Wandering guards for the criminals

I don't think there should be a vast number of them, if any. I think it should be a limited number and in limited places. It reminds me of when I used to play mmo's and I would waltz into a town where I was hated (which was most towns) and was insta-killed by the gaurds posted at the zone entrance.

 

I don't like the idea of guards operating anywhere that PvP is supposed to be taking place, I'd prefer players to do that job. Guards for town are fine, though they should be weaker outside of the starting areas. I'm fine with them being unbeatable in starting areas, if they are needed at all.

What I'd really like to see is some method for the player police force to be able to operate while off line, and murderers be targetable while off-line (and potentially target victims, as well), but I don't see a good way to do that, just throwing it out there in the interests of brainstorming.

 

For actions there should be consequences, increased notoriety should have repercussions and tracking. Perhaps even link it with the commission system being spoken of elsewhere, bounty board for people who break enough laws and resist several attempts by NPC's to bring them down.

Edit: Have them issued by city/village/town governments, or alternatively if a guild takes control of a settlement perhaps that is an authority that a guild head could take on.

 

Guards should be unnecessary in starting areas, since PvP should not even be possible in that case. Guards might not even be necessary in towns, since I think the devs are thinking of making towns a no PvP area. There were guards in town in UO, but nowhere else. Crimes could be committed in towns, such as pickpocketing, but if the crime went undetected by either players or NPCs, you could get away with it, and guards had to be called to bring them to the scene of the crime. There was no 'hunting', but rather, they just telported in and whacked the criminal. Insta-kill guards made criminal PvP pretty much impossible, or at least I never witnessed a successful case.

One could hire NPCs who would act like pets in UO, but due to limitations of the path finding system and AI, they were ineffective in PvP. About the only thing they were good for would be if the PK attacked the NPC by mistake, allowing you to escape.

The PvP system needs further design work before we can even know if guards will even be necessary.

 

The thing of it is, if you want the PKers and criminals to be policed only by other players, eventually you will have the same thing that happened on UO.

People will get tired of playing Andy Griffith and their interest will wane until something like Trammel appears and the playerbase gets segregated.

We shouldn't rely on the players to establish the anti-criminal movement. We should just expect them to help contribute to it. There needs to be a balancing system in place that isn't reliant on player support.


Guards will be necessary. This is a fantasy RPG. The towns need establishments like this.

Depending on one's criminal status, I would like to see more elite bands of guards venturing out with the chance of locating the high-profile criminals, even in the most secluded areas.


The further from town, the less likely... but still possible.

If players can go out and locate criminals somewhere and deal with them... NPC guards or bounty hunter units should be able to as well. It's not like guards don't ever search around in forests and such when they are on a manhunt..

 

In the thieves thread, there was an idea that a house broken into might have its layout based on a player house, though the real player house itself would be safe. Perhaps (some) NPC guards might be based on PC's that volunteer for the job. This way, there would be a police force that does not rely on players being online, but the size of it is based on how many real people take up the cause.

Or, perhaps the PC volunteers could be able to recruit guards, possibly through a Recruitment skill. The police force would be based on village/town/city occupants that are actively recruiting for the militia, thus again making it player driven. It could also reduce the chance of your town being laid siege to, or make the siege easier to break.

 

@Arkhanm "The thing of it is, if you want the PKers and criminals to be policed only by other players, eventually you will have the same thing that happened on UO."

This has already happened in SotA, and the game hasn't even been developed at the Alpha/Beta level, let alone release. That is what SPO/FPO/OPO PvE settings are for. If PKs/Criminals get out of hand and Anti-PKs can't handle the situation to your satisfaction, there are other play modes available, just as there were in UO after the Felucia/Trammel split. Even so, there were still a sizable number of players who elected to stay in Felucia, or more challenging still, switch to Siege Perilous, no matter how many PKs there were. On Siege Perilous at least, the Anti-PKs did a fine job of keeping the PKs occupied. I suspect the same will be true on SotA, but this will obviously need balancing during the Alpha/Beta tests so hopefully things won't get out of control.

 

I have voted Yes on this subject. Even though I think it is a bit early to be selecting things to vote on... I've no idea really what PvP is going to be like, let alone if there is any need to have towns protected from criminals at all...

I see it like this. I work in a large city, Sydney. I know for a fact, I must walk right by criminals every day, but I don't know that do I? I should not know if someone is a criminal or not unless I've read a bounty sheet or have witnessed an action. So, what I think is that if one does witness something criminal taking place, you should have the ability to call in NPC guards. Players would be of no use, by the time I get in contact with a player, the criminal action would be long over.

 

I am not even sure there will be 'murderer' tags... If all the pvp areas are consensual, you know when you enter you may be killed but the risk/reward is to where you are willing to go, then can the people in that area really be tagged as murderers? I mean I guess...I dunno.. How would the game know the difference if someone is defending what they think is their claim to an area vs just killing someone for fun in that hex?

 

Brenton, the system I am advocating would work so that even though I have voluntarily flagged myself for PvP, that does not by itself give you the right to attack me. Attacking me just because I am there would be a violation of the Virtues upon which the game is founded. If you kill me, you would be marked as a murderer, and murderers may be attacked without penalty by any other player also flagged for PvP.

This is open PvP in that you have the ability to attack anyone who is also flagged, but your actions still have consequences, and criminal actions leave you open to retribution.

 

Owain, that sounds interesting and would make me more interested in the PVP aspects of the game. I think it would depend on the situation though right? Like in LB's example of I think it was a smuggling mission that flags you for pvp, your role is to ensure the "illegal cargo" makes it to it's destination, the other players are there to stop you. Who is the murderer? I have to attack you to stop you, but you are the one doing something illegal, are you flagged criminal in that case (gray)? I suppose that would work... I guess I just worked out the issue I thought of. I wonder if this could apply throughout the quests for pvp?

 

But if you are both flagged as willing PVP participants, how does the game know which one of you is the murderer? The one who threw the first blow? That seems very black and white.. how does the murderer flag get set?

If I was willing to try out pvp for a little while in order to move into an area that may have some plant I want, and I kill someone who was trying to keep me from it, I dont want to be flagged as a murderer and then hunted down, that doesn't seem right.

 

The game knows who attacks first, does it not? That would seem to be the obvious criteria to use.

I don't know how SotA would implement this system, but previously in UO, if you were the aggressor in 5 deaths, you were flagged as a murderer, and each death count 'evaporated' at the rate of one count per 8 hours of game time, so if your 'count' ever got below 5, you were unflagged as a murderer. Being flagged as a criminal was shorter. If you picked someone's pocket, for example, your criminal status lasted only about 5 minutes, but during that 5 minutes, other players could freely attack you with no penalty.

If SotA adopts this system, it may use different criteria entirely. It would be nice if one of the developers would drop into the developer forums here so that we could discuss these things.

 

Well this is just not how it has been presented in multiple Dev chats at all. They have stated repeatedly it is and will not be open pvp period. It's going to areas that encourage you to take the risk, you are stepping into that well known hex. That being said, the system of whomever struck first goes out the window, it would seem would it not? Maybe not..

Maybe if there was a defeat ability but not actually kill someone.. so they could say uncle and you 'win' but then you have to take it a step further to 'kill' them.

Are you saying open pvp as in open in that contained hex and not traditional open pvp? Maybe thats where I am understanding your statements..

 

Actually Brenton, I interpreted the chat differently. I took it to mean you accept quests or join a guild that is pvp in order to engage in pvp, not that certain hexes are pvp hexes. And you'll get the little alert before accepting those quests saying you will be flagged for pvp for this quest. And I could see quests spanning the entire world(map) possibly.

 

Brenton, by open PvP, I mean PvP anywhere on the map except inside of safe areas, such as cities. That is entirely voluntary. If I flag for open PvP, the server will present me only other players who have also flagged for open PvP. If you have not flagged for open PvP, you will never see me, except possibly in the safe areas I mentioned above. More information will be required to know whether that will happen or not.

This is how SotA is planned so as not to require separate servers, such as are used in MMOs such as Lord of the Rings Online. I play on Riddermark in LotRO, but I cannot ever see players on the other LotRO servers. Instead of different servers, SotA will feature a single land area, but the server will separate players automatically depending on their status, SPO/FPO/OPO, and PvP or PvE. I think (but am not sure) that there will be separate levels of PvP, ranging from duels, to arena matches, to guild wars, and up to open PvP, and possibly other categories as well. The server will have to job of keeping the various populations sorted so that there are no collisions between incompatible play styles.

My game may be very different from how things are run in your game, but that should affect you no more that how I play Guild Wars 2 and you are playing World of Warcraft. Different games, in effect, except that if I change my status (which I plan to do to PvE with my wife in either FPO or OPO PvE), then there is a chance we might run into each other. Otherwise, my open PvP game will never interact with you unless you choose to try open PvP.

 

Hmmm, I just dont like the idea of me singular accepting a quest a that will take me into a PVP area, that now flags me as PVP. So the entire time im on my way to that area i might get attacked or not do that quest right away and become flagged until i cancel or complete it? So just because I told the farmer I am willing to go into that dangerous cave to kill the thief I am now flagged as pvp everywhere in the world?

 

This is how the load and player base is going to be handled this was not a PVP feature.

 

There is insufficient information on how the PvP quests will function, but I suspect that since they are intended to encourage PvE players to try PvP, the devs won't immediately toss you into the deep end of the pool with an anvil chained around your neck. Small steps to start with are more likely.

But that's why we are here, so the real devs can get our feedback. We need to present them with our thoughts on design matters, so yours is a valid concern that I hope the devs will make note of, and act accordingly.

Edit: "This is how the load and player base is going to be handled this was not a PVP feature."

It was intended from the start to cater to different play styles, from single player offline/online, FPO/and OPO. I never said it was designed as a PvP only feature, but it certainly can be used to manage the PvP populations.

 

Right, I'd expect your first pvp quests to be start to finish in a 1 hex area. and as you do more they'll expand them.. they mentioned testing your willingness to engage in pvp so that would make sense. so the more you do pvp quests the broader and bigger they get.