioned here done and failed, I have seen other and better sounding ideas, and they still failed.
So, I'm not gonna burn a candle in hope for that to happen,
So you have read all of Amaranthar's and all of my posts on this subject?
Eve drew the line at alignment loss for illegal kills and near instant death for them in high sec, however there are still countless complaints to this day and many people that will never touch the game because it's even possible. For CCP this is the game they wanted to play and these are the rules they wanted to live by.
"Can it be done?" Well, what do you consider "open world pvp"? That will lead to much better answers.
Quizzical had a response on the first page saying that it's possible and it's been demonstrated in Uncharted Waters Online, however upon inspection this isn't in the same category as Eve because there are many areas in which you cannot initiate an attack on another player thus allowing PVE or casual players the ability completely avoid pvp if they so choose. This wasn't done through a layers upon layers of rules that people will find a way around, but instead done through hard coded set rule sets that completely prevent players from engaging. You cannot engage on land, only water for example, and there are areas in the ocean that are not flagged for PVP or there are some that are on timers and are only flagged for pvp at certain times. I could be getting some of those wrong, but the point still stands that these are hard coded rule sets the player is completely unable to circumvent.
Ungood is an example of a player that is very unlikely to play your game if there is a remote chance that pvp can occur when he doesn't want it to and IMO a good example of what the OP is trying to get into their game. So to reiterate what I've said in the past; If you want it to be possible to kill anywhere, then it will happen. If it can happen, those players are not likely to want to play. So if you want those players you will have to forgo the "open world" pvp for something perhaps a little less "world" or less "open".
After all these years people just don't trust anyone. And I can understand that.
Ancient_Exile has given some details, things like Guardians and Faction penalties, but it's really not enough to get a clear picture.
And if there's one thing we've seen plenty of, it's "promises" that end up being vacuous.
Once upon a time....
I've seen the same kind of attitude from some that feel they are of the topmost echelon when it comes to PvE. It is a personal issue rather than one of game or play type I think.
My response couldn't fit, so (...to be continued..)
Remember, laws (or rules in this case) don't prevent crimes. They simply give a consequence for an action.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
But if a player suffers those consequences enough times, it's quite possible that he/she might be encouraged to change his/her behavior.
If you did make changes so these players will never be able to grief, then yes the ones that only want to grief wouldn't play, but that's not what "laws" do as mentioned above.
If you want to allow criminals, you'll also enable griefers. It's just an unfortunate side effect that really can't be completely avoided.
No diss, but I see no reason to believe that rehashing an older failed idea would suddenly work.
I should not need to explain this to you, but in case you didn't fully get this, In a PvE game, the classes, gear, levels, all that, have absolutely zero effect on anyone else gameplay. Ergo, disparity are non-issues. So making it so that you can have suboptimal builds has no impact to the game in any meaningful way.
The second you make it PvP, the nature of the game changes, and the levels, classes, gear, of other players affects the gameplay of those around them, thus making it so that anyone has a suboptimal build is a waste of design space.
Any player that thinks that has a Learn 2 Build mindset in a PvP game, is not there for the PvP, they are there to Bully other players and use their character to win fights, not their skill as a player.. fitting name of the person that said too.. don't you think?
Sure, every PK wannabe will play CE.
But they'll have to venture into Faction controlled lands and face the other safeguards.
Guardians, wandering and useful in defense.
Guard patrols, as Guardians.
Possibly Guard Towers and camps, to add more safeguards.
PvP friendlies, who will get Faction bonuses (part of progression) for aiding against Factional incursions.
Alarms to inform Faction guards, guardians, and players.
And finally, a Justice system in the case of players going against their Faction (PKers against their own, and closely aligned Factions)."
This has been around since Realm vs Realm existed, with DAOC being the major ground breaking forerunner of this game style.
Little known bit of history, EQ had a racial realms vs realm mode on one of their PvP Servers, (IIRC it was Tallon Zek) with sides, like "Good" and "Evil" and like the rest of the game, each race had its own faction, and even cites had their own factions.
Which was kinda funny, because Ogres and Drow were on the "Evil" team, but didn't get along, in the sense that Ogres were not allowed in Drow Cities and the PvE guards would kill Ogres if we got too close. The pile of dead noob ogres near the Drow City guards while trying to build fraction doing basic quests in their starter areas, was most likely a testament to as why this system never took off in other games.
With that bit of history tossed out, These Realm vs Realms games had PvE guards/defenders, towers, keeps, all that is just basic stuff that goes into a territory control game. As such, not being rude here, but I am not seeing a new or unique idea here.
Again, not being rude, but even in most Realm vs Realm but they had the common sense to at least remove the ability to attack your OWN faction, even in EQ's faction PvP allowed All Evil races to Hunt together, even if we couldn't enter each others cities, this allowed for safe grouping to do PvE so you did not end up shooting the tank in the back while trying to take down a boss mob.
To be fair however, That's was just common sense game design since they had a lot of PvE elements, and wanted players to engage in them.
But even then, they were still plagued by all the problems of unbalanced PvP due to levels and gear, now coupled with the added problems of stacked factions/servers which have been a thing since DAOC.
And you're plan is then to put in Team Kills along with Realms vs Realms, PvE, and class/level/gear imbalances, and thinking that it's going to work.
Now, I am not being rude here, but none of what you said is a new idea.
In fact a little of your idea has been tried, like your basic premise of having Open World, Free For All PvP in a PvE game World. Just FYI, EQ tried that one, in 1999, Rallos Zek server, IIRC. Fun fact, when players AoE buff in EQ you auto target them, so, the fight would start, the bard would play a buff song, and we would all then proceed to execute a wonderfully team based planned attack designed to drop a huge ass mob, that would all hit the bard, blowing the ever living shit out of that poor bastard.
Needless to say, that kind of Team Kill feature, does not work in PvE games, just in case you were ever wondering, which is why we removed it decades ago.
Even PvP games are not big on putting in Team Killing into their games, because that just builds hostility within the teams.
Your taking what I said like it's personal, it's not.
Again, no harm meant, and it's painfully obvious that a lot of professionals also don't seem to know what is out there either, or what has been tried, and what has failed, so, nothing personal to you.
So that might be something to look into.
With that said, "Team Kill" is purely being able to kill people on your team.
The mechanics (how) are not that important as the feature itself (being able to). Regardless if can be done by total accident, tossing a frag grenade at an opponent and the AOE effect also blew up your teammate (maybe even yourself), to simply having it so that ALL other players disrupt line of sight, ergo, your attacks will hit whatever is within your crosshairs, friend and foe alike, so place that mouse pointer wisely.
This is commonly just a "realism" feature in PvP games, but today's MMO's moving to action combat this is an issue to consider with how you plan to put in PvP.
Anyway, try not to take the criticism too personal, but, reality is, nothing you have listed sounds like it would make an appealing game to someone that was not really into killing other players.
You would be surprised what the risk of losing control of your character (prison) for 5 hours in age of wushu did to prevent senseless killing ie “ganking lowbies” or killing without reward.
I always play chaotic neutral doing what I believed was right.
Some people were killed some were spared some were saved. Sometimes I just looked the other way.