Proposed Consequences for Murder

Interesting thoughts. However I believe this game has been billed as a "PvE Consent on Purchase" game.

It is expected that one will engage in combat with computer-controlled creatures when you initially purchase the game due to its "Fantasy Roleplaying" genre.

If this were the "Sims" on the other hand, having an option to consent to PvE would probably be a fair consideration.

 

Maybe they will let us pay NPC's to track down and attack players since we can't attack them ourselves.

 

Finally, an idea I can get behind. Portalarium, please, put this mechanic in Shroud of the Avatar.

 

Why can't another player be part of the "environment", just like a bandit, dragon, ogre etc?

I've said several times before ...... It would be "OK" if you went into an area and a bandit NPC attacked you on sight and killed you. If that same bandit then turned out to be another player some people would be screaming about it. The truth is, the outcome is the same.....you died!

It is any developers dream to make NPC characters as realistic to real players as possible whilst maintaining the unique traits of that particular NPC character.........what will some of you do when that day comes? Cry in a corners and complain about how difficult a game has become? ..... My view is to adapt and move forward.

I mean, why would anyone want to choose the "Super Easy Invulnerable Mode" over "Serious Gamer Mode"?

Truth is.....I'm just an NPC bandit with added AI and your all scared that I might kill and loot you........or is it that I might actually speak afterwards?

 

Sounds like an excellent money-sink.

The cost would have to be high though, otherwise users would simply use the approach as a grief mechanism : "You walked through my Dog! A bounty on thee!"

Perhaps less prosperous users could get together and pool their funds to pay for the attack. A community building endeavour.

I am not saying they cannot.

However in *this* particular game, a distinction has been made between PvP and PvE interactions.

One is by consent, the other is not.

 

My challenge is why should it?

 

All you need for balance is frequency limits, for this type of player interaction.

Spoiler: example

 

You can challenge it all you want, I certainly cannot and will not stop you from voicing your opinion on the matter.

However the developers have a goal in mind, have stated their intents on several occasions, and in the end *they* are doing the work so get the final say.

 

I like the idea of being able to have Crafting, Combat, and Monster experience.

Monster experience allows you to play tougher and tougher monsters (with a lot of location restriction). Can't beat that with AI.

 

Absolutely .... and nobody "really" knows what form it will take yet.

 

The definition of Role Playing has been abused over the last few years. Publishers consider a first person shooter with one character to be an RPG these days. A game that allows you to finish without fighting monsters could be done but not expected. The PvErs want to make sure the PvPrs don't get anything special, all the while sweeping Role Players and Craftsmen under the rug on the assumption that they must be PvErs because they have to be. It's all very selfish. In essence the Monster Hunters are claiming all play styles other than PvP to be their own by default. That's why I say, "to each their own" when it comes to rewards. Give the GM Craftsman something special...give everyone something special.

 

Yea, that's what I've been arguing.. that players would ideally just be seen as another kind of encounter.

But the world and game mechanics would have to be balanced correctly to make it work right in that regard. You could say ideally NPCs should be as hard to defeat as are the players, which I think is right, but by the same token, a world full of PKs shouldn't be exceedingly harder than a PvE environment like an offline game. It should end up relatively safe to do things like mining, and players shouldn't have to worry for their lives all the time. If open PvP ends up changing the whole tone of the game and makes it seem like an arena everywhere, something is wrong.

Second though, in an offline game you could log out during a monster attack, since monsters will always there, but online games have typically restricted you from logging out during PvP because it creates an unfair situation. So, there are non-gaming reasons why its different.

 

Couldn't agree more.

By default I am a crafter and a PK and seller.

I know I can craft, I know I can sell items...........I want to be able to say that if someone "decides" to step into my world (whatever that may be defined as), I want the ability to take their head whether they agree to it or not.

 

There is a massive list on why PvP fails in games, PvE too for that matter.

I am not talking about the design or fundamentals of PvP/PvE. I am talking about plain old engine issues. IE. Breaking animation, camera clipping, disconnects, any number of hacks. The list goes on, for both PvP and PvE.

Put they perfect PvP system on the table, or PvE, great, lets give it a shot, all for all in PvP. Then when you put the engine on the table and watch the PvP break it to gain their advantage or find ways to use it again other players, people will back out of all in PvP. NPCs don't do this.

Oh wait, yes they do. Ever have a MOB chase you down for unlimited distance? Oh yeah, it sucks, but they devs fix issues like this, normally in a timely manner. Ever have MOBs chain pull other MOBS on you, yep, it's either by design or freaking painful to PvE.

Show me the perfect PvP design and the perfect engine then your Human/AI stance holds water. Till then, consensual.

 

For me:

It's not about fear. It's not about difficulty. It's not about easy. It's not about serious. At all. In any way. None of those things are part of the equation.

It's about creating an attractive, innovative, fun and challenging mechanic.
To that end, if the NPC bandit that attacked me and tried to (or did) kill me was hired by another player, I don't care in the slightest. I am perfectly content with that level/style/type of non consensual player conflict. Bring it on.

 

Lol, yea its not that PKers behave more realistically than NPCs, its that msot of the time they behave a lot less realistically.. because they have no rational basis behind their hunting. If the PKer characters were real, most of them would be seen as roaming psychotics.

 

Yes, this is a story driven game. If the evil forces are attacking a city, as a part of the story, who gets to play the evil leader. Also, what if they decide not to attack the city but instead spawn camp everyone.

Story tossed out the window.

 

If a game developer programmed mobs in a game that sought out to harass you at inopportune times, ganged up on you, and were vastly more powerful than you, that killed you repeatedly at low levels and stole everything you had, then you'd mimic PK behavior. And no one in their right mind would play that game due to poor design.

If PKers acted like mobs, and only fought people at roughly the same level where there was a reasonable chance at success, and you didn't lose everything because you went into combat with a mob, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Mobs are programmed and controlled. PKers aren't.

You can't suggest they should be seen the same way or treated the same way because they are inherently different.

 

That MOB is what it is all about.......makes the adrenaline flow, the feeling of worth and if you make a bad choice you lose.



Being attacked is all part and parcel of an overall satisfying experience, the joy of the randomness of a human is far better than any AI out there.

 

PKers aren't the only way to add tension to a game, and PKers also bring the unwanted side effect of griefing.

It is better to create difficult challenges and tension in a game in a controlled fashion.