45 replies to this topic

[Drackir]

We want to make PKing a bigger part of the game and so we are looking for suggestions on how to approach adding it in, other than the usual PK and non-PK maps.

[night_vision]

make there 2 types of PK'ing.
1. Friendly Duel - Lose XP and money like usual. You still get the cool red name too

2. Regular Duel - Lose XP and Money(Maybe a bit more than in a friendly...maybe not though) AND you lose a piece of equipment?...makes it all the gooder Yay for fake words!! Maybe with this you get a Crimson colored name or something like that. And seeing as ure a tough guy(Or at least you think you are) ANYBODY can PK you if you have the Crimson colored name, but you can still only PK the ppl in your range(You dont lose any Equipment when u die w/ a crimson name, but maybe you lose 2X the XP and Gold than as before)

I dunno...just an idea

[Drackir]

Good idea. What's everyone else think?

[GoaT]

i dont like the idea that if you have a crimson name anyone can attack you and you might not be able to attack them. i also think that if someone attacks you first there should be like a 20 second window where if you kill them you will not turn red ( that way you dont get a red name for killing people who try to kill you). on another game i play EVERWHERE is pvp. some maps have "guards" that attack red names or attack you if you lower a player's who is on the same screen hp to 2/3, but you can still attack on those maps and go on those maps but you have a good chance of dying. i think that if you get pked while red/crimson you lose more items, exp, and so on.

[Drackir]

Yeah I like that idea. And it wouldn't be fair if someone could hit you but you couldn't hit them. I'm definently not going to make the entire world PVP but I want to give it some more importance than it was in Deloria and other similar games.

P.S. Welcome GoaT glad you still check in sometimes!

[Drackir]

I think perhaps red names should be able to be pked anywhere as opposed to being pk'd by anyone. So they would have to watch themselves. Also there could be a green name for players who kill pkers. Kind of like a good/bad type thing.

[Faselei]

Pking is fun and should be a part of any MMORPG.

1) Although less 'realistic' losing peices of equipment is whay harsh, especially on players who don't play quite as much and so every bit they have is very important to them. The fairest way by far is to transfer some exp (say 70% of the exp you lose when dying anyway) and some money (say 10% for the sake of argument). Otherwise im afraid you'll end up with conquer online or any other number of open pvp game where new players and those at lower levels get horribly 'ganked' at key points and bottlenecks by the best players with more time to play. I dont want a carebear game mind you...

2) Secondly new players do need some protection - up to lvl 10 or whatever

3) Thirdly a red name is to be worn with PRIDE, i loved mine on del until is felt the 'icy hand of death' and lost it Pkers should also have to fear towns and outposts cos, well they're outlaws now... so people should be able to attack them anywhere, It's their fault they chose that path, maybe they could fight back after their attacker strikes first?

4) Making it more important? mmm... well its already fun, and some of the better guilds might require it. If possible you could rank up a pk rating and get to keep your red name until your actually killed by another player. Another great thing would be vigilanties or bounty hunters, omfg that'd be great - god knows how you'd implement it though - the green name is an (and i never use this dumb word) AWESOME idea!

5) complicating it further with the twenty second thing or whatever seems kind of difficult to code and balance, keep it simple.

errr... imho -

(these are the frikin best set of smilies i've ever seen )

[Drackir]

Pking is fun and should be a part of any MMORPG.

1) Although less 'realistic' losing peices of equipment is whay harsh, especially on players who don't play quite as much and so every bit they have is very important to them. The fairest way by far is to transfer some exp (say 70% of the exp you lose when dying anyway) and some money (say 10% for the sake of argument). Otherwise im afraid you'll end up with conquer online or any other number of open pvp game where new players and those at lower levels get horribly 'ganked' at key points and bottlenecks by the best players with more time to play. I dont want a carebear game mind you...

2) Secondly new players do need some protection - up to lvl 10 or whatever

3) Thirdly a red name is to be worn with PRIDE, i loved mine on del until is felt the 'icy hand of death' and lost it Pkers should also have to fear towns and outposts cos, well they're outlaws now... so people should be able to attack them anywhere, It's their fault they chose that path, maybe they could fight back after their attacker strikes first?

4) Making it more important? mmm... well its already fun, and some of the better guilds might require it. If possible you could rank up a pk rating and get to keep your red name until your actually killed by another player. Another great thing would be vigilanties or bounty hunters, omfg that'd be great - god knows how you'd implement it though - the green name is an (and i never use this dumb word) AWESOME idea!

5) complicating it further with the twenty second thing or whatever seems kind of difficult to code and balance, keep it simple.

errr... imho  -

(these are the frikin best set of smilies i've ever seen )

1) Yeah but what happens when someone banks their money/levels up and has no exp? The other person gains nothing from that but that person might gain exp/money from the other person.

2) I agree.

3/4) Perhaps green/red names can attack each other anywhere (but only attack white names in pk zones) whereas white names can only attack people in pkzones. If a white name kills green they turn red. If they kill a red name they turn green. If they kill a white name they turn red. Greens can only kill reds or else they will turn red. Reds can kill anyone and will stay red. Maybe we can even evolve this into some kind of good/bad alignment thing where you have a certain rating based on how many of the other good/bad players you have killed.

5) Maybe we could do it so if the instigator wins they turn red and if the defender wins they turn green.

(Thanks, I think I doubled the amount we used to have! )

[Faselei]

Well it seems you have this one covered Drak... its hard to diagree with any of your ideas.

I had'nt factored in banks, but i would just like to say that maybe loot can be limited to unequipped items only?

Excellent ideas RE: Red and Green - if you can program it then thats absolute genius!

I look forward to this game more and more!

[Drackir]

Or maybe some kind of random factor that when a player has 15% (or w/e) HP left, there is a low chance something will get cut/burned off of them.

I can program anything when I put my mind to it. But I might wait for a lot of these features until the next game because I don't think its really worth all the extra hassels for this engine. I may still add certain things, we'll see.

[Caseyweederman]

Great idea, red and green...
Although I still think that people willing to destroy other people should have a disadvantage. 15% strength loss or something. How about a decrease in speed? Harder to get away to safety. Hm...

[Faselei]

Interesting article at MMORPG.COM r.e. Player Killing:

http://www.mmorpg.co...loadFeature/387

[Drackir]

This is a very good article. After reading it I feel that the user should lose something but that there should be certain areas where they cannot. Maybe similar to Deloria, where you can pvp in an area and lose something OR where you can pvp in one area and lose something and then pvp in another area and not lose anything. I think that would be a good improvement.

[Pontifus]

I sort of like the World of Warcraft PvP system, as it doesn't present huge detriments to the players who get killed...unlike Ultima Online back in the day, where people could gank you and loot the hell out of your corpse, which was never any fun. In other words, you could make death penalties from PvP fights no different than normal death penalties, but implement a sort of point system in which each kill equals a point. Maybe killing people far below your level could result in points being subtracted, thereby making PvP a little more fair. This is probably the way to go if you want a lighter or less severe PK system. You could probably work the green/red thing into that somehow.

You could always have PvP flagging; only those who flag themselves for PvP can kill other players or be killed by them. It all depends on how you want the world to feel to the players, I suppose.

[Caseyweederman]

Hm.. In my opinion, if a game could go completely without player killing, do it.
Some might say that this subtracts from the gameplay, but then again PKing itself subtracts the same way. It's fine if you are on the killing end, but if you are the character on a serious quest and some punk only 5 levels higher than you pops out of nowhere and knocks you flat, then you might just have some players who won't come back.
It may just be me, because I can't stand the thought of preying on other players. Yeah, ok, so I'm the one guy who could play through Fable and end up with the halo and butterflies.

If it is seen as a necessary evil, then... Flagging works, but there is always that time when you really need to kill somebody. Possible situation:
A group of you is on a quest (I really hope for team-enhanced activities) and the player carrying the Grail of the Kiwi gets pwned by the same punk as last example. Well, everyone else in the team is flagged, so they can't exactly catch up to the guy and retrieve the Grail. So if there is any PKing, it should be readily available to everyone.

Hm. Runescape has open PVP in the wilderness, but in towns there is a thing called Dueling. Both players must agree on the fight before it commences. However, this may take away from the fun of PKing and whatever. But if this rule was global, then the man carrying the Grail would obviously disagreed to the battle and went on his merry way. From the point of the PKer, that would suck. From the point of the whole team, hey, they got to continue the quest without some punk irritating the Kiwi out of them.




Except in this particular example they turned the corner and got eaten by grues.




Solution? I'm not sure. I don't like PKing, I don't like being PKed, it would take the focus away from the actual game and will only hold the players' interest as long as they don't get insanely bored with the battle system.
By which I mean: In Runescape, there were two kinds of players. Those who played the game and enjoyed its rich quests and landscape and NPCs, and those who beat up on the former. Bah.


Most solutions are harder on the weaker character, for example the spell in Runescape with which you can keep your top 3 most valuable items. I don't understand that. Why should the victim pay? Lets have a game where the predator has the disadvantage. PKers should, at the start of a battle with a player, lose half his accuracy, a third of his strength, third wisdom, third intelligence. This way, there is less focus on playing just to take away from other people. My thoughts for this plan is that you only try to kill another player if you really have a good reason for it.

Mrrh.

[Pontifus]

Flagging works, but there is always that time when you really need to kill somebody. Possible situation:
A group of you is on a quest (I really hope for team-enhanced activities) and the player carrying the Grail of the Kiwi gets pwned by the same punk as last example. Well, everyone else in the team is flagged, so they can't exactly catch up to the guy and retrieve the Grail. So if there is any PKing, it should be readily available to everyone.

I agree that optional flagging, if implemented, should be easy; a simple text command would be all that stood between PvP and "safe" mode. To keep people from easily escaping by un-flagging, someone who participated in a PvP fight wouldn't be able to un-flag for a while. In addition, I don't think player corpses should be lootable on death, or PKs should only be able to loot money, but no items (not that big a deal, since hopefully most of your money is in the bank, and most big purchases will be made in towns and other safe zones).

You could always implement a sort of faction system, in which players could optionally align with a faction to engage in PvP with the other faction(s), or you could limit PvP to guild wars. Personally, I'm not the biggest fan of PvP, but I do think it creates more for the players to do in any given game.

[Drackir]

...you could limit PvP to guild wars.

This is something I'm seriously considering. This way, if you are not in a guild you can just play your merry way through the game unhindered or join/start a guild which gives that open/multiplayer feel to the game. Especially if you are able to kill opposite guildies. Something like Billy was getting the Kiwi of Grailness and Johnny from guild Panda killed him. Now we, The Round Ones, shall avenge him! I like this idea a lot. What do you guys think?

[Pontifus]

Yeah, I like the idea of PvP being for guilds only. If guilds are easy to make, then basically anyone can get in on it if they want without too much trouble. It'd be nice to have a sort of ranking system within guilds...as you kill people from other guilds, you earn points, which eventually give you titles, so you could advance from the lowly ranks of private to the positions of lieutenant and general. I haven't the slightest idea as to whether that'd be difficult to code, though.

[Drackir]

Yeah, that's a great idea. And not hard to code at all!

[Caseyweederman]

Well, I like it. It puts more pressure on community, encourages people to invite others to add to their own guilds, and adds a general structure to the game. My brain running wild like the Moose of Rampantness:
There would clearly need to be advantages all around. There would be some quests only available to individual guilds, some attributes and abilities, maybe even some extra bonuses too.
And even though the guilds are enemies, it needs not necessarily be polar, so all the Round Ones are mortally oathed to decimate the Square Twos, but might have a bit of downright compassion for the Vases of Bronze & Obsidian, and trade openly with them. There would be the occasional feud, of course.
Hm... I suggest every guild has a moderator to head it, and this moderator would be in charge of pushing for different quests, other bonuses, better incentives for people to join their guild. In this way each moderators' decisions are based mostly on bias and favoratism, which would be awesome (as long as they all remember that fun is fun and !fun = !fun).
Once the game has its engine rolling, there could be inter-guild quests, based again on guild relationships. Loot the other guild's stash, or slay the two-faceted dragon prince with the aid of Guild X (only open to guilds X and Y, as petitioned by guildmasters of X and Y).

Yes indeed.