PK´s are not a Pattern - the true reason they are unwelcome in MMO

That would be fine But at least the kind of world you'd expect would be advertised, and everyone going in would know what they were going in for.

People typically expect a more rounded world than that though.

 

Aw, where's your sense of adventure??

It wasn't that bad, though. I remember going to weddings and tavern nights and betting on rat races and drunken racing with deadly poison pots. Politics, both RP and non-RP (whatever the difference is), and guild intrigue. Player run towns. Seer events. All sorts of fun stuff. I have never seen all those things together in one place, and I attribute it to the idea that you can't have it all without having it all.

 

The original PK






"There has been too much violence. Too much pain. But I have an honorable compromise. Just walk away. Give me your pump, the oil, the gasoline, and the whole compound, and I'll spare your lives. Just walk away and we'll give you a safe passageway in the wastelands. Just walk away and there will be an end to the horror. " - The Humungus!

 

The problem being there's no way to tell the difference, which means that every new encounter must be treated as a potential conflict. One must, at all times, be prepared for the worst possible outcome, and should the person(s) you meet turn out to be a hacker rather than the 'evil roleplayer' (Which in and of itself is an entirely different discussion) then you will lose despite the best preparation.

I don't wish to exist in a state of constant preparation, constant alertness, constant wariness... I don't find it entertaining. I'm not an adrenalin junky. I don't find that pleasent. Therefore I also don't skydive, or particularly enjoy roller coasters. It is what I am and I'm happy with that. I understand that there are people that do, and while I will never understand it completely, I can accept that they do find it entertaining, and am happy for them that they have those outlets available to them.

Does that make sense?

 

THE AYATOLLAH OF ROCK'N'ROLLA'!​

 

What you say is true.

What I don't understand is, why is this argument coming up at all? We won't have open PvP in this game, at least not like UO. People are arguing about the past.

In UO, I was in an anti-PK guild in the beginning (had to pass tests to be sure I had the nerve to fight them). Then I turned to the other side, and became a PK in the largest PK guild on our shard.

Too many experiences/memories to report. But what I can say is, I'm glad it's not being repeated in Shroud.

It's not my intent to insult PKs. I just don't want to flag for PvP for various reasons. I saw too many really awful things happen to people in UO to want to repeat that ever again.

PvP has its place, among those who enjoy PvP.

 

Tough to say, DayZ has sold 2 million copies, but people aren't paying a subscription. We don't know how many copies of UO have been sold over the years, with a subscription based game you can't base it off of subscriber numbers. How many people stayed in Fel and how many stayed in trammel is rather telling of how interested most of the players were into pvp/pking.

Battlefield and pvp shooters are very popular, so are zombie shooter games, which is what Day Z is.. a combination of the 2, and no teams, a free-for-all.. Would it survive as a subscription based game? no way! Would This game? I seriously doubt it. Day Z is built with losing everything being normal day to day operation.

But if anyone compared counter-strike to UO and said, we don't need a safe place for people because counter strike is so popular I'd have to laugh.. comparing 2 very different games.

 

maybe because some see history doomed to repeat itself. and what i mean more specifically is the fractured community, both sides are pointing fingers at each other and I don't see this game changing that, and I think thats what at least some are after here.

 

You're right, fingers are being pointed both directions. Everyone posting here who supports PvP seems like a reasonable person in the forums.

I don't think we'll have a divided community in Shroud though. From the start, people will flag themselves, or not. And the world won't be divided. I think that will make a more cohesive world, where PKs will get to fight, and non-PKs can easily avoid those fights.

There will be grumbling about getting resources in open PvP areas. But there will probably be ways around that anyway. Like buying from other players who took the risk, etc.

To be honest, when I was in Trammel and there was some jerk taking advantage of the non-PvP zone (being disruptive and mouthing off), I sometimes wished we could still PK. lol But not enough to actually stay in Fel.

 

Actually my thread is in the Game Room.
Not in the SotA Area. .
I had a reason i did that.

I love talking about games in general.
The history, the future , the thinking developers have.
You will find many postings from me in the game room having nothing to do with SoTA

And i shared it.

Normaly the Game Room is a save spot with only a small group talking games in general.

Was surprised myself what direction it went


I found this talk about patterns from Raph Koster.

Thought it is a nice subject.

That was all.








Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

 

it's all the pvp ... sorry, trying to be punny ......

 

If you look at PvP as a control for access in the way you just put it. Then the split removed the control without replacing it.

So it went from paying PvPers for access to paying PvEers for access.

I am not defending how they changed things only stating that the pre-Tram model was not going to last. If SotA was following the model of UO at the point of the split I wouldn't be here.

 

Be offended all you want, I have no control over it. My comments are *not* directed at you or any one person here on the forums. My comments are an expression of my utter disdain for the subset, of a subset of players who use PK as a way to bully others. The very idea that SoTA should adopt open world PvP to satisfy the minority of players who crave PKing is preposterous. I find THAT line of thinking offensive and I will not support it or keep silent. You don't want to accept peace under the conditions of *I get to voice my opinion freely just as anyone else is free to do so*? I'm cool with that...lol. There are worse things in life than someone not liking me over my forum posts.

Peace!

Fionwyn Wyldemane
Pax et Veritas

 

That is actually a core issue, incentive for anti-pk with a system that cannot be abused and exploited. If pvp had a more even balance between pk and anti-pk then many people who can't stand pvp may have a more positive experience with it. Without that system pvp pretty much always becomes about pk'ing and people just trying to defend their own loot. If you have any ideas in this area i would love to read them.

 

I don't know about preposterous, but it's unrealistic for people to expect such a thing when the Kickstarter did not advertise it this way.

Many people are under the assumption that RG wanted the old school PvP to continue, and it would have if EA had not bought UO. I really don't think this is true. And people assume RG wanted to finally get back to his roots of open PvP with Shroud. I also don't think this is true.

When the actual person who pulled the plug on open PvP in UO says they had to, people were leaving the game because of the open PvP, they argue that's not true. And they say in the short term maybe it helped, but the long term it didn't. That's pure speculation on their part.

Open PvP has always been a divisive issue, even before they split UO into Fel and Tram. We know if they tried to implement it in Shroud, many people would no longer support the game. I know I wouldn't. I did not agree to invest in an open PvP game.

 

My new oppinion. We are all correct.

What did happen to UO can't be measured as a copy paste rule standard how the market reacts about realistic games.

Besides Portalrium i regard Dean Hall as a tru Developer Hero.

Just as Darkstarr had to confince EA that UO works he also prooves that there is a huge market for games you all argue should be destined to fail.

http://venturebeat.com/2015/04/30/d...aming-trend-he-wants-to-see-cruelty-and-loss/


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

 

It's hard to create ideas on a general issue that any game can particularly have. If we're discussing open PvP, heavy or full looting and the like, then I think there are some ideas that can balance it all out. First, the metrics:

-Infamy: This would be a criminal "karma". You would gain in it per criminal action, and the infamy points would fit the crime. Steal something cheap and you'd only get a few points, steal something expensive and you'd get a few more. Assault a player and get some infamy; perform a killing blow and gain infamy plus a murder count. Infamy would be a separate metric from murder counts for reasons I'll explain later. Once infamy hit 100 points, let's say, you're considered Criminal - this doesn't wear off until you're below 100 Infamy (-1 Infamy ever 2-4 hours). Criminals would be able to be attacked on sight, maybe the guards attempt arrest, and so on. How NPCs (and what players can do to you) react is based on how high that infamy is.

-Murder Counts: This is how many times you've killed a player. They decay like infamy, but much slower (20-30 hours per count). Murder counts carry more weight, and any time a character has over 5 murder counts they're branded a murderer (which overrides criminal status). Guards will try to arrest or attack murderers on sight. Bounties will be placed on murderers, by both the game as well as victims.

So how do these metrics actually affect balance? There are multiple ways for criminals to be punished for their crimes, should they get caught:

-Jail: A criminal who is captured could be put in the local jail. Based on their Infamy and Murder Counts, the sentence would match, plus skills may play a part in it. Someone who is a cook or a blacksmith may not be seen as a threat to society, and get a lesser sentence to someone with equal infamy but has stealth, poisoning and stealing. Infamy would give small amounts of time per point (maybe 30s-1 min per point), while Murder Counts would be far weightier (5-10 minutes per count). Additionally, any bounties the criminal had at the time of capture would increase the time spent (this handles turning in your own bounty). The prisoner would have several options to handle jailtime:

1. Do the time. Maybe have a hard cap of 2 weeks jail time (probably thousands of infamy points and murder counts), but it would allow a criminal to burn off points and counts at an increased rate. It would create an option for redemption for petty criminals to get their crimes under control (until they hit 99, which they'd be kicked out of jail for and burn the rest off normally).

2. Pay the bail. Based on sentence and other modifiers, they can pay their way out. A percentage of this is straight up lost, eaten from the game. The rest could go to the town the jail is in, meaning if you capture a criminal and bring them back to a jail in a player town, that town gets the money to their treasury. This actually gives towns incentives to put bounties for criminals who harass their players, and the town can actually earn money back for it. The bail would decrease as time was spent in jail, meaning you could spend some time in jail and then pay off the rest.

3. Break out. This could be a solo effort, potentially, if the skills and tools were at your disposal. Ultimately, it'd likely come down to a team effort, which means having trained friends to risk their neck for you. All participating parties would get significant infamy points. It also means they could end up murdering people to do it, making thieves into brigands quickly. But it does offer a trained gang of thugs to bully their way out of jail, at the risk of getting the entire gang caught (or other members).

Jails would also show the prisoner even when they were offline, as a trophy that they were caught. People could leave messages on the wall for passers-by and the incarcerated, talking about sodomizing his mother or how much he sucks, whatever. Public humiliation. This could go so far as to lower their fame/karma rating, which could further decrease their reputation in other facets of the game (thieves' guild missions or whatever).

To take a breather on mechanics, let me explain how it'd work. For starters, the metrics would help in balancing not just PKers, but thieves as well. Towns could also apply infamy on griefers and people who harass citizens, though that infamy would only affect the criminal in that town's territory. Become a nuisance, and you can be a paladin in the capital and a wanted criminal in the village outside of it, getting put in the local jail. Lots of opportunities for social interaction there. The jail time itself is a fair punishment. Gold and gear isn't weighed the same by everyone, but time is precious to every person. You can't measure the loss of 2 hours the same between two people, when one plays 50 hours a week and the other 3 hours on the weekend. It also gives the criminals options for getting out, by paying money or breaking out. Paying is fine, so long as your criminal activities are profitable; if you're reskilling newbies with nothing on them, you're racking up infamy without any gold to bail yourself out with. It's a poor plan.

Breaking out wouldn't be the easiest thing, and failure could mean getting your friends caught. You keep getting imprisoned, your friends may start feeling you aren't worth the help and leave you in there; after all, breaking someone out isn't exactly profitable, but it's a helluva risk for little to no reward. It'd also require tools, maybe explosives, and the coordination to get in and get out stealthily or brutally. Either way, jail would be far more than a simple speed bump.

To build off of jail, investigation skills could make players into detectives, thief-runners and bounty hunters, to help track down and anti-PK. They could also spec into getting bonuses to find their mark, reveal them in the area, and increase the penalties of their sentences, making determined anti-PKers a nemesis for PKers and thieves alike.

Once you get a high enough infamy, there would be a perma-death threshold. Say it's 5,000 infamy. After that, the chance of perma-death upon being killed in combat increases slowly until, perhaps at 6,000+, you have a 100% chance to be PD'd the next time you're killed. Keep in mind infamy decays rather fast, so unless you're spending all day, every day committing crimes, you'd be hard-pressed to get to 5K infamy much less 6K. Jail time would also mean faster decay rates, giving players who are thieves and murderers to balance their risk vs. reward easily. It would mean that PKers likely won't go out of their way to kill people without some kind of benefit. Stealing just to grief and PKing just to harass means racking up counts and infamy without anything to show for it, meaning less resources to bail yourself out of jail with and getting close to that PD threshold faster for little reward.

But the option is there. If you can't hack it, don't do it. But the thrill of living on the edge would make the risks worth it, especially with heavy loot options and the ability to kill players and steal their goods. It would have to exist in a game that was far more a sandbox and robust, but it would work in that environment well. The main thing I noticed on freeshards over the years was the ebb and flow of red vs blue. Got a lot of reds running around causing problems? Anti-PKers become prominent, guilds form to quell the chaos and reds thin. No reds to slay? Anti-PKers get bored and start becoming vigilantes, looking for fights and starting problems themselves. They become reds, the anti-PK guilds fracture, and reds start to surge again. It goes back and forth like that. I saw it happen no less than 7 times in almost two years on UOF, it was kind of cool to watch from an emergent behavior perspective.

But with incentives to go out and pursue PKers while PKers feel incentivized to create their own chaos, then you get to have your cake and eat it too. Whenever balance comes into play, though, always err on the side of the casual player and the potential victim.

 

See. It works for you. You can hack it. I think people who can hack it need to develop their own open full loot PvP game. It would sell to anyone who loves that kind of thing.

I wouldn't buy it, because that does not appeal to me.

If Shroud were to decide that route, they would lose a lot of customers. And maybe gain a lot of customers who want that model.

 

Here is a quote from Dean Hall at the end of that article:

“I don’t know if any of this is a trend,” he said. “But I want it to be.”

Ok. He wants it to be a trend. I get that. And maybe it will be. Perhaps it already is for niche games with a dedicated playerbase. Eve Online is still going strong. You can read articles about how people infiltrate corporations to steal their money. Sometimes, *REAL* money is involved. Not for the squeamish.

I don't begrudge people who enjoy that type of gameplay a place where they can do their thing. Smite is a MMO Battle Arena. Warhammer gets you right into the action. I'm sure there are other games for PvPers to fulfil their open world PvP gaming desires. SoTA is not one of them. Hopefully never will be. So as far as I'm concerned, PvPers can either live with the strictures in SoTA or go play DayZ, Eve Online, Smite, Warhammer or whatever other PvP games are out there.

If I went to a DayZ forum and complained that it wasn't a kinder, gentler game and change it so I don't have to be bothered by PvP I would be flamed and laughed off the forums.

I am not flaming any individual on this thread, but I am flaming the whole notion that SoTA has to have open world PvP so the PKers can get their jollies. I will continue to *just say no* to open world PvP in SoTA. If PvPers want to engage in their style of gaming, PvP is available if you want to flag. I DON'T! So don't try to make me with dreams of open world PvP in SoTA.

Peace,

Fionwyn Wyldemane
Pax et Veritas

 

Yeah i would love a system like that, what i was more asking though was a way to implement such a system so it could not be exploited via killing and collecting bounties with alts and friends.