Emergent gameplay and "system" rules

First let me start off by saying that I have never attacked another player "first" on Ultima Online. I was never one for PVP style wars in other MMOs as well. If I want to do a competition based game, I will play a game specifically for that.

However, as many others had stated one of the great memories of Ultima Online was the freedom to do what you want, and the danger associated with it. This led to a unique style of emergent gameplay that was created by an open world with governing rules. There were no "system" blocks to prevent someone from committing a crime in the city - there were city guards. If you decided to kill another player out of town, what stopped you was the fear of losing your items or becoming a dread lord. The game didn't ruin the immersion by placing "system" rules, as most of the rules were enforced and explained by in game mechanics. While not perfect by any means, it had a uniqueness and charm to the world which is why many players still have great memories of Ultima.

While I understand this is not Ultima Online 2, this goes against the spirit of the Ultima Franchise and the open world aspect of it.

When you start to separate PVP and non-PVP players you do several things. For one, you ruin the exploratory aspect of the human experience. It wouldn't be beneficial for someone who plans to never attack someone to select PVP. It only gives them a disadvantage, as they have more to lose than to gain. The only viable option is to then select PVP when you're ready to fight. However, what you get is just a gank fest of people who want to fight each other. This goes against the emergent gameplay that Ultima is known for.

The second thing you do is completely destroy the long term viability of the game. After some point there is no more danger to the world. Sure, you can get new episodes, but we can all imagine the content can be consumed rather quickly. Rare items no longer become rare, and the economy becomes unbalanced since everyone can simply grab anything. There becomes little reason to partying with other players as there little danger in exploring the PVE world as higher levels.

With that said, I am NOT advocating forcing people into PVP who simply don't want to. I am also slightly even against enticing people into PVP through incentives, especially when they are against it. However, if you are going to allow PVP, instead of labeling it as PVP, label it as a true sandbox experience. As there are role-players who enjoy doing just that without PVP, there are also role-players who enjoy doing roleplaying with more emergent gameplay. Do you really know who your friends are? If you meet someone in the forest, are they friend or foe?

I think a better solution is to NOT allow people to switch back and forth between PVP and PVE. Once you're in PVP, that's it. This way not everyone is all about attacking other players, but instead are open to that style of gameplay. With this solution instead of "system blocks" we can instead enforce stiff penalties and safeguards in game. There are so many ways to be creative with this, and I am disappointed that none of these are going to be explored.

For the sake of not just stating the problem without a proposed solution, I will just throw one random idea out there. These ideas don't address all the issues and are by no means concrete, but they are a starting point for a discussion. If SOTA is going to be an innovative game, perhaps we can truly make it innovative with some community lead ideas.


1. Bounty system - When a player commits a crime against another player they get a bounty put on their head. "Anyone" can attack them with no penalty, and non-criminals can earn a non-monetary achievement reward for doing so. Bounties can only be redeemed by non-criminals, who can't be associated with the criminal (friend, guild member, etc.)

The bounty can be satisfied through several ways

A. Criminal gets killed. The bounty goes to the player who kills him.

B. The criminal turns himself into a guard. He pays a substantial penalty to the guard and/or returns the stolen items equal to the damage incurred, which goes to the victim.

 

I think there is a way to Have cake, Eat too. Since we will each be playing in an instance, the server decides who will populate it. Let each player choose how much PvP they'd like to experience. Dialed all the way down, I never see PvP, all the way up it's PvP all the time, dialed somewhere in the middle it's an n-sided dice role that determines whether PvPers/PKers share my instance.

There can still be penalties for PKing, but personally I don't think they will work well enough to curb non-consensual attacks. It's difficult to set a penalty harsh enough or a system fine-grained enough to account for every variation. It only takes one hole in such a system for it to completely fail, since players will learn and use that hole. Simplicity is the key to success.

 

@Mugly Wumple. PvP, specifically the PK/Anti-PK wars, WAS the emergent play that Ultima Online added to the Ultima franchise. It wasn't planned by the devs, it just happened.

Further, you can't say that PvP is not part of Ultima. PvP was one of the features Ultima Online added to the franchise. It was part of Ultima, just as Alkalabeth, which was very different from later Ultima's was part of the Ultima history.

RG has stated that with SotA, he wants to bring back the story telling that was a prominent part of the single player Ultima games, but he also wants to add that to the Multi Player experience that he invented with Ultima Online.

If there is one thing that has become apparent in what we have seen of the game design for SotA so far, it is flexibility. I don't think removing that flexibility is a good idea. As far as non-consensual attacks, if the server never pairs a PvE player with a PvP player, how can there be non-consensual attacks?

 

@Owain; PK/Anti was _AN_ emergent playstyle. So were player-run towns, gold farming, the eBay market, etc. I've watched all the Dev chats, seen most of the interviews and know full well what RG has stated.

Different players have different tolerances for PvP and for PKing. What I'm suggesting is a way to increase flexibility by letting each player determine the extent to which they will encounter PvP/PK. One size does not fit all.

This suggestion was addressing the above topic. It is my belief that any hard-coded deterrence to PKing will not work, both because of loopholes and because player desires are not black and white - PvP or no PvP. I enjoyed the risk in early UO. What I didn't like was the frequency of attacks. I neither enjoy PvP nor am I any good at it. However I do see it's value to my own playstyle of hardcore RP. For me, it is not a risk of getting attacked, it is a risk of dying at the hands of another player, because die I will if I engage in PvP.

I don't want a risk-free world, but neither do I want to suffer the extremes of adrenaline that go along with all PvP, all the time. The uncertainty of an occasional attack is plenty for me.

 

@Rayne "With this solution instead of ?system blocks? we can instead enforce stiff penalties and safeguards in game. There are so many ways to be creative with this, and I am disappointed that none of these are going to be explored."

The best safeguards should always be player created. Many pre-determined game restriction just become chances for players to upset the balance the devs tried to create. This is simply because they are trying to create a constant "rule" in an evolving world. Instead of "system blocks", as the OP stated, allow players the flexibility to instal their own checks and balances.

To use an example that doesn't involve the obvious PK brings out the Anti-Pk... I'll just present a rudimentary analogy to the age old debate. As a game mechanic for resources, should the "system" end up constantly spawning resources on vendors to the point where gathering resources isn't worth the time, the game would then take a large portion of the ability to set and control market values away from the players. In no way am I saying that's the cause, it's merely a hypothetical.

Personally, I don't want a communist game where all the classes are the same and there are no advantageous of one over the other because people complain "I'm a healer and no matter what this rogues kill me everytime, this games no fair. QQ etc." Get skill or don't adventure alone on a healer? (I'm looking at you WoW)

Do we the gamers protect ourselves or do we want devs telling us what we can and can't do?

 

I believe open world PK can expand the game for more than just the people who want to participate in PK. When you eliminate or limit the ability to PK you are limiting the immersion. I don?t seem to recall from medieval history the weak being able to turn off the ability to be killed. However, I do recall times when the weak were preyed upon and they either rose up or a group was formed to defend them. With open world pk there are many rping opportunities. I?d hate to see something severely limited just because some people don?t like it. Unfortunately, there will be disgruntled people no matter what the decision is.

 

Tyrael, while I understand and agree the issue is in "bridging the gap".

For some it was bad experiences due to many factors, some have never tried it, and a great many don't agree on "consensual PvP" as we are now calling it I guess. Where some sit and say "I don't want to get ganked PvEing, that's not consensual PvP." Some of us are saying "I went out into the world, I consented to the dangers in may hold."

What is more than self-evident to some makes no sense to others. People have the misconception or even honestly believe early UO was just a grief fest. However, if you made friends, grouped and adventured, it was rare to just get over run by PKs to the point where I'm not sure it even ever happened to me pre-Trammel. If you ran off by yourself where known PK activity exists, well, programmers can only do so much to protect those who won't protect themselves.

Basically what I'm saying is, if you played the game as intended, an MMO-RPG (READ Huge Social Gathering of Gamers) you had a wonderful experience no game has provided since. If you didn't make those friendships and alliances maybe the game was an awful gankfest. I don't know because I fully immersed myself in the world I was given as intended by the creator

Unfortunately, until we really know what the system will be and tinker with it in Alpha/Beta, we are going to just be sitting here beating our heads on the wall.

 

I love PvP. It's my favorite part of online games. But I'm not sure I'd play your game.

The problem of PK vs person trying to play the game is that everything is highly asymmetric. It cannot reasonably be adjusted to make the experience tolerable. Even if 0 gear dropped, it's still just a miserable experience for the player. Further, the PK cannot actually play the game. They've got to feed some alt.

Not everyone needs to value the same things equally. But I wouldn't want to play a soccer game where the other team ignored the score and just tried to break people's legs.

 

@Mugly, you didn't answer my question, however.

"As far as non-consensual attacks, if the server never pairs a PvE player with a PvP player, how can there be non-consensual attacks?"

 

@PrimeRib -

While you make a valid point about everyone valuing different things, you're stereotyping people who choose to play with PK enabled as gankers. I would say the majority of people advocating inclusion aren't about randomly attack people. It's more about the possibilities of emergent gameplay that comes from the freedom to be able to attack or be attacked.

My argument isn't that PvP is for everyone. I have gone even further and said people who don't want to participate shouldn't have to. My concern is that by simply including an option to switch back and forth to PvP turns it into a situation where its only useful for ganking. If you include a flag or a switch, you are basically saying to the player to turn it on only when you want to fight. This doesn't lead to the emergent gameplay that many of us were hoping for.

My suggestion was to make it so if you choose to go PvP, you can't just simply go back. This means that even if you don't want to immediately fight someone, you're still participating and available in that world. The danger still exists, but it's not simply a "deathmatch".

Such as the concern you suggested earlier, players who choose PvP also shouldn't be subject to random killings with no penalties. There should be in game rules to govern crimes to enable us to play safer without having the system simply disable it.

In fact, I don't think this option should be called PvP. It should have a name that's more associated with "Complete freedom", or something along that line.

I just value the freedom and open world nature of Ultima games in the same way I love housing, player run shops, and crafting. I feel this is just another aspect of the experience.

 

To add to my previous post, my main point of this thread is to point out that we shouldn't be limited by "system rules", but instead by in-game governance. If you want to prevent ganking, a better option is to place in game laws to make it a costly crime for the attacker when he does so unprovoked (not in instances of guild wars, missions etc). When we start limiting things on the "system" level, we go against the spirit of Ultima and what makes it so great.

 

@Rayne, as an Anti-PK, I agree with much of what you are saying. One of the things that made trying to provide 'player justice' was the ease with which a PK could escape. Attack a victim, kill them, then recall to any place in the world. In a dev chat, I asked Chris about the need to prevent 'cheesy' escape methods, and he agreed entirely.

If switching your flag has to be done in a safe place, such as a town, and if there are a limited number of towns that are safe for a PK (I'm thinking of places like Bucc's Den in UO), then that would cut down on the 'cheese' factor of unflagging in that the PK would have to run a gauntlet into order to reach safety.

If a PK successfully reaches a safe haven, I don't care that much if they switch to SPO or FPO, because that is pretty much the equivalent of logging off. As long as they are in OPO, if SotA implements the equivalent of a 'murderer' status, then the PK should not be able to unflag from PvP, and should be subject to attack for as long as they are considered a 'murderer'.

 

@Owain -

You're correct as it wasn't perfect in Ultima and there were many loopholes. However, this doesn't mean SOTA can't do a better job. I think its possible to come up with some great solutions, especially with such a passionate team and ideas from the community.

I also thought about having players switch their status only when in town, but this still fails in several ways. It creates a system where gankers only select to PvP when they want to go hunt someone. It leads to a situation where unless you're in a group with other people planning to PvP, it's in your best interest to turn it off. Eventually no one wants to use it, and the PvP system fails. As I mentioned earlier many of us want the open gameplay without the griefing aspect of it.

Having dangerous areas as you mentioned is a great idea, but many members of the community complained that they either wouldn't have access to it or the resources there (even if it had nothing not available in other areas). It was eventually revoked by Chris in one of the earlier chats.

 

@Rayne, " It creates a system where gankers only select to PvP when they want to go hunt someone."

Which to my mind, in SotA, is equivalent to logging off. Do you object to players logging off? If they unflag, they can't attack anyone, which for me as an Anti-PK is as good as killing them. I worry about the PK I see in front of me. I don't worry about someone who has removed themselves from the fight.

"It leads to a situation where unless you?re in a group with other people planning to PvP, it?s in your best interest to turn it off."

If you are solo in an open PvP environment, you are begging to be killed.

"As I mentioned earlier many of us want the open gameplay without the griefing aspect of it."

I have a hard time understanding what is a grief tactic in a game where PvP is 100% by consent. What do you consider to be a grief tactic?

 

@Owain -

I consider griefing irritating and harrasing another player simply with the intention to do so. Not all PKing is because of this. There is a roleplaying aspect to it as well.

You should watch some of Markee Dragon's videos, as he talks further about the topic and why he found Ultima Online gameplay exciting even when he never PKed much. It might give you a better perspective of our point of view.

"If you are solo in an open PvP environment, you are begging to be killed."

Maybe so, but only if I come across individuals looking to randomly attack other players. If you incorporate punishments for crimes, as in real life people will do it when

a) the reward is greater than the risk (player is traveling in the open with VISIBLE high value items, a risk in itself)
b) the risk is high but its a personal or role playing vendetta
c) the PKer is playing an evil character, and accepts the risk to play the character

People will be less likely to just randomly attack newbies and strangers, as the rewards wouldn't be worth the consequences.

By your definition I would only want to PK when I'm looking to kill someone. This isn't the case as I'm not playing Call of Duty. In the same how fashion people may craft and open shops, it doesn't mean that its exclusively their gameplay experience. If it is, they might as well play a Tycoon game.

 

@Owain @Rayne "Which to my mind, in SotA, is equivalent to logging off. Do you object to players logging off?"

As long as there is a timer for logging off (was 5minutes in UO IIRC), I imagine it would serve the same purpose as making it back to a town/safe haven successfully.

@Rayne "but many members of the community complained that they either wouldn?t have access to it or the resources there"

Sorry if this is too sarcastic but I didn't realize people would be getting games with different content. Not having access and choosing not to access are different things.

I've made the argument on other threads but will touch on it here. We don't need in game restrictions. Basically, content should be available to those not willing to take the risk of going into dangerous zones whether they be PvE or PvP areas through networking. Find someone in game who is willing to gather a resource and craft them goods as payment for raw materials. There are ways out there for all players to play how they'd like in restriction free system.

It may at some points require the player to think but in my experience that's not a bad thing.

 

@rschultzy80 -

"Sorry if this is too sarcastic but I didn?t realize people would be getting games with different content. Not having access and choosing not to access are different things."

To be clear their argument was they couldn't access the area without the risk of PvP. In their mind that meant they were restricted from it since they didn't want to participate in that type of gameplay. I don't agree with that as I feel its still accessible as you've mentioned, but that was the reaction (not mine).

You're idea about finding another player to gather a resource was also another good idea. I agree with it, as it makes services and resources more valuable. However, as I mentioned earlier unfortunately it was turned down by many.

That's why I feel you can't force people to participate. There is too much FUD around it, and people start to freak out demanding refunds on the forums. However, creating another level above OPO with complete freedom (you're character can't move back and forth) and in game rules/laws might resolve the issue for people who want this type of gameplay. Both can have their cake and eat it too.

This isn't just about PvP. It affects other aspects including the value of resources, inflation etc.

 

@Rayne "To be clear their argument was they couldn?t access the area without the risk of PvP. In their mind that meant they were restricted from it since they didn?t want to participate in that type of gameplay. I don?t agree with that as I feel its still accessible as you?ve mentioned, but that was the reaction (not mine)."

You are technically correct, the best kind of correct! Lol

Let me put it this way. RPGs of old were fun, to me at least, because they require the person to willingly immerse themselves 100% into the world. You had to talk to everyone. You had to think like the character you rolled or you couldn't solve puzzles. Thinking! I know it's crazy right.

In many aspects the advent of modern gaming and development of graphics has actually slowed the process of game development and character interaction. When RP games were first being created for the computer you had to have a great story with intriguing options for the player or the game sucked. Why? There were no flashy animations or HD graphics to distract you from the fact that you are playing a borefest.

Take away the restraints. No matter what path you choose the content is available, it's up to the player to figure out how. I know it's a philosophy many won't agree with, fortunately for me RG is making the game. He's going to make people think.

EDIT "This isn?t just about PvP. It affects other aspects including the value of resources, inflation etc."

Couldn't agree more

 

Sorry. You're basically asking for all the bad parts of PvP without the good. I just can't behind this at all.

PvP is fun:
1) On equal footing. When both sides know the rules and agree to participate. If this is agreed on, no one is the PK. Both sides are playing the same game.
2) When the goal is to out think the other player and play the game on many levels. You're trying to secure castles to hold resources to drive the economy. The fact that players are in the way is secondary.

The majority of PvPers have left MMOs to play MOBAs because they fulfill 1). Many are looking for the DaoC/Lineage successor with a strategic focus as well. GuildWars2 took a good shot at it but they just spread themselves too thin.

I realize Owain has some great stories, but I just don't see this scaling to tens of thousands, let alone hundreds of thousands of people.

 

@PrimeRib "PvP is fun:
1) On equal footing."

Fundamentally I can't agree with anything that follows that. I believe PvP should never be on "equal footing" there should be strengths, weaknesses, tactics, and skill.

Should a swordsman be on equal ground confronted 1v1 with a mage? No.

Should a mage be susceptible to a rogue sneaking up behind him and slitting his throat? Yes

Should a slashing weapon be as effective vs plate as a bludgeoning weapon? No

Should I be able to use the element of surprise as a tactic? Yes

If your answers to those questions aren't the same as mine we aren't even close to agreeing on what consensual PvP is. I'm not saying they are wrong, just that they differ from mine.