Creating a Justice System

The open-bounty mechanics that the devs said were being discussed for dealing with thieves [ Fall into Winter Telethon ] is actually similar to a mechanic I suggested a while ago for something else !

In that case, it was a suggestion for dealing with trespassers when the debate over banning players from POTs was raging here on the forums. In short, I disliked the idea of invisible walls, so suggested that banned players on entering a POT could be flagged as 'outlaws' and marked for justice, targetable by both players and guards. I also suggested the same mechanic could be used for players trespassing and breaking into other players' homes.

I believe that the game could further develop these type of mechanics and use them as the building-blocks for a full-fledged justice system.



CRIMES.
Whenever a player committed a crime, he would be flagged as a criminal and 'outlaw' for use in whatever justice mechanics existed in the game. The list could be expanded as the game continues in development, but there are a few that could be within the scope of the current game.

= THIEVERY. Stealing from an NPC or a player.
= MURDER. Killing a player who is not in a guild you're at war with, or has not agreed to a duel, or has not been marked an outlaw, or has not somehow otherwise opened himself to fair attack. This would effectively mean you could consent to PvP, but not consent to being murdered. The game wouldn't stop the murder, but it would mark the murderer for justice. The charge could also include killing an NPC, if that type of behavior is allowed in the game.
= TRESPASS. Breaking into a home, either of an NPC or player. "Hard bans" would go away; instead, doors, both on homes and gates on property, would lock for players who are banned from a property. A player who has the "Pick Locks" skill under Subterfuge, however, could get past this by breaking into a home.

JURISDICTION.
I think an important aspect of a justice system should be where a criminal bounty is in effect. Is it global, or is it confined to a certain locality?

= NPC TOWNS. Committing a crime in an NPC town could mean that the player is flagged as an outlaw whenever he enters an NPC town, or it could be restricted to certain aligned localities. So, for instance, I doubt human NPCs would care if you murdered in Skrekk or Vertas, or a kobold would care if you killed in Owl's Head. Potentially, this could also be broken down regionally based on whatever political alliances the devs decide to put in the game.
= PLAYER-OWNED TOWNS. Committing a crime in a POT would automatically flag you as an outlaw in that particular town; although the POT governor could mark you as an 'outlaw' at any time at their own will by setting a ban on you. "Hard bans" would also go away for POTs. Instead, a banned player would just be marked for justice whenever they entered the POT. Potentially a POT could enter alliances with other POTs through a faction system, and that would mean that they could share a common ban-list. Possibly, POTs could ban entire guilds.

NOTORIETY.
To the extent that your bounty is shared between one locality to another, this should take some time. For example, every NPC town could have a "bounty board" somewhere, which shows players with an open bounty. When you commit a crime in Brittany, your name appears on the Brittany bounty board. To the extent that your name appears on the Ardoris bounty board at all, this would not happen instantly. Instead it would either take time, or require you commit more crimes in Brittany, or both.

= TIME PASSAGE. As more time passes on your bounty, the more your information about your bounty spreads to more towns.
= MULTIPLE OFFENSES. The more offenses you commit, the larger notoriety you develop, and the faster your bounty spreads to multiple localities.
= SEVERITY. The knowledge of more severe crimes passes around quicker.

WARRANT AND ABSOLUTION.
When you commit a crime, a player bounty is put on your head. You're marked an outlaw, and other players can attack and loot you, while you can't loot other players. Non-PvP players can attack you without permanently flagging themselves for PvP, while you can't attack Non-PvP players. Guards -- either in PC towns and POTs -- would also seek to intercept you and, in the case of an NPC city, give you a chance to absolve an offense ("Wilt thou come quietly?") before attacking. Absolving an offense in an NPC city would depend on a crime.

= THIEVERY. At the least, turning yourself over to a guard or magistrate, returning the item, and paying some sort of penalty.
= MURDER. No absolution. The bounty remains open until it can somehow be resolved.
= TRESPASS. Same as thievery, except there is no item to return.

FACTIONS.
As mentioned above under JURISDICTION, one possible way the justice system could be expanded is by recognition of factions, and by factions sharing ban-lists (lists of outlaws). This would also be linked to NOTORIETY in ways discussed above.

= PLAYER-TO-PLAYER FACTIONS. Alliances between POTs and guilds.
= PLAYER-TO-NPC FACTIONS. Bans in POTs would not carry over to allied NPC towns, but could carry over from NPC towns to POTs. By implementing justice for NPC towns, your POT/guild could gain a benefit of some sort.

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT.
There would be multiple ways which someone could attack another player "legally."

= BOUNTY. If the player being attacked is marked an outlaw.
= OFFENSE. Being attacked first lets you attack back.
= GUILD WARS. Being in a war with the guild of the player being attacked.
= DUELS. Agreeing to a duel. Party vs. party duels would also facilitate "legal" methods of PvP in arenas.
= OPEN AREAS. Perhaps open areas outside of the Oracle's control, like Shardfalls.
= CONTROL AND AUTHORITY. For example, lets say in some future system, guilds are able to take charge of a control point [or at least the gated area -- as there are alternate paths], and players passing through are given a choice whether to pay a toll and pass, or fight. In this sense, the guild in charge of the control point is acting just like the Governor of a POT, in that they can choose who to ban or let through. The person who pays the toll is free to pass, the person who doesn't and enters the gate anyway has legally marked himself for attack.



IMPRISONMENT.
There were discussions on these forums a long time ago about incorporating a prison system into the game. I don't believe this would work out that well as punishment; a better solution would be a kind of outlaw-bounty system as described above. However, I think theoretically, apprehension by a guard could give you an option to go to prison as a penalty. The trick is, though, that I don't believe the prison stay should be timed, or your charge should be absolved when you've done your time. You could break out, escape from prison, and the game would allow you to, but breaking out of prison would return your bounty, making you an outlaw again, and putting you back on the bounty boards. Possibly, your crime would double, and the bounty would increase.

 

I love this. It really gives more meaning to player interaction, and makes the world we live in more... well, alive.

I do have some questions.

I don't like hard bans either, but currently there's no point to implement this. After all, everything is nailed to the ground and don't expect it to be changed (nor i don't want to). why somebody should trespass a home and risk to be marked as criminal? to see decoration?

I'd like to see this not only tied to time passing and offenses, but to some kind of testimony of information being delivered. We have the mail quests; maybe delivering it from a town to another speeds up the player notoriety distribution.

Don't see this happening. If you don't give full control of the zone the mechanic is pointless, and if you do, you're going against consensuality and opening ways for griefing.

I like the idea of being able to escape from jail but once again don't see it happening. It would require too much time to not be something repetitive and easy, and the time penalty would rise too much drama. Why not speed things up? Character is put on trial and chose among some kind of penalty that he's able to bear while playing (gold payment, wearing shackles, not being able to unseath your weapon, you name it). He can take the penalty or run away, getting the double trouble and bounty increase.

Let me say it again; I love this. This kind of systems in place would make the game so much interesting.

 

Speaking of control points, they wouldn't have full control over the zone, just the area between the gates. There's always an alternative passage in a control point that goes around the gates. And the type of control they exert could always be moderated through an NPC who collects the tolls. So if you pay him, you get white-flagged and pass through the gates; if you don't, and enter the gates anyway, you can get marked for PvP. The NPC could even set a ceiling so the guild couldn't extort players.

I don't know... maybe future possible mechanics or just RP situations like with quests Would be interesting too if pets could act as guard animals and attack tresspassers.

 

Because you knew it was coming....

Justice System Brainstorming

 

It kind of just hit me too, that a PvP flagged player could ban another PvP flagged player from his house. Or a guild leader could put a ban list on his guild house, and this could be a mechanism or a part of guild wars. Then breaking into a guild house could involve subterfuge.

Btw, if POTs have walls and gates, they could also be locked to banned players, until lock-picked with subterfuge skills. Or if there's some future way to scale walls...

 

Why you disklike it? If you are on a "Fiend" or "Wanted" list the guards should kill you. In "Shadowbane" one could place archers who would shoot everyone except members of the clan who owned the town and allied clans. But you could still enter a player own town, for example during night, if you had the neccessary skills.

The less mechanics, the more player driven, the better. Just allow to place guards and have a system to be able to define who is friend and who is foe.

There should be chance, depending on ones skills and dice-roll, to recognize a theft and then attack the thief to get your stuff back! Does anyone know if a thief must be PvP+ before beeing able to steal from players?

Regarding the rest of your posting: Game mechanics should be kept at an minimum and "things" should be left to players as much as possible.

// Armar

 

Well, exactly. The current ban system simply doesn't let you enter a POT if you're banned. Instead, I'm suggesting the ban would let you in but mark you for justice.

That's what I'm suggesting, though I think certain actions like thievery and murder could trigger you being in the 'foes' list automatically. What the devs were talking about in the Telethon is they have an idea where if you steal from an NPC, the NPC will warn you twice, and the third time will shout GUARDS! When they call the guards, a bounty is automatically put on your head. The reason they think this is a good system is that they don't believe the NPC guards will be enough to stop a thief... there aren't enough guards, and so its too easy to evade. I'm just saying they should extend the same thing to other crimes, like murder and trespassing.

Other than that, just thinking about how bounties would work.

 

The potential is there, that's undeniable. And the idea have lots of possibilities. But before thinking about the ramifications the reason to do it should be discussed in the first place.

We should difference between game mechanics that creates static gameplay and game mechanics that generates emergent gameplay. This is one of the latter, and those are needed to make a good sandbox game.

A game without game mechanics is like a workshop without tools. You can fill it with people but the amount of things they can build will be limited. Imo it's not to keep game mechanics at minimum, but to focus on the minimal implementation that generates the most emergent gameplay.

 

Hi,

Now thats as lame as it gets... Let me guess, some town owners whined a lot and the devs gave them the ban-whoever -you-dislike button. (@Devs: Great game design guys.... )

Wonder on how those players who always argue with things "not beeing realistic" can cope with this "solution".

Yes, thats how it should be done.

Do i understand this right: So a player doesnt has any chance to prevent thieving, recognize a theft or kill the thied and loot him but NPC vendors can call the guards BUT after the second successfull theft?

Let players place more guards but make it (very) costly to place a lot of guards?

// Armar

 

Yea, on the third theft, from what I understand, but you'll get a virtue hit starting with the first. I'd love that any bounty system also apply to player interactions and that POTs could also set up bounties for their own justice.

 

Its a gameplay killer. Total no-go area....

There is but it wont be done.

There are tons of reasons why i would hide close to a house or enter a town. For example to get someone on my KOS list.

You eliminated all possebilities for griefing, you also killed the game(play). And then there are no griefers to kill.. how boring is that... Nothing more rewarding then killing griefers. They get mostly really pissed if you do this.

// Armar

 

Agreed.

Nope, UO, at least in the beginning, hat zero game mechanics besides how mobs worked and the crafting systems. There had been nearly no game mechanics interfering with player interaction.

// Armar

 

Bounties and Bounty Hunters

 

I just realized, also, that one of the effects of capturing a control point is that it would allow a guild to intercept players marked for bounties... and give the guild an extra measure to administer justice. Of course, teleporting would be a way around this, but, otherwise, if the player needs to go through a control point and has a bounty on his head, the guild in command can capture/kill him for the bounty and deliver justice.

Also something else I've been thinking about is about alliances between POTs and guilds (mentioned in the OP), and how that could work in two directions. On the one hand, a POT could have a justice system, and a guild could implement it. On the other hand, guilds could also have a justice system of their own; meaning, if someone commits a crime against a guild member, they could hold the offender responsible. This could also lead to some system where guilds are responsible for their members behavior, and can lead to guild wars.

 

My suggestion here is for the POT governor to enroll the POT (upon agreement of whatever POT council exists of course) into the regional justice system so bounties and warrants will automatically appear on the POT bulletin board. This would be an extension to the bulletin board idea @majoria70 proposed in another thread.

 

Be careful white walkers come if the executed are not burned ........ Winter Is Coming ......

 

An working example of the PLAYER-TO-NPC FACTIONS as described in the OP would be faction-based quests that could ultimately create more reasons for players to fight against each other in PvP.

I described what could be the rudiments of in-scene faction quests in this R39 feedback thread concerning the conflict between bandits and kobolds at Upper Fortus, and how to bring more role-playing content to the scene. The idea there described was how the bandits might ask you to steal from the kobolds, or the kobolds might ask you to fight the bandits. So you would be picking sides between the two NPC factions represented in the scene.

Well, blow that up a bit, so where player guilds or player POTs (or both together) could ally with an NPC faction like the kobolds. The kobolds might ask you to do raids against the Norgard humans, or something else like that, and this might put you in a situation where you get outlawed by human NPC towns. On the other hand, the humans might ask you to do raids against the kobolds, and this might put you in a situation where you get outlawed by the kobolds. Well, then your name goes on a bounty list as an outlaw in one of those two towns, and bring you in direct conflict with other players who may want to bounty hunt. The reverse can be true, where they can be on your bounty list, or you can be both on opposite bounty lists. This can be also outside of the 'criminal' aspect and just be guild wars on behalf of the two NPC factions.

At any rate, the quests would give you decent rewards, giving you incentives to participate in them, and bring you into the PvP system through this system of Player-to-NPC faction alliances. Similar to how LB talked in Kickstarter about "contraband quests", where players could be flagged for PvP by carrying contraband, which would make them a target or other players. However, the faction system, and bounty system, and outlaw system, as described in the OP would flesh it out in a bit more broader manner, because it would allow all sorts of quests between warring factions that would create PvP scenarios -- both for "good" characters and more nefarious ones.

 

Also, I forgot to mention the OP that I think bounties should work with an accrual system, in the case of theft or looting. The game would put up on a bounty board "Player A stole this from Player B", and then anyone could go kill Player A to return the loot to Player B (loot would only be returnable within a certain time window).

The bounty hunter, of course, would get his own reward (gold, etc.) from the authorities.

 

I think the idea of a justice system is certainly interesting and could add a new and interesting dynamic to the game.
There's just one problem:

Basically, this bit is the problem. Being able to kill players who haven't chosen to participate is a non-starter, its a deal-breaker for most of the PvE crowd and is too fundamental a change to the ruleset. In such game systems I have found that the "penalty" for doing so is never severe enough to discourage random ganking and that's not something I want to see in Sota -ever.

 

Most of the above is considered from the perspective of consensual PVP, and this case can be included. The "murdered" player would be PVP flagged, but he's just ambushed by another player. So he actually agreed to participate in PVP activities, but did not agree to fight with the so called murderer.

Bottom line, if you don't flag as PVP you're not subjected to be the victim (as in Ganked) in any of the scenarios.