Alternatives for lethal PvP

Greetings,
I always wonder, why PvP has to be always lethal? I think, killing and murdering other players should always be the last resort and be punished severely in most cases, by putting the name of the murderer on bounty lists, etc.

But why not allow forms of non lethal PvP, where a player is only "killed" if the Murderer intentionally wants to? Why not allow players to paralyze others, stun them, stone them, freeze them, lobotomize them, persuade them, hit them unconscious, take them prisoner and sell them for ransom, etc.

I'm always a fan of options and such I plead for an option, that allows different ways to deal with other (unfriendly) players aside from killing them.

Cheers,
Andreas

 

Without permadeath, will SotA really have death, or is it actually just incapacitation?

 

@Andi:

I don't think players would enjoy being your personal pawn. This seems like a huge waste of time and the captivation of another player probably would not work. A player wants to actually PLAY the game, not be another person's slave in the game. I'd much rather die and then run to the nearest shrine/healer and get resurrected.

 

If your trying to find a balance between PvE and PvP. I will give you an example of how I would argue if I were less of a PVP fan:


Let's pretend I'm really good at PVE for a second. I think that after reaching a certain level of Orc slaying (maybe defeating an orc lord) I should have the choice of becoming an orcish leader of sorts. Keep in mind that this could work a hundred different ways with different NPC MOBS with favor points, respect points, quests or whatever.

I think that If I'm ganked in a PVP battle, I should be able to sound an alarm and call for reinforcements. Now if the tides turn and this evil villain is rendered incapacitated, he may go to an Orcish prison to PVE for a while with meager rewards if any, maybe he/she even loses equipment to the orcs.

*End of hypothetical example*

From here a discussion on how over powered or under powered it is and how to make it better might start.

You will have to think of some ways that does not make other players into a personal slave; the same reason charm spells never work on PCs.

 

Capturing enemies (that are maybe released after some time automatically) is just one idea for non lethal combat. And players may still have the option to kill the enemy, if they really want to (in case that the player is attacked, this would be self defense for example).

But a bandit for example, that robs other players but doesn't want to kill them, because he is no murderer, may hit his victim unconscious, rob him and get away, before the victim comes back to consciousness. This doesn't have to take forever for both the victim and the attacker. This could give the bandit some time, before his name is put on a bounty board.

And as another idea: If a player wants to take another player as prisoner (this content shouldn't take longer than maximal 5 minutes or it gets frustrating for the captive; I'll go along with that), give the prisoner the chance to escape (this could start a new mission, where the prisoner even can get his equipment back, if he succeeds). If the Captor isn't able to bring the captive in maximal 5 minutes to a city or camp for ransom, the captive automatically escapes, overwhelms the captor and gets the loot back, that the captor has stolen. And friends and guild mates of the captive may try to rescue the captive, before the captor reaches the city.

That's just an example. In my opinion, out of RPG considerations, there are so many more options possible aside of simply becoming a murderer. You may become a murderer if you want (there could even be an option for automatically killing enemies), but I see no must in it.

 

You kill them in a scene/knocked out, you can loot them as much as they can loot you, but once looting done they are transported to a prison, where they can either pay fine, try and break out/sneak out, gather resources to give back to the prison; which will help stimulate the economy that NPC vendors will sell, to get back their equipment that was not looted. In addition the more often they Pk as in repeat offenders the fines will scale to a certain degree.

When I mean repeat offender, if they stop PKing for a little while maybe a day or a week the fines will degrade till its a slap on the wrist when you get caught.

Note: for breaking out or sneaking out the chest containing their gear would be along the way, If person does not gather their stuff back after a certain amount of time, their items will go to an auction house.

This excludes quest items, and other things tied to the player like the immortal fruit, and things given for killing or doing a task so much.

 

I'm going to say no way to the captives and slaves angle. There is no way this is used properly by the majority of anonymous internet PKs. It is a haven for grieving where PKs will capture players, wait 4 minutes and 59 seconds, then kill them anyways just to maximize pain and grief.

 

Being able to capture and control a player over a certain amount of time is kind of humiliating, I personally would not like to see that happening. I would much rather fight till one of us is sent back to spawn.

 

Ok, then scrap the Capture idea =p ; more important for me is the ability to end a fight without killing the opponent (like in the old Gothic parts, where you were able to hit human enemies unconscious, but as soon as you murdered someone, everyone called you a killer).

If you want to kill do it, but live with the consequences. I'm always in favor of multiple options

 

I absolutely love the idea of non-lethal PvP -- but yeah, capturing other players likely won't work.

I posted my thoughts on this in a different thread, but I think for a game that is so much built on virtues (Richard has talked A LOT about that), and how it will deal with your actions, the consequences you'll face, I'm really hoping that SotA will push the boundaries and offer players a more meaningful combat mechanic.

Combat doesn't always have to end in death. That's just silly. The combat experience could be so much richer and meaningful if players were given more choices than the obvious kill or be killed. Your actions are driven by your virtues and it's pretty sad if Richard and Tracy doesn't push the envelope on this.

Incapacitate, disarm, subdue, etc. All of those could be like a combat move that you can shuffle into your skill deck, including "kill". It would be your choice to choose whichever combat action to end the engagement.

As it stands, it's a sad state of gaming when the only way to end combat is to die, or to kill. I'm hoping SotA can rise above the typical MMOs and offer something innovative and new. Give players the ultimate choice, and face the consequences of it -- whatever it may be.

I?ll again repeat the gypsy question I've posted in other threads:
?Thou hast defeated thine sworn enemy. Dost thou show compassion and let him live, or dost thou show justice and deliver the killing blow? Likewise the player who manages to defeat me would be faced with the same dilemma. Kill his attacker? Or let him live??

Not suggesting that actually is a question that pops up during combat Just saying let us "answer" that question in a new innovative combat mechanic based on skill decks.

 

Agreed, an interesting discussion was brought up on this in Smack's thread!!

 

I suggested in my eating & sleeping thread a Darklands type system where there are two combat stats, one when drained causes you to go unconscious, the other when drained causes you to die (in Darklands it was Strength and Endurance). I don't know if the devs are interested in that, or think its too complicated, but it could work with what you guys are talking about here.

 

I think PKs should suffer a huge penalty once they are caught and love the idea of locking them up. Imagine catching an infamous PK, collecting the bounty, and letting people come over to throw food at him when he's in the gallows. Even if the PK was logged out his character would stay in the gallows for a predetermined amount of time that is based on the number of people he killed.

Consensual PvP should have be fully lethal and full loot. Taking someone prisoner is too much of an inconvenience for losing the battle.

 

Actually, why is ALL combat always lethal?

You always should have non-lethal options. Capturing options, to get murderers and bandits to justice without murdering them in return.

Indeed; choosing non-lethal options would be part of the whole karma/virtue/morality system, especially when it's attacking kids.

 

@redfish: Do you have a link to that dual combat stat thread? Sounds interesting.

@Illesac: I would say if that type of gameplay is allowed, it shouldn't be limited to PKs. If you're going to allow capturing of players, it cuts both ways. Everyone must be subjected to it, not just PKs. It could even become a PvP rescue mission!

Also, consensual PvP can be lethal. It's up to you to choose the combat skill that says "FINISH HIM!" or the one that says "Incapacitate". Both of those could be considered a "terminal" state to end combat engagement. And regarding full loot? Yep, I support that as well since it's consensual PvP. In another thread, I even suggested that looting have impact on virtues.

@3DMaster: Exactly. I'm not entirely against capture but there are huge implications to it that we haven't yet explored fully. But I am totally for other non-lethal options to end combat if it's handled well within the virtue system.

 

I like the idea of giving a player the option to surrender rather than being automatically killed every time. Lets say I happen across a band of thieves, I would much prefer to walk a way from the encounter absent my coin purse than absent my head.

 

@smack - I limited the scope to only PKs because they would be they are the ones with bounties on their heads. The number of players killed goes into the calculation of how long a PK stays in the gallows. As non-PKs do not have any kills their time in the gallows is by default 0 so it is a moot point but I understand you have a different view about making this some quest that could inconvenience a character who never done wrong to other players in the world. The gallows (in my example) are about making the PK "pay" for the inconveniences they have caused.

I've been mulling @redfish's response the last few days and am interested in exploring the unconscious versus killing mechanics. I tend to think many PKs would only knock their opponents out if that meant they could still fully loot but I'm not a PK so what do I know? This would alleviate some of the grief players feel when they're killed in a dungeon far from any town. Additionally you know anyone who was PK'ed either really deserved to be killed or the other person is someone truly evil.

 

@illesac: Yep, completely understand. I guess I took a different view such that I make no distinction to killing. An evil roleplaying PK is no different to me than a good roleplaying Anti-PK. Both are killers. If there is an in-game mechanic for bounties against evil via "good" towns, there should be one for "evil" towns to put Anti-PKs on notice. That's probably more PvP guild war based, but it can be generically done for an "evil" guild that is constantly being killed by some "good" uber non-guild Anti-PK. Putting a price on someone's head, wanted dead or *alive* (e.g. capture) is fine with me for either good or evil.

Perhaps the capture can only work on folks with bounties on their heads and not just random players who have done no wrong (i.e. zero kills, good or bad).

 

Hmm I never thought of having "evil" towns too and it could be the start of some great gameplay ideas except the PvE folks may really get upset about not being able to travel 100% of the world

I'm not sure how you get a balance between the advantages of being an evil PK (full loot, non hostile attacks) and an anti-PK though. Maybe the anti's have a tracking skill or some other equalizing advantage?

 

I think a yield mechanic would be interesting and kinda fit with the whole virtue thing. This is not unlike how knights would be captured and ransomed under the code of chivalry.

Say you are in a guild that is at war with another guild. You see an enemy guild member and you both draw weapons and attack eachother. If it looks like you are gaining the upper hand your opponent could yield. You could kill them anyways and if there ends up being PvP looting then you would loot them and move on, but you would take a large hit to the appropriate virtues. (Justice?)

Or you could choose to Not kill your opponent, you could disarm them (Take their weapon?) or perhaps let them keep it and gain virtue. (Honor?) The defeated opponent would then need to pay gold for their ransom, or get their guild to cover the cost.


I think you could make something like this work for whatever type of death system or looting ends up occurring in PvP. The real question though, is would this add to the game experience or detract from it?