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.
I don't think I took what you wrote personally. It's not easy to determine tone of voice in text.
The possibility of friendly fire may not seem all that convenient to players who have been raised on games where this is not a possibility. However, I believe it would lessen the power of Zergs to abuse other players. And if the game has a death penalty that isn't as trivial as it is in most games, then players might also not like to be sacrificed by their own teammates in order to kill an enemy/target/intended victim. Suicidal ganking would probably not be much of a problem.
I'm not really into killing other players, but it sounds kind of appealing to me. However, I'm the kind of player who prefers to have a reason for killing other players characters. Enmity, strife, and warfare between Factions would give me that reason. Aside from personal vendettas I might acquire while playing. Or seeking to get justice/revenge for a comrade or ally.
"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.
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.
"Chaotic neutral
A
chaotic neutral character is an individualist who follows their own
heart and generally shirks rules and traditions. Although chaotic
neutral characters promote the ideals of freedom, it is their own
freedom that comes first; good and evil come second to their need to be
free." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)#Chaotic_neutral
"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 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.
You’re only limiting the possibility, not removing it. Someone with patience could wait for the perfect moment to kill the unsuspecting person for the greatest gain, which also increases the loss of the other. That loss or possibility of loss is what prevents those from playing.
This happens in eve quite a bit and their alignment loss is more punishing than a measly 5 hours of jail time. Especially since they’ll more than likely have more than one character.
I wouldn’t compare death penalties you have some control over to a pvp death you don’t.
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.
The main reason that I like the huge mountain range separation is because of the ability to form a Zerg within close proximity of their intended targets. PvPers are really good at it, know their combat strategies and practice them, and their most elite are extremely good at long range strategy (Eve shows us this). This is a critical element that has to be accounted for or the game will fall to the PvPers (become a purely PvP game).
It should be tough to make it through this zone, especially -> with an army <- even without players trying to stop them, because players may not be online or may be elsewhere and unable to get there (as you alluded to).
The focus here is to prevent large numbers from getting into enemy territory. It's got nothing to do with "realistic", really. It would be great for a PvP game to allow the chance of a large scale invasion, but then that's what you have, a PvP game. v v (important connection to this point) v All of the game elements that I want from the PvE side (deep lore and mysteries, discoveries, lost treasures and ancient knowledge, etc.) will be so hard to play, and become a losing proposition in the long run because of the constant attacks, if so much PvP runs through the game.
However, very small scale incursions should be more likely (but certainly not guaranteed) by escaping notice on this trip. That would allow small numbers of players to set up a secret base within enemy lands. That becomes a sort of player run dungeon, or hidden encampment of some sort. That gives players an ability to slowly build a larger force, so there has to be a way for players to discover their existence even when they are offline.
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.
The main reason that I like the huge mountain range separation is because of the ability to form a Zerg within close proximity of their intended targets. PvPers are really good at it, know their combat strategies and practice them, and their most elite are extremely good at long range strategy (Eve shows us this). This is a critical element that has to be accounted for or the game will fall to the PvPers (become a purely PvP game).
It should be tough to make it through this zone, especially -> with an army <- even without players trying to stop them, because players may not be online or may be elsewhere and unable to get there (as you alluded to).
The focus here is to prevent large numbers from getting into enemy territory. It's got nothing to do with "realistic", really. It would be great for a PvP game to allow the chance of a large scale invasion, but then that's what you have, a PvP game. v v (important connection to this point) v All of the game elements that I want from the PvE side (deep lore and mysteries, discoveries, lost treasures and ancient knowledge, etc.) will be so hard to play, and become a losing proposition in the long run because of the constant attacks, if so much PvP runs through the game.
However, very small scale incursions should be more likely (but certainly not guaranteed) by escaping notice on this trip. That would allow small numbers of players to set up a secret base within enemy lands. That becomes a sort of player run dungeon, or hidden encampment of some sort. That gives players an ability to slowly build a larger force, so there has to be a way for players to discover their existence even when they are offline.
I see what you're saying. But do most Factions in OWPVP MMORPGs have homelands/bases which they need to protect?
"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 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.
You’re only limiting the possibility, not removing it. Someone with patience could wait for the perfect moment to kill the unsuspecting person for the greatest gain, which also increases the loss of the other. That loss or possibility of loss is what prevents those from playing.
This happens in eve quite a bit and their alignment loss is more punishing than a measly 5 hours of jail time. Especially since they’ll more than likely have more than one character.
I wouldn’t compare death penalties you have some control over to a pvp death you don’t.
In wushu the killed person lost nothing but pride. The could also place a bounty. They could not be camped.
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.
You’re only limiting the possibility, not removing it. Someone with patience could wait for the perfect moment to kill the unsuspecting person for the greatest gain, which also increases the loss of the other. That loss or possibility of loss is what prevents those from playing.
This happens in eve quite a bit and their alignment loss is more punishing than a measly 5 hours of jail time. Especially since they’ll more than likely have more than one character.
I wouldn’t compare death penalties you have some control over to a pvp death you don’t.
In wushu the killed person lost nothing but pride. The could also place a bounty. They could not be camped.
There was only one character per account.
Not losing anything is a major factor because now the griefer/murder has no incentive to do it to begin with, so therefore any type of punishment has a much bigger affect on the murderer/griefer. They gain nothing for a win, but lose something for it.
It doesn't matter how many characters per account when you will never prevent multiple accounts. It's also pointless to try.
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.
I don't think I took what you wrote personally. It's not easy to determine tone of voice in text.
The possibility of friendly fire may not seem all that convenient to players who have been raised on games where this is not a possibility. However, I believe it would lessen the power of Zergs to abuse other players. And if the game has a death penalty that isn't as trivial as it is in most games, then players might also not like to be sacrificed by their own teammates in order to kill an enemy/target/intended victim. Suicidal ganking would probably not be much of a problem.
I'm not really into killing other players, but it sounds kind of appealing to me. However, I'm the kind of player who prefers to have a reason for killing other players characters. Enmity, strife, and warfare between Factions would give me that reason. Aside from personal vendettas I might acquire while playing. Or seeking to get justice/revenge for a comrade or ally.
Have you played a Action Combat game that has team Killing enabled?
I am asking this because having direct experience with a feature can really change your outlook.
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.
You’re only limiting the possibility, not removing it. Someone with patience could wait for the perfect moment to kill the unsuspecting person for the greatest gain, which also increases the loss of the other. That loss or possibility of loss is what prevents those from playing.
This happens in eve quite a bit and their alignment loss is more punishing than a measly 5 hours of jail time. Especially since they’ll more than likely have more than one character.
I wouldn’t compare death penalties you have some control over to a pvp death you don’t.
In wushu the killed person lost nothing but pride. The could also place a bounty. They could not be camped.
There was only one character per account.
Not losing anything is a major factor because now the griefer/murder has no incentive to do it to begin with, so therefore any type of punishment has a much bigger affect on the murderer/griefer. They gain nothing for a win, but lose something for it.
It doesn't matter how many characters per account when you will never prevent multiple accounts. It's also pointless to try.
They lost nothing personal.
My incentive came when they were transporting guild carts, which would give me xp pills (quest gave no do they were purely for story) that I could sell, also I hurt my rival guild or alliance. Also my incentive came form the freedom to make my own story and name.
You see in Wushu toons took years to build. Sure we all had a couple f2p accounts.
Let me put it in terms you may understand tho. My main locked up in jail would be the equivalent to level capped BiS (there was no BiS) world ranked toon. A persons f2p account was a level 8 in greens at best.
They crime and punishment system worked my friend. Risk vs Reward balanced on a razors edge similar to EVE.
No my friend you will not be free from death with any crime and punishment system. You will also not be free to be an asshat (pvp or pve asshat), you see?
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.
I don't think I took what you wrote personally. It's not easy to determine tone of voice in text.
The possibility of friendly fire may not seem all that convenient to players who have been raised on games where this is not a possibility. However, I believe it would lessen the power of Zergs to abuse other players. And if the game has a death penalty that isn't as trivial as it is in most games, then players might also not like to be sacrificed by their own teammates in order to kill an enemy/target/intended victim. Suicidal ganking would probably not be much of a problem.
I'm not really into killing other players, but it sounds kind of appealing to me. However, I'm the kind of player who prefers to have a reason for killing other players characters. Enmity, strife, and warfare between Factions would give me that reason. Aside from personal vendettas I might acquire while playing. Or seeking to get justice/revenge for a comrade or ally.
Have you played a Action Combat game that has team Killing enabled?
I am asking this because having direct experience with a feature can really change your outlook.
No. But I'm reasonably confident that I could get used to it eventually. Besides, it's not so much of a disadvantage if your opponents can also kill each other by mistake. So Mobs should be programmed so that they will hit each other sometimes as well.
And we really do need more collision detection in MMORPGs. 20 Orcs should not be able to hit me at the same time. It's stupid.
"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 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.
You’re only limiting the possibility, not removing it. Someone with patience could wait for the perfect moment to kill the unsuspecting person for the greatest gain, which also increases the loss of the other. That loss or possibility of loss is what prevents those from playing.
This happens in eve quite a bit and their alignment loss is more punishing than a measly 5 hours of jail time. Especially since they’ll more than likely have more than one character.
I wouldn’t compare death penalties you have some control over to a pvp death you don’t.
In wushu the killed person lost nothing but pride. The could also place a bounty. They could not be camped.
There was only one character per account.
Not losing anything is a major factor because now the griefer/murder has no incentive to do it to begin with, so therefore any type of punishment has a much bigger affect on the murderer/griefer. They gain nothing for a win, but lose something for it.
It doesn't matter how many characters per account when you will never prevent multiple accounts. It's also pointless to try.
They lost nothing personal.
My incentive came when they were transporting guild carts, which would give me xp pills (quest gave no do they were purely for story) that I could sell, also I hurt my rival guild or alliance. Also my incentive came form the freedom to make my own story and name.
You see in Wushu toons took years to build. Sure we all had a couple f2p accounts.
Let me put it in terms you may understand tho. My main locked up in jail would be the equivalent to level capped BiS (there was no BiS) world ranked toon. A persons f2p account was a level 8 in greens at best.
They crime and punishment system worked my friend. Risk vs Reward balanced on a razors edge similar to EVE.
No my friend you will not be free from death with any crime and punishment system. You will also not be free to be an asshat (pvp or pve asshat), you see?
1. You must be new to MMOs if you think people don't pay for multiple accounts. 2. this comparison you speak of sounds like something from a kids game. What the fuck is "level capped BiS world ranked toon"? Sounds like a wow kids game. 3. The risk vs reward worked because the reward was shit compared to a game like Eve. 5 hours in jail in Eve Online and I guarantee no one would survive Empire space.
If you create a game with little reward for killing others and provide punishment that outweighs the reward, sure people will be less likely to do it, but lets be real here. No one is talking about this childish stuff.
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.
I don't think I took what you wrote personally. It's not easy to determine tone of voice in text.
The possibility of friendly fire may not seem all that convenient to players who have been raised on games where this is not a possibility. However, I believe it would lessen the power of Zergs to abuse other players. And if the game has a death penalty that isn't as trivial as it is in most games, then players might also not like to be sacrificed by their own teammates in order to kill an enemy/target/intended victim. Suicidal ganking would probably not be much of a problem.
I'm not really into killing other players, but it sounds kind of appealing to me. However, I'm the kind of player who prefers to have a reason for killing other players characters. Enmity, strife, and warfare between Factions would give me that reason. Aside from personal vendettas I might acquire while playing. Or seeking to get justice/revenge for a comrade or ally.
Have you played a Action Combat game that has team Killing enabled?
I am asking this because having direct experience with a feature can really change your outlook.
No. But I'm reasonably confident that I could get used to it eventually. Besides, it's not so much of a disadvantage if your opponents can also kill each other by mistake. So Mobs should be programmed so that they will hit each other sometimes as well.
And we really do need more collision detection in MMORPGs. 20 Orcs should not be able to hit me at the same time. It's stupid.
Should try out Rise of Agon. It's a continuation of Darkfall Online and it has friendly fire possible. It has its own problems.
1. If you have friendly fire then it's safe to say you can kill your own. 2. If you can kill your own you need some kind of system in place to limit it. 3. If you have something in place to limit it, then people can abuse it in the opposite direction.
I LOVE friendly fire. I believe it adds so much to the experience that I would prefer it in any game, but there are things to consider. I'll give a rundown of how one scenario played out in DFO/Rise of Agon.
You're out farming mobs and a blue shows up (faction friendly). You're both fighting the mobs and suddenly the other guy jumps in front of your arrow/sword/spell. Now, because of the alignment system you are now flagged as rogue even though you didn't intend to hit them. Now that you are flagged rogue the other person can freely attack and kill you and take your stuff.
What Rise of Agon did to circumvent this was add in a toggle. Not a "pvp on/off" toggle, but a 3 way toggle that had the options of: 1. "No I don't want to voluntarily PVP so if someone attacks me they get an alignment hit" 2. "Yes I volunteer to pvp so anyone who also wants to pvp can freely attack me and vice versa, but I never want to accidentally hit blues" 3. "I want to be able to hit and kill anyone at any time"
This made it where the blue faction player would never have to worry about friendly fire. People could PVP freely between each other if they wanted and no one would get a penalty hit. Or you could be a villain and attack anyone at any time, anywhere. The ones that chose to be villains would be "red" anywhere so they could never enter any NPC cities or they would be killed instantly.
It's unfortunate that friendly fire isn't a thing so much in there anymore, but considering the problems it brought it's a pretty decent compromise IMO.
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.
I don't think I took what you wrote personally. It's not easy to determine tone of voice in text.
The possibility of friendly fire may not seem all that convenient to players who have been raised on games where this is not a possibility. However, I believe it would lessen the power of Zergs to abuse other players. And if the game has a death penalty that isn't as trivial as it is in most games, then players might also not like to be sacrificed by their own teammates in order to kill an enemy/target/intended victim. Suicidal ganking would probably not be much of a problem.
I'm not really into killing other players, but it sounds kind of appealing to me. However, I'm the kind of player who prefers to have a reason for killing other players characters. Enmity, strife, and warfare between Factions would give me that reason. Aside from personal vendettas I might acquire while playing. Or seeking to get justice/revenge for a comrade or ally.
Have you played a Action Combat game that has team Killing enabled?
I am asking this because having direct experience with a feature can really change your outlook.
No. But I'm reasonably confident that I could get used to it eventually. Besides, it's not so much of a disadvantage if your opponents can also kill each other by mistake. So Mobs should be programmed so that they will hit each other sometimes as well.
And we really do need more collision detection in MMORPGs. 20 Orcs should not be able to hit me at the same time. It's stupid.
Should try out Rise of Agon. It's a continuation of Darkfall Online and it has friendly fire possible. It has its own problems.
1. If you have friendly fire then it's safe to say you can kill your own. 2. If you can kill your own you need some kind of system in place to limit it. 3. If you have something in place to limit it, then people can abuse it in the opposite direction.
I LOVE friendly fire. I believe it adds so much to the experience that I would prefer it in any game, but there are things to consider. I'll give a rundown of how one scenario played out in DFO/Rise of Agon.
You're out farming mobs and a blue shows up (faction friendly). You're both fighting the mobs and suddenly the other guy jumps in front of your arrow/sword/spell. Now, because of the alignment system you are now flagged as rogue even though you didn't intend to hit them. Now that you are flagged rogue the other person can freely attack and kill you and take your stuff.
What Rise of Agon did to circumvent this was add in a toggle. Not a "pvp on/off" toggle, but a 3 way toggle that had the options of: 1. "No I don't want to voluntarily PVP so if someone attacks me they get an alignment hit" 2. "Yes I volunteer to pvp so anyone who also wants to pvp can freely attack me and vice versa, but I never want to accidentally hit blues" 3. "I want to be able to hit and kill anyone at any time"
This made it where the blue faction player would never have to worry about friendly fire. People could PVP freely between each other if they wanted and no one would get a penalty hit. Or you could be a villain and attack anyone at any time, anywhere. The ones that chose to be villains would be "red" anywhere so they could never enter any NPC cities or they would be killed instantly.
It's unfortunate that friendly fire isn't a thing so much in there anymore, but considering the problems it brought it's a pretty decent compromise IMO.
Seems like it would make more sense if you had to actually kill or inflict a certain amount of damage before you were "flagged rogue".
But yes, I do believe the possibility of Friendly Fire would add a lot of depth to combat.
"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.
I don't think I took what you wrote personally. It's not easy to determine tone of voice in text.
The possibility of friendly fire may not seem all that convenient to players who have been raised on games where this is not a possibility. However, I believe it would lessen the power of Zergs to abuse other players. And if the game has a death penalty that isn't as trivial as it is in most games, then players might also not like to be sacrificed by their own teammates in order to kill an enemy/target/intended victim. Suicidal ganking would probably not be much of a problem.
I'm not really into killing other players, but it sounds kind of appealing to me. However, I'm the kind of player who prefers to have a reason for killing other players characters. Enmity, strife, and warfare between Factions would give me that reason. Aside from personal vendettas I might acquire while playing. Or seeking to get justice/revenge for a comrade or ally.
Have you played a Action Combat game that has team Killing enabled?
I am asking this because having direct experience with a feature can really change your outlook.
No. But I'm reasonably confident that I could get used to it eventually. Besides, it's not so much of a disadvantage if your opponents can also kill each other by mistake. So Mobs should be programmed so that they will hit each other sometimes as well.
And we really do need more collision detection in MMORPGs. 20 Orcs should not be able to hit me at the same time. It's stupid.
Should try out Rise of Agon. It's a continuation of Darkfall Online and it has friendly fire possible. It has its own problems.
1. If you have friendly fire then it's safe to say you can kill your own. 2. If you can kill your own you need some kind of system in place to limit it. 3. If you have something in place to limit it, then people can abuse it in the opposite direction.
I LOVE friendly fire. I believe it adds so much to the experience that I would prefer it in any game, but there are things to consider. I'll give a rundown of how one scenario played out in DFO/Rise of Agon.
You're out farming mobs and a blue shows up (faction friendly). You're both fighting the mobs and suddenly the other guy jumps in front of your arrow/sword/spell. Now, because of the alignment system you are now flagged as rogue even though you didn't intend to hit them. Now that you are flagged rogue the other person can freely attack and kill you and take your stuff.
What Rise of Agon did to circumvent this was add in a toggle. Not a "pvp on/off" toggle, but a 3 way toggle that had the options of: 1. "No I don't want to voluntarily PVP so if someone attacks me they get an alignment hit" 2. "Yes I volunteer to pvp so anyone who also wants to pvp can freely attack me and vice versa, but I never want to accidentally hit blues" 3. "I want to be able to hit and kill anyone at any time"
This made it where the blue faction player would never have to worry about friendly fire. People could PVP freely between each other if they wanted and no one would get a penalty hit. Or you could be a villain and attack anyone at any time, anywhere. The ones that chose to be villains would be "red" anywhere so they could never enter any NPC cities or they would be killed instantly.
It's unfortunate that friendly fire isn't a thing so much in there anymore, but considering the problems it brought it's a pretty decent compromise IMO.
Seems like it would make more sense if you had to actually kill or inflict a certain amount of damage before you were "flagged rogue".
But yes, I do believe the possibility of Friendly Fire would add a lot of depth to combat.
People would just assist the mobs with the same end result. It’s been done
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.
I don't think I took what you wrote personally. It's not easy to determine tone of voice in text.
The possibility of friendly fire may not seem all that convenient to players who have been raised on games where this is not a possibility. However, I believe it would lessen the power of Zergs to abuse other players. And if the game has a death penalty that isn't as trivial as it is in most games, then players might also not like to be sacrificed by their own teammates in order to kill an enemy/target/intended victim. Suicidal ganking would probably not be much of a problem.
I'm not really into killing other players, but it sounds kind of appealing to me. However, I'm the kind of player who prefers to have a reason for killing other players characters. Enmity, strife, and warfare between Factions would give me that reason. Aside from personal vendettas I might acquire while playing. Or seeking to get justice/revenge for a comrade or ally.
Have you played a Action Combat game that has team Killing enabled?
I am asking this because having direct experience with a feature can really change your outlook.
No. But I'm reasonably confident that I could get used to it eventually. Besides, it's not so much of a disadvantage if your opponents can also kill each other by mistake. So Mobs should be programmed so that they will hit each other sometimes as well.
And we really do need more collision detection in MMORPGs. 20 Orcs should not be able to hit me at the same time. It's stupid.
Should try out Rise of Agon. It's a continuation of Darkfall Online and it has friendly fire possible. It has its own problems.
1. If you have friendly fire then it's safe to say you can kill your own. 2. If you can kill your own you need some kind of system in place to limit it. 3. If you have something in place to limit it, then people can abuse it in the opposite direction.
I LOVE friendly fire. I believe it adds so much to the experience that I would prefer it in any game, but there are things to consider. I'll give a rundown of how one scenario played out in DFO/Rise of Agon.
You're out farming mobs and a blue shows up (faction friendly). You're both fighting the mobs and suddenly the other guy jumps in front of your arrow/sword/spell. Now, because of the alignment system you are now flagged as rogue even though you didn't intend to hit them. Now that you are flagged rogue the other person can freely attack and kill you and take your stuff.
What Rise of Agon did to circumvent this was add in a toggle. Not a "pvp on/off" toggle, but a 3 way toggle that had the options of: 1. "No I don't want to voluntarily PVP so if someone attacks me they get an alignment hit" 2. "Yes I volunteer to pvp so anyone who also wants to pvp can freely attack me and vice versa, but I never want to accidentally hit blues" 3. "I want to be able to hit and kill anyone at any time"
This made it where the blue faction player would never have to worry about friendly fire. People could PVP freely between each other if they wanted and no one would get a penalty hit. Or you could be a villain and attack anyone at any time, anywhere. The ones that chose to be villains would be "red" anywhere so they could never enter any NPC cities or they would be killed instantly.
It's unfortunate that friendly fire isn't a thing so much in there anymore, but considering the problems it brought it's a pretty decent compromise IMO.
Seems like it would make more sense if you had to actually kill or inflict a certain amount of damage before you were "flagged rogue".
But yes, I do believe the possibility of Friendly Fire would add a lot of depth to combat.
People would just assist the mobs with the same end result. It’s been done
Well, I wouldn't use the same kind of alignment system anyway. It would only be Criminal/Rogue to rob/harm/attack/kill (etc.) someone in my own Faction or a member of an Allied Faction*. Of course, if I choose to sneak into the town or city of an Enemy Faction and commit crimes, then my Infamy level will start to rise in that area. And pretty soon it will be very difficult for me to move around undetected. It would be really cool if Wanted Posters went up on city walls for the most Infamous player characters.
*(I'm already considered an Enemy/Criminal/Rogue by Enemy Factions.)
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.)
No. But I'm reasonably confident that I could get used to it eventually. Besides, it's not so much of a disadvantage if your opponents can also kill each other by mistake.
IMHO, You really ought to at least experience a mechanic before you make assumptions about it.
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.
No. But I'm reasonably confident that I could get used to it eventually. Besides, it's not so much of a disadvantage if your opponents can also kill each other by mistake.
IMHO, You really ought to at least experience a mechanic before you make assumptions about it.
I can imagine it. I've read enough books about war, seen enough war movies, and played enough war games to understand what you're talking about. I would be willing to try it right now if there was a AAA MMORPG that had such a mechanic.
"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.
I don't think I took what you wrote personally. It's not easy to determine tone of voice in text.
The possibility of friendly fire may not seem all that convenient to players who have been raised on games where this is not a possibility. However, I believe it would lessen the power of Zergs to abuse other players. And if the game has a death penalty that isn't as trivial as it is in most games, then players might also not like to be sacrificed by their own teammates in order to kill an enemy/target/intended victim. Suicidal ganking would probably not be much of a problem.
I'm not really into killing other players, but it sounds kind of appealing to me. However, I'm the kind of player who prefers to have a reason for killing other players characters. Enmity, strife, and warfare between Factions would give me that reason. Aside from personal vendettas I might acquire while playing. Or seeking to get justice/revenge for a comrade or ally.
Have you played a Action Combat game that has team Killing enabled?
I am asking this because having direct experience with a feature can really change your outlook.
No. But I'm reasonably confident that I could get used to it eventually. Besides, it's not so much of a disadvantage if your opponents can also kill each other by mistake. So Mobs should be programmed so that they will hit each other sometimes as well.
And we really do need more collision detection in MMORPGs. 20 Orcs should not be able to hit me at the same time. It's stupid.
Should try out Rise of Agon. It's a continuation of Darkfall Online and it has friendly fire possible. It has its own problems.
1. If you have friendly fire then it's safe to say you can kill your own. 2. If you can kill your own you need some kind of system in place to limit it. 3. If you have something in place to limit it, then people can abuse it in the opposite direction.
I LOVE friendly fire. I believe it adds so much to the experience that I would prefer it in any game, but there are things to consider. I'll give a rundown of how one scenario played out in DFO/Rise of Agon.
You're out farming mobs and a blue shows up (faction friendly). You're both fighting the mobs and suddenly the other guy jumps in front of your arrow/sword/spell. Now, because of the alignment system you are now flagged as rogue even though you didn't intend to hit them. Now that you are flagged rogue the other person can freely attack and kill you and take your stuff.
What Rise of Agon did to circumvent this was add in a toggle. Not a "pvp on/off" toggle, but a 3 way toggle that had the options of: 1. "No I don't want to voluntarily PVP so if someone attacks me they get an alignment hit" 2. "Yes I volunteer to pvp so anyone who also wants to pvp can freely attack me and vice versa, but I never want to accidentally hit blues" 3. "I want to be able to hit and kill anyone at any time"
This made it where the blue faction player would never have to worry about friendly fire. People could PVP freely between each other if they wanted and no one would get a penalty hit. Or you could be a villain and attack anyone at any time, anywhere. The ones that chose to be villains would be "red" anywhere so they could never enter any NPC cities or they would be killed instantly.
It's unfortunate that friendly fire isn't a thing so much in there anymore, but considering the problems it brought it's a pretty decent compromise IMO.
Seems like it would make more sense if you had to actually kill or inflict a certain amount of damage before you were "flagged rogue".
But yes, I do believe the possibility of Friendly Fire would add a lot of depth to combat.
People find anyways to abuse things. People would purposely stand infront of you to get hit so you get flag and kill you without penalty.
Or people would purposely hit you just enough so mobs can kill you without them getting flagged.
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.
I don't think I took what you wrote personally. It's not easy to determine tone of voice in text.
The possibility of friendly fire may not seem all that convenient to players who have been raised on games where this is not a possibility. However, I believe it would lessen the power of Zergs to abuse other players. And if the game has a death penalty that isn't as trivial as it is in most games, then players might also not like to be sacrificed by their own teammates in order to kill an enemy/target/intended victim. Suicidal ganking would probably not be much of a problem.
I'm not really into killing other players, but it sounds kind of appealing to me. However, I'm the kind of player who prefers to have a reason for killing other players characters. Enmity, strife, and warfare between Factions would give me that reason. Aside from personal vendettas I might acquire while playing. Or seeking to get justice/revenge for a comrade or ally.
Have you played a Action Combat game that has team Killing enabled?
I am asking this because having direct experience with a feature can really change your outlook.
No. But I'm reasonably confident that I could get used to it eventually. Besides, it's not so much of a disadvantage if your opponents can also kill each other by mistake. So Mobs should be programmed so that they will hit each other sometimes as well.
And we really do need more collision detection in MMORPGs. 20 Orcs should not be able to hit me at the same time. It's stupid.
Should try out Rise of Agon. It's a continuation of Darkfall Online and it has friendly fire possible. It has its own problems.
1. If you have friendly fire then it's safe to say you can kill your own. 2. If you can kill your own you need some kind of system in place to limit it. 3. If you have something in place to limit it, then people can abuse it in the opposite direction.
I LOVE friendly fire. I believe it adds so much to the experience that I would prefer it in any game, but there are things to consider. I'll give a rundown of how one scenario played out in DFO/Rise of Agon.
You're out farming mobs and a blue shows up (faction friendly). You're both fighting the mobs and suddenly the other guy jumps in front of your arrow/sword/spell. Now, because of the alignment system you are now flagged as rogue even though you didn't intend to hit them. Now that you are flagged rogue the other person can freely attack and kill you and take your stuff.
What Rise of Agon did to circumvent this was add in a toggle. Not a "pvp on/off" toggle, but a 3 way toggle that had the options of: 1. "No I don't want to voluntarily PVP so if someone attacks me they get an alignment hit" 2. "Yes I volunteer to pvp so anyone who also wants to pvp can freely attack me and vice versa, but I never want to accidentally hit blues" 3. "I want to be able to hit and kill anyone at any time"
This made it where the blue faction player would never have to worry about friendly fire. People could PVP freely between each other if they wanted and no one would get a penalty hit. Or you could be a villain and attack anyone at any time, anywhere. The ones that chose to be villains would be "red" anywhere so they could never enter any NPC cities or they would be killed instantly.
It's unfortunate that friendly fire isn't a thing so much in there anymore, but considering the problems it brought it's a pretty decent compromise IMO.
Seems like it would make more sense if you had to actually kill or inflict a certain amount of damage before you were "flagged rogue".
But yes, I do believe the possibility of Friendly Fire would add a lot of depth to combat.
People find anyways to abuse things. People would purposely stand infront of you to get hit so you get flag and kill you without penalty.
Or people would purposely hit you just enough so mobs can kill you without them getting flagged.
It's probably best not to be alone out in the wilderness then.
"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.)
No. But I'm reasonably confident that I could get used to it eventually. Besides, it's not so much of a disadvantage if your opponents can also kill each other by mistake.
IMHO, You really ought to at least experience a mechanic before you make assumptions about it.
I can imagine it. I've read enough books about war, seen enough war movies, and played enough war games to understand what you're talking about. I would be willing to try it right now if there was a AAA MMORPG that had such a mechanic.
Ignoring the petty ranting of other posters here that have been spouting their opnion from ignorance about this game, as someone that has logged a few hundred hours into the game, I am going to suggest again that you give Eternal Crusade a play through.
Just to get an idea of some of the mechanics you talked about in action, like Team Kill for example.
I am going to suggest playing either Chaos Space Marines or Loyal Space Marines.
If you don't want to broaden your gaming experience, I'll understand.
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.
You’re only limiting the possibility, not removing it. Someone with patience could wait for the perfect moment to kill the unsuspecting person for the greatest gain, which also increases the loss of the other. That loss or possibility of loss is what prevents those from playing.
This happens in eve quite a bit and their alignment loss is more punishing than a measly 5 hours of jail time. Especially since they’ll more than likely have more than one character.
I wouldn’t compare death penalties you have some control over to a pvp death you don’t.
In wushu the killed person lost nothing but pride. The could also place a bounty. They could not be camped.
There was only one character per account.
Not losing anything is a major factor because now the griefer/murder has no incentive to do it to begin with, so therefore any type of punishment has a much bigger affect on the murderer/griefer. They gain nothing for a win, but lose something for it.
It doesn't matter how many characters per account when you will never prevent multiple accounts. It's also pointless to try.
They lost nothing personal.
My incentive came when they were transporting guild carts, which would give me xp pills (quest gave no do they were purely for story) that I could sell, also I hurt my rival guild or alliance. Also my incentive came form the freedom to make my own story and name.
You see in Wushu toons took years to build. Sure we all had a couple f2p accounts.
Let me put it in terms you may understand tho. My main locked up in jail would be the equivalent to level capped BiS (there was no BiS) world ranked toon. A persons f2p account was a level 8 in greens at best.
They crime and punishment system worked my friend. Risk vs Reward balanced on a razors edge similar to EVE.
No my friend you will not be free from death with any crime and punishment system. You will also not be free to be an asshat (pvp or pve asshat), you see?
1. You must be new to MMOs if you think people don't pay for multiple accounts. 2. this comparison you speak of sounds like something from a kids game. What the fuck is "level capped BiS world ranked toon"? Sounds like a wow kids game. 3. The risk vs reward worked because the reward was shit compared to a game like Eve. 5 hours in jail in Eve Online and I guarantee no one would survive Empire space.
If you create a game with little reward for killing others and provide punishment that outweighs the reward, sure people will be less likely to do it, but lets be real here. No one is talking about this childish stuff.
PVE RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS - No, we cannot solve griefing in a Faction-based OWPVP/PVE Sandbox MMORPG. It's impossible. There's no effective way we can restrict/limit the ability of griefers/stalkers/overly abusive players from ruining the game for everyone else. There's no way to create safeguards that will protect players who mostly just want to participate in PVE or just want to focus on PVE during a particular gaming session. Open competition in MMORPGs is bad. Any form of competition must be very limited in scope and should have no real effect on the game world or our characters.
PVP RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS - No, you cannot put any restrictions on PVP in a Faction-based OWPVP/PVE Sandbox MMORPG. Having logical/rational potential consequences for choices and actions in a Role-Playing Game = punishing players. Because PVPers want to play in a totally lawless/chaotic game world where the only law is the Law of the Jungle. The strong survive and prey on the weak. The weak must become strong (if they can manage it while getting mercilessly ganked most of the time) or remain eternal victims.
Both of these Cults also seem to believe that Final Fantasy/Dragon Warrior/Everquest/World of Warcraft-style practically unlimited Vertical Character Level/Gear/Combat Power progression is only type of progression that should be used in MMORPGs. (Note: The progression is only temporarily limited until the next expansion is released.)
However, what I have seen in the vast majority of MMORPGs that have
OWPVP, or even just PVP, is that the competition is really more of a
Race. Who can get to higher or max level the fastest? Who can acquire
BIS gear before other players? Because Character Level and Gear Level
usually matter more than skill. The most skilled players might not have
a chance if they aren't high enough level or don't have good enough
gear. No matter how well they play. Then throw in P2W Cash Shops,
allow Whales to pay to crush other players, and PVP gets really screwed
up.
So, I do not believe that FF/DW/EQ/WoW-style progression will ever work for PVP in an MMORPG. And, so we must have an alternative style of progression. I have already described this alternative style of progression. On Page One of this thread (my 2nd post).
I guess you did play UO back in the day? It had the alternative style progression and fairly sever penalty for PKing. So this has already been tried. You will note we don't have UO2 or UO clones. Probably because few people will play that style game. And before you ask, I did play UO back then but moved to EQ when it came out and never looked back.
The way early DAoC did the PvP or really RvR is the best way I seen but it did have a big flaw in that eventually the realms would become unbalance and one realm would dominate RvR which would over time make it even worse.
Personally I think PvP games should be just that PvP.
PvE games should be just PvE games.
An attempt at making a combo game with both will always lean toward one play style making the other play style players unhappy and most likely they will leave the game.
PVE RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS - No, we cannot solve griefing in a Faction-based OWPVP/PVE Sandbox MMORPG. It's impossible. There's no effective way we can restrict/limit the ability of griefers/stalkers/overly abusive players from ruining the game for everyone else. There's no way to create safeguards that will protect players who mostly just want to participate in PVE or just want to focus on PVE during a particular gaming session. Open competition in MMORPGs is bad. Any form of competition must be very limited in scope and should have no real effect on the game world or our characters.
PVP RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS - No, you cannot put any restrictions on PVP in a Faction-based OWPVP/PVE Sandbox MMORPG. Having logical/rational potential consequences for choices and actions in a Role-Playing Game = punishing players. Because PVPers want to play in a totally lawless/chaotic game world where the only law is the Law of the Jungle. The strong survive and prey on the weak. The weak must become strong (if they can manage it while getting mercilessly ganked most of the time) or remain eternal victims.
Both of these Cults also seem to believe that Final Fantasy/Dragon Warrior/Everquest/World of Warcraft-style practically unlimited Vertical Character Level/Gear/Combat Power progression is only type of progression that should be used in MMORPGs. (Note: The progression is only temporarily limited until the next expansion is released.)
However, what I have seen in the vast majority of MMORPGs that have
OWPVP, or even just PVP, is that the competition is really more of a
Race. Who can get to higher or max level the fastest? Who can acquire
BIS gear before other players? Because Character Level and Gear Level
usually matter more than skill. The most skilled players might not have
a chance if they aren't high enough level or don't have good enough
gear. No matter how well they play. Then throw in P2W Cash Shops,
allow Whales to pay to crush other players, and PVP gets really screwed
up.
So, I do not believe that FF/DW/EQ/WoW-style progression will ever work for PVP in an MMORPG. And, so we must have an alternative style of progression. I have already described this alternative style of progression. On Page One of this thread (my 2nd post).
I guess you did play UO back in the day? It had the alternative style progression and fairly sever penalty for PKing. So this has already been tried. You will note we don't have UO2 or UO clones. Probably because few people will play that style game. And before you ask, I did play UO back then but moved to EQ when it came out and never looked back.
The way early DAoC did the PvP or really RvR is the best way I seen but it did have a big flaw in that eventually the realms would become unbalance and one realm would dominate RvR which would over time make it even worse.
Personally I think PvP games should be just that PvP.
PvE games should be just PvE games.
An attempt at making a combo game with both will always lean toward one play style making the other play style players unhappy and most likely they will leave the game.
I played UO for about the first 13 years.
- The PKers always had ways of getting around the penalties. That's why it didn't work. And the same thing happens in every other OW-PvP game that puts in a Justice System. They simply don't work as a punishment that prevents griefing, because they don't actually punish.
- The progression system, purely skill based, was fantastic. However, I do see the attraction of a Class Based system. In my opinion, the most important thing about the progression system is that it needs to be with lower power advancement, so that players are not divided into level ranges. That divides the players, and even divides the game world's content. It ruins social interaction, and most players never make friends they can trust, and play with long term. It also screws up any effort at a deeper economy.
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.
One can always hope so
- 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
Answers
The possibility of friendly fire may not seem all that convenient to players who have been raised on games where this is not a possibility. However, I believe it would lessen the power of Zergs to abuse other players. And if the game has a death penalty that isn't as trivial as it is in most games, then players might also not like to be sacrificed by their own teammates in order to kill an enemy/target/intended victim. Suicidal ganking would probably not be much of a problem.
PvPers are really good at it, know their combat strategies and practice them, and their most elite are extremely good at long range strategy (Eve shows us this). This is a critical element that has to be accounted for or the game will fall to the PvPers (become a purely PvP game).
It should be tough to make it through this zone, especially
-> with an army <-
even without players trying to stop them, because players may not be online or may be elsewhere and unable to get there (as you alluded to).
The focus here is to prevent large numbers from getting into enemy territory.
It's got nothing to do with "realistic", really.
It would be great for a PvP game to allow the chance of a large scale invasion, but then that's what you have, a PvP game.
v
v (important connection to this point)
v
All of the game elements that I want from the PvE side (deep lore and mysteries, discoveries, lost treasures and ancient knowledge, etc.) will be so hard to play, and become a losing proposition in the long run because of the constant attacks, if so much PvP runs through the game.
However, very small scale incursions should be more likely (but certainly not guaranteed) by escaping notice on this trip.
That would allow small numbers of players to set up a secret base within enemy lands.
That becomes a sort of player run dungeon, or hidden encampment of some sort.
That gives players an ability to slowly build a larger force, so there has to be a way for players to discover their existence even when they are offline.
Once upon a time....
It doesn't matter how many characters per account when you will never prevent multiple accounts. It's also pointless to try.
I am asking this because having direct experience with a feature can really change your outlook.
2. this comparison you speak of sounds like something from a kids game. What the fuck is "level capped BiS world ranked toon"? Sounds like a wow kids game.
3. The risk vs reward worked because the reward was shit compared to a game like Eve. 5 hours in jail in Eve Online and I guarantee no one would survive Empire space.
If you create a game with little reward for killing others and provide punishment that outweighs the reward, sure people will be less likely to do it, but lets be real here. No one is talking about this childish stuff.
1. If you have friendly fire then it's safe to say you can kill your own.
2. If you can kill your own you need some kind of system in place to limit it.
3. If you have something in place to limit it, then people can abuse it in the opposite direction.
I LOVE friendly fire. I believe it adds so much to the experience that I would prefer it in any game, but there are things to consider. I'll give a rundown of how one scenario played out in DFO/Rise of Agon.
You're out farming mobs and a blue shows up (faction friendly). You're both fighting the mobs and suddenly the other guy jumps in front of your arrow/sword/spell. Now, because of the alignment system you are now flagged as rogue even though you didn't intend to hit them. Now that you are flagged rogue the other person can freely attack and kill you and take your stuff.
What Rise of Agon did to circumvent this was add in a toggle. Not a "pvp on/off" toggle, but a 3 way toggle that had the options of:
1. "No I don't want to voluntarily PVP so if someone attacks me they get an alignment hit"
2. "Yes I volunteer to pvp so anyone who also wants to pvp can freely attack me and vice versa, but I never want to accidentally hit blues"
3. "I want to be able to hit and kill anyone at any time"
This made it where the blue faction player would never have to worry about friendly fire. People could PVP freely between each other if they wanted and no one would get a penalty hit. Or you could be a villain and attack anyone at any time, anywhere. The ones that chose to be villains would be "red" anywhere so they could never enter any NPC cities or they would be killed instantly.
It's unfortunate that friendly fire isn't a thing so much in there anymore, but considering the problems it brought it's a pretty decent compromise IMO.
I can imagine it. I've read enough books about war, seen enough war movies, and played enough war games to understand what you're talking about. I would be willing to try it right now if there was a AAA MMORPG that had such a mechanic.
Or people would purposely hit you just enough so mobs can kill you without them getting flagged.
It's probably best not to be alone out in the wilderness then.
Just to get an idea of some of the mechanics you talked about in action, like Team Kill for example.
I am going to suggest playing either Chaos Space Marines or Loyal Space Marines.
If you don't want to broaden your gaming experience, I'll understand.
- The PKers always had ways of getting around the penalties.
That's why it didn't work.
And the same thing happens in every other OW-PvP game that puts in a Justice System. They simply don't work as a punishment that prevents griefing, because they don't actually punish.
- The progression system, purely skill based, was fantastic. However, I do see the attraction of a Class Based system.
In my opinion, the most important thing about the progression system is that it needs to be with lower power advancement, so that players are not divided into level ranges.
That divides the players, and even divides the game world's content. It ruins social interaction, and most players never make friends they can trust, and play with long term.
It also screws up any effort at a deeper economy.
Once upon a time....
One can always hope so
- 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