Wandering guards for the criminals

"I don't. Do you honestly think it makes an ounce of sense to have some evil city full of hateful NPCs who occasionally go out and kill the best do-gooders they can find"

What do drug cartels do in Mexico and Columbia? Kill judges. Kill police chiefs. Kill anyone who interferes with their operations.

"I find it a bit frustrating that some people seem to only want the realism in games that is most convenient for them, and shrug the rest of it off.'

Frustrating, isn't it?

 

Duly noted. However, those groups are criminals. We're discussing a system to handle criminals. So....

unless you're suggesting that the game have full scale criminal cities (to send hit squads out) and criminal organizations run entirely by NPCs, I don't see the point to this other than attempting to provide something that unravels the original topic.

 

Yes, those groups are criminal, which I would imagine we would have in game as well, but in SotA we also have the Virtues, upon which the game will be founded. If the Virtues are an important part of the story, then it would follow that there would be forces in the game to oppose those Virtues, otherwise, just what is so virtuous about upholding the Virtues? So, if there are forces of Evil in the game, in opposition to the Virtues, why is it so hard to imagine NPC agents of Evil being sent out to hunt down the virtuous, just as you have suggested NPC guards, agents of good, being sent out to hunt down criminals?

That is a story line explanation. From a game development point of view, if you want to come up with a game mechanism, it should be orthogonal, that is, it should apply equally to play styles you like, as well as to play styles you don't like. Otherwise, what you are really doing is punishing players using a brute force game mechanism for doing things that are entirely within the rules, but things that you don't like because they negatively impact you, but for which you aren't willing to do what is necessary to handle the situation yourself.

In that regard, I very much wish to unravel the original topic, because from a game development point of view, I think it's a bad idea.

 

Owain,
See my post on the previous page (I have also quoted myself below). Do you think that system would provide enough versatility (not considering the blacklist that Arkhan mentioned) and be just an "option" that is not overpowering? I think it is pretty neutral, while providing "some protection/extra help to take down pkers" to the people (especially when anti-pkers aren't around) but not to the point where your role as "Anti-PKer" is lessened. This is due to the nature of the factors and limits the system carries regarding those NPCs. Such factors and limits include, but aren't limited to, NPC difficulty, NPC numbers (patrol size), Cost/Duration for services (money sink for players who are willing to hire such service for "X" amount of hours), patrol caps (temp-cap and hard-cap based on settlement level & "thrive" component), and NPC patrolling distance from a settlement. To me it sounds like an option players will need to be responsible for (actual interaction), meaning that they will need to spend money for a service that is not overpowered at all but gives an aid to those players when "anti-pkers" are not around. I am interested in your opinion regarding that post specifically.

Below the post:

 

The system everyone is describing isn't the system I voted yes for in the poll.

He described it as an appropriate level encounter, you encounter a wandering guard. (or patrol).

From that I took it to mean if you had the bad luck of fighting/being wounded when they found you, you'll likely lose. if you are full health and not fighting you'll probably win and get something out of it. It would be an extra challenge/reward for the criminals... not a punishment, not something that keeps chasing you around and killing you.

 

It's not hard to imagine, it's just hard to accept. What I mentioned requires player interaction. So, you would have to have evil PCs running and playing tattle tale on the Anti PKer profession you plan on being.

"Guards! Help! A good guy killed me after I stabbed his friend to death!!!!!"

It's a bit nonsensical. You can argue that it's fair for both sides...but, I don't think you can argue that it makes much sense from a gameplay standpoint.

This is assuming that good players are in the majority, criminals will be hanging out in the wilderness, and there aren't going to be large scale evil towns for criminals to hang out in.

If there ARE evil towns that parallel the good ones, I guess I could see being able to pay guard upkeep for the "anti criminal wanted list"...

Though, I could honestly see the evil NPCs going: "Well, stop being such a wuss and maybe you wouldn't have gotten killed!" >:]

I don't think the game should have evil cities though. It just seems wrong.

Fair enough. But, like I said, what do you want? Criminal cities that evil PCs can align to and report random acts of good, so that evil murder-squads can roll out and decapitate the good guys in order to balance out the fact that guards can go out and look for criminals?

The criminal lifestyle comes with setbacks. How would NPC guards really differ from you and your Anti-PK associates though, aside from assisting.

I never said I don't want to handle the situation myself. You're assuming things.

However, not EVERYONE wants to deal with the riff-raff to the extent that you seem to intend to.

Relying solely on players to deal with PVP/PK issues is a bad idea, and is precisely why UO fell apart and why Felucca is a ghost town and everyone is afraid to go in a red moongate.

I should clear this up.

Yes, you get an encounter with guards/patrols.

If you win, they don't relentlessly pursue you. You might not be chased/encountered again for a few days, or even more. I swear I said they come after you based off of some sane interval of time. It would require testing to see what's a fair amount of time to send a new patrol encounter out for the criminal.

I think people took it as the guards will keep coming after you once you're targeted, until you are dead. Gauntlet style. That was not what I was suggesting.

Sorry if that's what you guys thought.

It's also not a black list. It's a wanted list, based off reported crimes from players. If the murder or theft, or whatever is not reported, it doesn't contribute to your wanted status. It's based entirely off of reported crime. Eventually, you can drop off of the list, much like how you can shave off murder counts after a set amount of time.

So once you're up there, it's not permanent.

I'll edit the OP so this is clearer.

 

My strong comments above were directed solely at NPC's becoming bounty hunters and tracking players. I have no problem with (as I suggested above) people flagged as criminals (whatever that entails) entering a random hex or town where Guards may be alerted to your presence.

I only want US our avatars to have a bounty hunter option, if its implemented, for PvP content.

So, you could perform a criminal act, it flags you for a certain period of time and random areas in the game may have guards that will be alerted to anyone with that TAG. Something like that.

OR

If there is a wandering patrol and you come across it with your TAG, they might engage you. Perhaps they got word of your nefarious acts from the nearby village.

You get the idea.

 

@Arkhan,

If the game permits players to embrace the Virtues, why should it be hard to believe that the game will not also permit players to oppose the Virtues? That being the case, Tracy Hickman might well imagine cities or regions inhabited by both players and NPCs who oppose the Virtues, and who could, in a correspondingly fashion, send agents of Evil out to hunt virtuous players. Complete with player interaction.

@Mishri, yes in the initial post the words 'level appropriate' were used, but really, what point is there in sending out an NPC hit man if the probable outcome is not the death of the criminal? The entire point of the system is to kill criminals, otherwise the plan is ineffective. He says as much in a subsequent post.

If criminals are not free from being killed under this system, then yes, the intent is to have the criminals killed, so I think we can dispense with the pleasant 'level appropriate' fiction, since 'level appropriate' just means a level sufficient to result in the death of the criminal.

If you still have doubts, from the same post, Arkhan also said"

By 'get out of hand', I'm guessing that Arkhan means 'if the criminal is not killed'. Well then, we'll just buff up the NPC until the criminals ARE killed.

Is that really what you voted for? Is that a system to which YOU'D like to be subjected?

Arkhan says he's going to edit things to clear up any misunderstandings. I look forward to seeing the edit.

 

Well, I already edited it, so maybe you should have read that instead of posting what you have just posted.

I did not say the immediate response to a criminal defeating the guards is to buff up the NPCs. Nor did I say the "level appropriateness" means "sufficient to kill the criminal."

Say the player is level 50 (yes, I know there are no levels. Just humor me here for sake of clarity).

Well, send a patrol appropriate to a level 50 player. Much like how we will expect to see monsters who are balanced to various levels. An even matchup.

If the criminal dies, dang. Better luck next time. If he wins, yay! He lives to kill / steal for another day or three, or however long the interval between patrols is.

If the patrol shows up while he's in the middle of already fighting or stealing, and that results in him getting killed... tough luck.


What that quoted bit about buffing the NPCs means is, should your Anti-PK profession fall flat on it's face, the NPC guards could be patched to help deal with the problem and keep the criminals in check from ruining everyone's time where your plan may fail. If the criminal activity isn't out of hand (read: exploited beyond all belief), then, buffing the NPCs is not needed.

What you're doing is jumping to extreme conclusions because you are worried that your anti PK profession's future is at stake here.

It's not. Relax.

 

You explain your system poorly, requiring a rewrite, and it's my fault?

So, where is the corresponding system permitting players opposing the Virtues to send out NPC hit men so that everyone can have just as much fun evading guards? I really don't think Bowen should be miss out on the experience.

 

First, yes, it's your fault you didn't go check for the mentioned edit before making a snarky post about it.

second, this is called a discussion. It involves expanding on and talking about the original post and seeing what people think. These things are not set in stone and can change over time, like they have thus far.

Instead of jumping to extreme conclusions and being a tad bit jabby and confrontational about that which you do not like, maybe you should just engage in the discussion in an easy going manner.

I can tell you're all up in arms because you're the Anti PK guy, but I encourage you to take a step back and relax. This suggestion isn't threatening your future plans for how you will be playing SotA

Copy paste the system. Replace all "criminals" with avatars, and replace all "crimes" with acts of goodwill.

Same thing.

However, having the opposing evil side of this system is reaching and goes against common sense in a video game, IMO. Especially when you consider that the majority of players will likely be walking the path of the virtues, seeing as we're all Ultima fans, and wish we really were the Avatar (minus the part where our stuff got stolen at the end of Ultima V)

 

I think that is an important point, and yes I agree, I will certainly be playing on the "good" side. While I would expect the "evil" side to be made up of NPCs via Story. I wouldn't expect evil Avatars, not at all and probably wouldn't enjoy that at all.

PvP will be done via Guilds, Arenas, and perhaps more interestingly something story related by optional where Avatars might face off in pirating type circumstances.

 

I'm not sure why the idea goes against common sense. This is a Lord British game, and in UO there was Lord British but there was also Lord Blackthorne, and there was Order and there was Chaos, and there were blue 'innocents', and red 'murderers'.

Given Garriotts previous multiplayer game design, I would be surprised if there was NOT an evil side players could select.

Now, if we could only get an actual developer to drop into the developer forum to discuss these issues instead of merely speculating amongst ourselves...

 

Lord British didn't coexist with Lord Blackthorn, and the entire purpose of Ultima V was to go stop that whole thing from happening.

It was also entirely story based, as opposed to just random acts of evil. complete with nefarious overlords sending their henchmen to come decapitate you.

It's already been implied/assumed that there will often be story driven points in the game where PVP is required as a result of shady activity on the player's part, or NPC interaction.

This is not what is being discussed.

 

No, you just don't want to discuss it because it exposes a flaw in your concept. Not discussing it doesn't make the flaw go away.

Regardless, we still need more developer participation in these forums to limit the amount of wheel spinning we are doing, because at this point, we are only spinning wheels.

 

No, I don't want to discuss it because it has no bearing on the topic at hand. If you still think it's a flaw, then you have demonstrated that you still don't really understand the proposed idea and topic.

We're not talking about things related to stories and quests. Being penalized for doing quests and storyline things would be nonsense.

"Oh I did all these quests and now the entire continent hates me forever and wants me dead" doesn't seem like a fun time.

I'm not spinning any wheels. This topic has had a decent amount of participation with ideas being bounced around.

 

I'm not talking about quests or storylines either. I'm talking about players, within the design of the game, taking opposition against the Virtues. Unless we hear differently (devs?), given the duality that Garriott had in UO (innocents/murderers, Order/Chaos) it is not an unreasonable to expect that same duality between Virtue/Evil. If that is the case, then why should there not be a reciprocal feature to the one you describe for players who choose the side of Evil? You'd be OK with that, right?

 

I would love to see a developer weigh in on this, since as the discussion indicates there are a spectrum of options to consider.

 

So say we all!

 

mmmmm........