Murderers Should Get Permadeath

[Odsbodikins]

Exacly, i rather see the simulation of a law system thats more than just "punish behavior", rather see a wider spectrum of player driven events instead of automated justice features to create some sort of illusion of fairness by generating in this case time loss to the victimizer".

Of course it would be silly to speak of mortal's law in terms of reality" exclusively this is why i choose not to compare the game to reality most of the time, compare it to punitive systems in different historic moments and on a diversity of cultural realities can be done to certain extent and we could" think of a number of possible adaptations from those social configurations depending on the desired outcome.

I completly agree mortal lacks certain degree of development to lubricate social interaction and to give it meaning. People say sieging will give meaning to the world, but it would only give "a little more" meaning, its a little naive to think that particular piece of content will make the game suddently good when it won't specially considering how it will be made but thats another story.

Theres a problem with the gaming industry when many games instead of simulating an environment for organic meaningfull interaction so it "feels alive" they rather simulate something that looks alive when its actually the opposite.
Why does that happen?
Basically because behavioral conditioning, its naive to pretend theres no behavioral conditioning or there shouldn't be" any, because its not possible. But the real element is how to condition behavior in which terms and under what structures.

And thats where mortal fails when it comes to placeholder content. Because they chose not to reinforce the strong aspects of the game to make it more "mainstream" or steam friendly, to dumb it down for getting to a wider public. But the balance is off, for diversifying the amount and quality" of players you want to include in your world" end up making shitty content that does not respond to what makes mortal in the first place.

Arbitrary pk ruleset is fantastic, let players organize themselves and give them tools to do so. Do not apply behavioral hardbrakes to limit the overall game experience so a few rotten apples can afk gather right next to town, thats just poor design.

While i agree guilds shouldn't be the only possible social configuration of the game and the design should encourage diversity over polarized groups i also think guilds are an important part of the game. Its just theres no reasons for solo to play solo or small-mid sized groups to compete when the game is clearly directed to zerg-gameplay.

I completly agree theres a massive need of social configuration tools, so theres a wider and more meaningfull degree of player interaction thats not only guild gameplay. But for that to actually work it would require PVE to be good for a change, crafting classes to actually be something thats not complete placeholder poop.

Theres no meaning in the game because the game has so little content you can exhaust in a month, and thats the reason under-developed survival games do periodic or seasonal wipes. Because resets work, to a certain extent for that kind of games.

I've played almost if not all paradox titles and yeah they are great games, devs know what they do and they make incredibly excellent systems and i've even played stellaris when it was a completly different game and it has actually changed a lot during the years of development.

But paradox makes other types of games, what they do really great is the game experience, you navigate these universes built under a tight ruleset that contemplates player "choise" to a certain extent. But everything is framed and nothing goes oustide that system, idk if you understand what i mean.

Now, one of the most interesting assets mortal ever had was the ability to give players this "feel" they can do what they want, the eternal promise of a sandbox, where you can't really do "what you want" but at least theres no idiotic npcs giving 2 liner repetitive quests or theres no true safezones or not that terrible behavioral hardbrakes.
Thats the essence of mortal, that you are not "forced" to be a good person if you don't wanna endure the penalties for being a criminal. That being good or bad develops (and should) in the collective imaginary plane of social structures and interaction. That someone can chose to be good or bad without the game limiting your gameplay in a static unrealistic" themepark tourist ride.

The caos component in mortal has to be preserved and encouraged and with love made better, so theres a lot more caos. Obviously having in consideration how this caos affects the gameplay of a diversity of players. Im not saying the world should exist for criminals, im saying if theres any law it should be in form of something that players can control, exercize and not exploit, that requires actual gameplay to achieve something instead of die to report retarded mechanics.

Im tired of watching people in these forums say dubass shit like "criminals have it easy, they need more penalties" dude, so called "vets" were saying this type of garbage not long ago. Thats the quality of the debate on these forums, they ask for arenas to take the "bad" pvp off the streets. So they can duel spin in town till they quit in a week because the game is GARBAGE.

The game right now is just a promise of something good, i see no long-term solution unless they remake a lot of features, changing the law only won't do much unless its thought, ment and accompanied by a number of meaningfull changes that support the main concepts of the game.

Mortal has the bones to make it much better, not only through TC, which will do a lot to create safer zones for guilded players at least. But I agree, reliance on one single mechanic to improve the game is silly. With that said, allow me to expand the topic a little.

The Repuation system has a lot to be desired, bones are there, but like many things, much work to do. Right now it's only keyed to drop when you murder, and only affects your ability to go into towns when you hit 0. In the vein of the topic thread at hand, it would contribute to making the world much more realistic by making NPCs react to you more at the varied levels of rep. Here's my example:

Encourage people to get a better reputation (or to remove a bad one) by having guards (the most mobile NPCs) behave differently towards you based on the rep. If you want to be PVP and indiscriminate, once you reach the bottom of the rep pile in that area (can't go any lower) it makes no difference how you play, so you can keep at it, but if you ARE at that bottom level, the guards chase you further from town than if you are simply at 0 or under by a couple points.

To make it fair in the sense of the mechanical balance, the players with the highest rep in an area can call those guards from further away and farther from town. With an overlap area for both sides where you have to play the gamble, does this player have enough rep to call a guard all the way out here? Can I get away with murder because the guards will have to run that far?? Can I defend myself long enough for the guard to reach me?

TL,DR; the guards would leash back like any mob at a certain distance, but with a low rep the leash goes farther so they run a greater risk hitting players near towns. Flip side, good rep players can call guards out further, but run the risk of getting killed anyhow because the distance is too far.

To combat people abusing this by making a guard run out every 30 seconds, in that overlap zone, you can't call them more than once every 10 minutes (or whatever timer works best) so if you try and get a guard to stay near you, they leave and refuse to come back on a timer. Get hit in that timer and you are fair game, and if you try and call them from the normal range and enter the overlap with a guard following, that timer starts and the guard auto-leashes, so you've poofed your defense before you even start.

I would think that an overlap zone where extreme rep affects the guards would have to start where the current leashing for guards ends, and would move out in increments of 5 or 10 to the bottom. Better Rep will change the timer length and the distance covered by the guards.

 

[Albanjo Dravae]

Mortal has the bones to make it much better, not only through TC, which will do a lot to create safer zones for guilded players at least. But I agree, reliance on one single mechanic to improve the game is silly. With that said, allow me to expand the topic a little.

The Repuation system has a lot to be desired, bones are there, but like many things, much work to do. Right now it's only keyed to drop when you murder, and only affects your ability to go into towns when you hit 0. In the vein of the topic thread at hand, it would contribute to making the world much more realistic by making NPCs react to you more at the varied levels of rep. Here's my example:

Encourage people to get a better reputation (or to remove a bad one) by having guards (the most mobile NPCs) behave differently towards you based on the rep. If you want to be PVP and indiscriminate, once you reach the bottom of the rep pile in that area (can't go any lower) it makes no difference how you play, so you can keep at it, but if you ARE at that bottom level, the guards chase you further from town than if you are simply at 0 or under by a couple points.

To make it fair in the sense of the mechanical balance, the players with the highest rep in an area can call those guards from further away and farther from town. With an overlap area for both sides where you have to play the gamble, does this player have enough rep to call a guard all the way out here? Can I get away with murder because the guards will have to run that far?? Can I defend myself long enough for the guard to reach me?

TL,DR; the guards would leash back like any mob at a certain distance, but with a low rep the leash goes farther so they run a greater risk hitting players near towns. Flip side, good rep players can call guards out further, but run the risk of getting killed anyhow because the distance is too far.

To combat people abusing this by making a guard run out every 30 seconds, in that overlap zone, you can't call them more than once every 10 minutes (or whatever timer works best) so if you try and get a guard to stay near you, they leave and refuse to come back on a timer. Get hit in that timer and you are fair game, and if you try and call them from the normal range and enter the overlap with a guard following, that timer starts and the guard auto-leashes, so you've poofed your defense before you even start.

I would think that an overlap zone where extreme rep affects the guards would have to start where the current leashing for guards ends, and would move out in increments of 5 or 10 to the bottom. Better Rep will change the timer length and the distance covered by the guards.

Guard calling pvp mechanics sucks lol, to be honest i think the configuration and use of guards should change drastically as making pve as low tier as possible for guarded areas.

Instead of giving players the ability to command guards i rather see lawfull and lawless camps scattered around the map so people can plan travelling routes better to minimize risk and/or promote conflict.

Perfect would be for these camps to be nomads and periodically change locations and add features to promote their use besides being possible lawfull oasis in-between towns.

Players need to be drawn away from towns instead of incentivating gate pvp and guard whack.

Guardwhacking is the worst feature a game like this should be looking for.

For the law i'll continue to vouch for a whitness report system.

Btw i don't see any bones in the standing system, so far is a few generic ideas very poorly implemented, without any proper design. It's dumb se fuck.

 

[Najwalaylah]

Star Vault bravely showed what it would be like without reputation, murder counts, & guards to patrol or to call early on in the development of this second iteration of the game; how much would get done that was murder and how much that was not; showed it to everyone (you, me, and the powers that be))...

Then this discussion took place.

.... In my dreams.

 

[Tzone]

The thing is, the real world has 24/7 inhabitants born into their status with real stakes in government. An MMO does not have that, so you need to simulate it if you want realism. Even the Medieval or ancient world has ad hoc local, and sometimes de facto law-based central government. Even hunter gatherer societies have ad hoc government with tribal rules that set taboos and rights. In the real world, you are born into rights. Imagine yourself, for example, you were probably born in some country and inherited rights as a citizen of that country. The ancient world was exactly the same. Not everyone gets the same rights, but if we are trying to make a game that is accessible to everyone and will encourage people to play it, then they kind of have to. Who is going to want to play as a slave or serf? Let these be NPCs if you want to simulate the lower echelons of ancient stratified society. People are only going to want to play if they are all a part of the ruling warrior caste, because otherwise why the hell would you want to play a game in which you are prey to people who have every advantage over you? That's called an inaccessible game and people will simply choose not to play.

And that's the problem that relying only on guilds as far as social mechanics creates. IRL, you can't just murder people of the same status as you for no reason with no consequences anywhere**. Some of the very first laws are settling such disputes between citizens; killings, bodily harm, etc. That's realism. If you are out raiding somewhere, sure, you can kill people, because you are not a part of that place's government and will be challenged in combat by that region's own ruling class/government if they are able to do so. Not at all like MO2 where you just go outside the place that you inhabit and kill someone of equal status and walk back into town like nothing happened. Not at all like MO2, where literally everyone is potentially a criminal that will murder their neighbor and there is nothing stopping them.

If we are going to use the realism argument, the real world, even in ancient times, did not function like MO2. In the real world, there has been no period where someone is born with absolutely no rights or membership in any kind of tribal institution that constitutes an ad hoc government. In MO2 there is only guilds. If you are a member of a big guild, you have better rights & protection than others implicitly because there are no other social mechanics. Cities are just hubs for guilds. The open space is just real-estate for guilds.

So, if we're talking realism, there needs to be more social mechanics to actually constitute realism. Flesh out citizen mechanics, town mechanics, etc. so that reputation actually makes sense. What do we have right now? Guilds & a broken RPK system. As far as accessibility goes, you spawn into the game with no guild to begin with. So, you are essentially spawning into the game with lesser rights than anyone else, then you wonder why people don't want to play the game.

The game is not going to be popular if it depends only on guilds & an arbitrary RPK ruleset. You need more mechanics to simulate what actual realistic tribal law is like. I've said it before, but SV should try to poach some devs from Paradox Interactive because they are the true kings of simulating social mechanics/governments/rights/law etc.*** They could really make a game like MO2 shine. "No mechanics players decide" MO2 is always going to have a very limited appeal, because it's not realistic it's just anarchy since players don't have real tribal ties, do not have real things at stake, do not inhabit the game world 24/7, and can simply choose to just stop playing the game at any moment. All of these things mean that, unlike the real world, realistic tribal law will not develop organically from anarchy and that anarchy will always favor grief & push away the much larger echelon of people who are not interested in griefing.

**(There are instances of trial by combat, but that is still law & instituted and governed over; even that could be a fun mechanic if you dev it right-- you challenge someone to a legal duel by using some influence resource, on a timer to prevent abuse-- for x amount resource with a cap to how much you can ask for. If they decline they lose a small fraction of it, if they win you pay them double etc. That's the kind of mechanical sandbox 'law' that could make a game like MO2 great.)

***(Stellaris & CKII & III have amazing law/government simulation mechanics, and they are VERY MUCH sandbox games-- fewer mechanics do not make a game more sandbox or content more emergent-- the best, most critically-acclaimed sandbox games are filled to the brim with mechanics...)

Realistic law? Only 70% of modern crimes are solved. In midieval times most crimes were unsolved.

People tend forget that the law is not omipotent. They cant and most likely wont know if someone killed another unless witnesses or some other form of evidence is collected. And thats if they find a body.

I dont see how seeking out harsher punishments is realistic when being guilty is instantly and omnipptently known by all guards.

Harsher punishments will be used by greifers against random blue bobs and noobs that they trick or dont understand the game systems.

 

[Kaquenqos]

Realistic law? Only 70% of modern crimes are solved. In midieval times most crimes were unsolved.

People tend forget that the law is not omipotent. They cant and most likely wont know if someone killed another unless witnesses or some other form of evidence is collected. And thats if they find a body.

I dont see how seeking out harsher punishments is realistic when being guilty is instantly and omnipptently known by all guards.

Harsher punishments will be used by greifers against random blue bobs and noobs that they trick or dont understand the game systems.

You've kind of disregarded at least 50% of my post, which, honestly, is understandable considering my long-windedness. Nevertheless, I think you missed what I was getting at with that post. I never call for 'harsher' punishments for RPKing, just more realistic ones that create a more sensible framework for PvP.

My point overwhelmingly is that an MMO does not have real life 24/7 inhabitants that create natural tribal ties. You don't spawn into an MMO as a member of society unless the game intentionally mechanically makes you one. An MMO does not have permadeath. An MMO does not have real consequences, period. No video game does. People will just turn the game off if it feels willfully unfair, where in the real world people band together and work together out of necessity. There is neither shame nor taboo in an MMO; you might get a bad reputation, but then you can just freely log off.

These mundane facts of existence are the reasons that the medieval/ancient/prehistoric world, albeit more violent, were not constant murder frenzies. Like today, tribalism and consequence dictated a degree of honor. This is why, even though you are of course right that law is neither omniscient nor omnipotent, neither in the present nor in the past does every single person decide they are a casual murderer who will just murder out of boredom alone because a timer says they can with no consequences...

What I'm saying is, since the current system is ultimately never going to be able to achieve the urgency real life has, put in the social mechanics necessary to simulate it. What I'm getting at is that guilds don't create the tribalism necessary. To some extent, mechanically, it just creates an inaccessible elitist game. It just doesn't simulate what real world tribalism is, so of course people will just murder when they can. Why not. It's practically encouraged. There is no benefit in not doing so. That's the problem. That's not realistic. There are huge benefits in not murdering people in real life.
I think the level of tribalism guilds create is a step in the right direction, but it just simply does not lay a complex enough framework to create a realistic level of protections and inclusiveness.

Ultimately my problem isn't about RPKing, it's just about how RPKing happens. Killers should be roving guilds of highwaymen, regionally notorious outlaws that skirt the law and are hunted-- not literally everyone everywhere, including the guy who was just in queue for the teller before you and who you will see at the teller tomorrow... In real life, whether that be thousands of years ago or today, the risk just usually is not worth the reward. In MO2, the risk is nearly non-existent with current mechanics, so the reward is always worth it.


There needs to be more social/membership mechanics that determine who kills whom and why, rather than just encouraging random senseless killing as the main form of PvP.

 

[Robmo]

But.. why?

How is that fun?

 

[Anabolic Man]

But.. why?

How is that fun?

That would be overkill in my opinion, but pks need to be penalized harder and a lot of mechanics need to be implemented so players interested in PVP don't get murdercounts. E.g. by city factions that are at war with each other, that players could join or by terretory control. The guild that is besieging a city should be able to forbid other guilds from entering their lands, so that these players are flagged as criminals for the land-owning guild on their territory and vice versa and therefore cannot give murder counts.

Bounty hunting need to be changed. Only a few min cooldown for a contract, some rewards and the bounty should always be in the 4k meters or maximum 8k meters range. Most bounty hunters want to defend their city and region from PKs and not want to travel 1h for a bounty that log of before you reach there, somewhere in GK... ! That would be a nice punishments for pks, because they would constantly be hunted and would only go to town for a short moment and leave as fast as possible to not get jumped. Atm it is no fun to do bounty contracts.

 

[Valoran]

You've kind of disregarded at least 50% of my post, which, honestly, is understandable considering my long-windedness. Nevertheless, I think you missed what I was getting at with that post. I never call for 'harsher' punishments for RPKing, just more realistic ones that create a more sensible framework for PvP.

My point overwhelmingly is that an MMO does not have real life 24/7 inhabitants that create natural tribal ties. You don't spawn into an MMO as a member of society unless the game intentionally mechanically makes you one. An MMO does not have permadeath. An MMO does not have real consequences, period. No video game does. People will just turn the game off if it feels willfully unfair, where in the real world people band together and work together out of necessity. There is neither shame nor taboo in an MMO; you might get a bad reputation, but then you can just freely log off.

These mundane facts of existence are the reasons that the medieval/ancient/prehistoric world, albeit more violent, were not constant murder frenzies. Like today, tribalism and consequence dictated a degree of honor. This is why, even though you are of course right that law is neither omniscient nor omnipotent, neither in the present nor in the past does every single person decide they are a casual murderer who will just murder out of boredom alone because a timer says they can with no consequences...

What I'm saying is, since the current system is ultimately never going to be able to achieve the urgency real life has, put in the social mechanics necessary to simulate it. What I'm getting at is that guilds don't create the tribalism necessary. To some extent, mechanically, it just creates an inaccessible elitist game. It just doesn't simulate what real world tribalism is, so of course people will just murder when they can. Why not. It's practically encouraged. There is no benefit in not doing so. That's the problem. That's not realistic. There are huge benefits in not murdering people in real life.
I think the level of tribalism guilds create is a step in the right direction, but it just simply does not lay a complex enough framework to create a realistic level of protections and inclusiveness.

Ultimately my problem isn't about RPKing, it's just about how RPKing happens. Killers should be roving guilds of highwaymen, regionally notorious outlaws that skirt the law and are hunted-- not literally everyone everywhere, including the guy who was just in queue for the teller before you and who you will see at the teller tomorrow... In real life, whether that be thousands of years ago or today, the risk just usually is not worth the reward. In MO2, the risk is nearly non-existent with current mechanics, so the reward is always worth it.


There needs to be more social/membership mechanics that determine who kills whom and why, rather than just encouraging random senseless killing as the main form of PvP.

Well said.

 

[Albanjo Dravae]

You've kind of disregarded at least 50% of my post, which, honestly, is understandable considering my long-windedness. Nevertheless, I think you missed what I was getting at with that post. I never call for 'harsher' punishments for RPKing, just more realistic ones that create a more sensible framework for PvP.

My point overwhelmingly is that an MMO does not have real life 24/7 inhabitants that create natural tribal ties. You don't spawn into an MMO as a member of society unless the game intentionally mechanically makes you one. An MMO does not have permadeath. An MMO does not have real consequences, period. No video game does. People will just turn the game off if it feels willfully unfair, where in the real world people band together and work together out of necessity. There is neither shame nor taboo in an MMO; you might get a bad reputation, but then you can just freely log off.

These mundane facts of existence are the reasons that the medieval/ancient/prehistoric world, albeit more violent, were not constant murder frenzies. Like today, tribalism and consequence dictated a degree of honor. This is why, even though you are of course right that law is neither omniscient nor omnipotent, neither in the present nor in the past does every single person decide they are a casual murderer who will just murder out of boredom alone because a timer says they can with no consequences...

What I'm saying is, since the current system is ultimately never going to be able to achieve the urgency real life has, put in the social mechanics necessary to simulate it. What I'm getting at is that guilds don't create the tribalism necessary. To some extent, mechanically, it just creates an inaccessible elitist game. It just doesn't simulate what real world tribalism is, so of course people will just murder when they can. Why not. It's practically encouraged. There is no benefit in not doing so. That's the problem. That's not realistic. There are huge benefits in not murdering people in real life.
I think the level of tribalism guilds create is a step in the right direction, but it just simply does not lay a complex enough framework to create a realistic level of protections and inclusiveness.

Ultimately my problem isn't about RPKing, it's just about how RPKing happens. Killers should be roving guilds of highwaymen, regionally notorious outlaws that skirt the law and are hunted-- not literally everyone everywhere, including the guy who was just in queue for the teller before you and who you will see at the teller tomorrow... In real life, whether that be thousands of years ago or today, the risk just usually is not worth the reward. In MO2, the risk is nearly non-existent with current mechanics, so the reward is always worth it.


There needs to be more social/membership mechanics that determine who kills whom and why, rather than just encouraging random senseless killing as the main form of PvP.

Except you are comparing a game to reality, the thing Is the game does not need harsher punishments to make people feel ain't worth killing someone. That kind of justice shouldn't exist in a game like mortal.

Like the current system where no matter how or why whoever you murder can and will report you.
So theres no bypassing a law that exists where no npc or human eye Is, and omnicient law.

Now the only way i'd be willing to see maybe tweaked punishments on a scenario where law Is in hands of players, like a witness report system. Where it would take an actual gameplay for the "victim" to achieve justice.

To be honest i despise those games that dont want to Let you murder people so they have a ridículous punishment system, like the games from another era o shitty themeparks.

You are over thinking it, It's not that complex. Theres no problem with "mindless murdering" people will kill for loot, thats not mindless, what Is it so hard to understand about that. Players shouldnt relay on punishment mechanics to avenge their death.

As you quote a lot of reality and historic scenarios i could do it aswell to prove the game doesn't require more better or harder punishments just to detriment "mindless killing".

But that wouldn't do justice to the game, because no matter how much you try to compare this shit to reality it Is a fiction and can be anything but real". Now what we could take from reality should be very simple concepts, to where and how law happens.

If you ask me, there no crime if nobody witnessed it. And the problem Is that theres no gameplay for lawfull gamestyles. They wanted to make something like that with bounty system but they are so retarded that they didnt use THAT to be part of the law system.

Damn shit Is really placeholder in this game, disgusting :S

But i couldnt agree more, there has to be tools for people to enforce the law. And im not saying calling guards. Theres no roof of how you could switch the law mechanics but i doubt SV Is willing to make something thats not complete trash.

Reality Is even if SV grabs a cool idea from suggestions they will destroy it, break it and then introduce it in the worst possible way, its what they do, It's their thing.

 

[Jatix]

You kids need to remember that this is an open pvp game. The point in MO1 to me was that it was a dark virtually lawless world full of chaos. Which doesnt mean everyone has to pvp kos everyone. But there's crime around every corner, which is what keeps it exciting. And as a not criminal player, it left a lot of room to punish criminals.

If someone griefs you, you can try to get them back. Its not the games job to punish them so much that they never log in again. All having more shitty standing systems and stuff does is make it harder to get back the people who griefed you. Because the bad standing system protects them too half the time. I've had the guys I killed watch my friend walk into town with their stuff and they didnt try to attack him because its not worth the standing hit.

And I can say that this game is significantly more punishing than MO1. A much smaller % of players grief and stuff. MO1 you go into any gy that had players and someone would be there griefing. This is not the case in mo2.

 

[ElPerro]

Mortal has the bones to make it much better, not only through TC, which will do a lot to create safer zones for guilded players at least. But I agree, reliance on one single mechanic to improve the game is silly. With that said, allow me to expand the topic a little.

The Repuation system has a lot to be desired, bones are there, but like many things, much work to do. Right now it's only keyed to drop when you murder, and only affects your ability to go into towns when you hit 0. In the vein of the topic thread at hand, it would contribute to making the world much more realistic by making NPCs react to you more at the varied levels of rep. Here's my example:

Encourage people to get a better reputation (or to remove a bad one) by having guards (the most mobile NPCs) behave differently towards you based on the rep. If you want to be PVP and indiscriminate, once you reach the bottom of the rep pile in that area (can't go any lower) it makes no difference how you play, so you can keep at it, but if you ARE at that bottom level, the guards chase you further from town than if you are simply at 0 or under by a couple points.

To make it fair in the sense of the mechanical balance, the players with the highest rep in an area can call those guards from further away and farther from town. With an overlap area for both sides where you have to play the gamble, does this player have enough rep to call a guard all the way out here? Can I get away with murder because the guards will have to run that far?? Can I defend myself long enough for the guard to reach me?

TL,DR; the guards would leash back like any mob at a certain distance, but with a low rep the leash goes farther so they run a greater risk hitting players near towns. Flip side, good rep players can call guards out further, but run the risk of getting killed anyhow because the distance is too far.

To combat people abusing this by making a guard run out every 30 seconds, in that overlap zone, you can't call them more than once every 10 minutes (or whatever timer works best) so if you try and get a guard to stay near you, they leave and refuse to come back on a timer. Get hit in that timer and you are fair game, and if you try and call them from the normal range and enter the overlap with a guard following, that timer starts and the guard auto-leashes, so you've poofed your defense before you even start.

I would think that an overlap zone where extreme rep affects the guards would have to start where the current leashing for guards ends, and would move out in increments of 5 or 10 to the bottom. Better Rep will change the timer length and the distance covered by the guards.

How about u git gud and stop letting NPCs fight your own battles. Guards should never leave the perimeter of the town, they already chase you way past that.

 

[poorconsumer]

A way to discourage murderers and have a more friendly population. Without doing PvP toggle or PVE servers is to make murderers rare and hard to survive in Nave.

1.) Players with a Murder count if hunted by a player or killed by a guard or aggressive NPC will experience permadeath and full wipe.

2.) This will make it harder for players to have a bandit lifestyle. They shouldn’t be able to live in cities/towns or have timer cooldowns. Murdering innocent citizens should be rare and punishable by death.

3.) Factions should be a thing and there should be PvP zones where killing a player is not a crime. If you are in the zone you are free game.

4.) Innocent players who hunt Murderers should have an option to arrest them in mercy mode and take them to the nearest town for a public execution. Each town should have a PC public executioner that is available online.

except you can't know who is who. and no name tags or guild tags allowed. no text at all when looking at other players. im down

 

[seriousSam]

the idea of punishment for killing blues is not bad, but permadeath, seriously? It seems to me much more interesting to take away the ability to resurrect on any priests, including red ones, so that the only way for such players to resurrect was with the help of a spiritist.

 

[Kaquenqos]

Except you are comparing a game to reality, the thing Is the game does not need harsher punishments to make people feel ain't worth killing someone. That kind of justice shouldn't exist in a game like mortal.

Like the current system where no matter how or why whoever you murder can and will report you.
So theres no bypassing a law that exists where no npc or human eye Is, and omnicient law.

Now the only way i'd be willing to see maybe tweaked punishments on a scenario where law Is in hands of players, like a witness report system. Where it would take an actual gameplay for the "victim" to achieve justice.

To be honest i despise those games that dont want to Let you murder people so they have a ridículous punishment system, like the games from another era o shitty themeparks.

You are over thinking it, It's not that complex. Theres no problem with "mindless murdering" people will kill for loot, thats not mindless, what Is it so hard to understand about that. Players shouldnt relay on punishment mechanics to avenge their death.

As you quote a lot of reality and historic scenarios i could do it aswell to prove the game doesn't require more better or harder punishments just to detriment "mindless killing".

But that wouldn't do justice to the game, because no matter how much you try to compare this shit to reality it Is a fiction and can be anything but real". Now what we could take from reality should be very simple concepts, to where and how law happens.

If you ask me, there no crime if nobody witnessed it. And the problem Is that theres no gameplay for lawfull gamestyles. They wanted to make something like that with bounty system but they are so retarded that they didnt use THAT to be part of the law system.

Damn shit Is really placeholder in this game, disgusting :S

But i couldnt agree more, there has to be tools for people to enforce the law. And im not saying calling guards. Theres no roof of how you could switch the law mechanics but i doubt SV Is willing to make something thats not complete trash.

Reality Is even if SV grabs a cool idea from suggestions they will destroy it, break it and then introduce it in the worst possible way, its what they do, It's their thing.

So, you were initially the one appealing to realism, and I was just adding to your point/correcting you. Now you're saying, "Yeah but this is a game"...Yep, that's what I just said too. This is a game. So 'simulate' the realism. If you want realistic crime reporting, make realistic societal systems too.

Or, are you saying people want a battle royale game? I don't think so, or else they would play one. That's not what MO2 is billed as. It's billed as a realistic dark-fantasy sandbox MMO featuring full loot PvP.

Anyway, I've gone on at length about why I think the current RPK system is bad, so here are the changes which I am a proponent of, which I think are fairly easily achievable; that is, I think these are things that could be delivered without having to ambitiously try to 'reinvent the wheel'

1) Bring back UO/MO1 style flagging so the blue flag means something(including long crim debuffs); dump reputation or maybe tie it in to some kind of PvP grind and unrelated to guards. Create a 'lawful' playstyle... There is mechanically none currently.

2) Continue fleshing out a framework for how and why PvP happens, it can't just be ALL RPKing ALL THE TIME, that just sucks. RPKing should be the dirty form of outlaw PvP, not the bread and butter vanilla PvP experience... There should be ample opportunity for PvP that is not RPKing, and that hopefully has some objective; TC, optional factions, more complex duel/arena/tournament style things, etc. etc... Again, this is very important for creating a 'lawful' playstyle; of course nobody will want to be lawful if it means almost no PvP, as it does currently.

3) Implement wilderness areas (most dungeons, lakes of territory surrounding lawless towns, farflung spots) where there is no reporting; so, the world is broken up into 1) guarded areas in and around towns 2) areas that are unguarded but in which murder can be reported (main-roads, outside cities; everywhere that isn't a city and isn't a 'grey' 'wilderness area'), and 3) wilderness/grey areas where there is no reporting (including red towns)

4) Give unlawful towns brokers & add more red priests (ie. Now that there are many kosher venues for PvP like wilderness/lawless areas, mechanics that create PvP opportunities between willing participants beyond GvG wardecs, functioning TC, etc., if you want to RPK anyway, you get to hang out with the RPKers in these towns, or more likely in a keep near a red town, where you'd probably only go to use the broker). Delineate the playstyles-- you are either someone who kills honorably, or someone who hangs out with fellow outlaws who do not.


The system I propose gives the elite group of people who want a 'battle royale' style game ample opportunity to exist at the apex of the PvP landscape in their RPK guild-keeps, while still allowing others to play the game casually. This system would provide the best of both worlds. It creates a healthy PvP landscape for people who want to have a lawful playstyle, and provides ample opportunity for people to rough it in the wild & be outlaws without tedious rez-walks, no access to brokers etc... It also creates a dynamic where reds who venture into the 'reportable but unguarded' zones are now one of the 'honorable' forms of PvP for blues. Blues who are hungry for open world PvP wouldn't just decide to RPK & take the rep-hit/MC like now (unless they are in a wilderness area), but would patrol around looking for reds near their base. It mechanically incentivizes & delineates realistic 'lawful' versus 'outlaw' playstyles, unlike now.

Ultimately I don't think what is an ideal RPK system for someone with thousands of hours and multiple accounts, several of which are exclusively camped-out murder-hobos, is actually an ideal RPK system, or is enjoyable on a basic level for the vast majority of people. Why? Well, that should be obvious. On that level, the level of, "Just let people RPK with abandon no law ffa this is a battle-royale game lol", we disagree-- which is no surprise, since we have been disagreeing like clock-work on the many threads on this subject over the last few months. As far as that goes, I think that's just bad design and does not deliver on the promise of 'realism' in any way. Go play a battle royale or Conan Exiles or something, if that's what you want. That's not actually what the game is billed as. So, we're gonna just have to agree to disagree. For a slow moving MMO whose unique alluring feature is delivering a realistic, static, sandbox world, it's a bad idea. It creates a system where there is really only one viable playstyle.


As a side note, I think it's kind of hilarious that this preposterous "Give RPKers permadeath" thread has derailed to this point. I'm glad people are actually talking about the RPK mechanics. Whether or not we can all agree on what needs changing, I'm glad we can all more or less agree that current mechanics are lacking. There is a reason these threads keep surfacing. I think both sides do make good points to some extent. What I'm proposing here is a compromise between them; no tedium for people who want to be RPKers(more red priests, brokers), and indeed venues for ALL players to RPK if they choose(wilderness), while also creating a world that doesn't exist solely as a venue for people to RPK complete with an actual lawful/blue playstyle(meaningful blue flags\advantages to not RPK\venues for PvP beyond RPKing).

 

[Albanjo Dravae]

So, you were initially the one appealing to realism, and I was just adding to your point/correcting you. Now you're saying, "Yeah but this is a game"...Yep, that's what I just said too. This is a game. So 'simulate' the realism. If you want realistic crime reporting, make realistic societal systems too.

Or, are you saying people want a battle royale game? I don't think so, or else they would play one. That's not what MO2 is billed as. It's billed as a realistic dark-fantasy sandbox MMO featuring full loot PvP.

Anyway, I've gone on at length about why I think the current RPK system is bad, so here are the changes which I am a proponent of, which I think are fairly easily achievable; that is, I think these are things that could be delivered without having to ambitiously try to 'reinvent the wheel'

1) Bring back UO/MO1 style flagging so the blue flag means something(including long crim debuffs); dump reputation or maybe tie it in to some kind of PvP grind and unrelated to guards. Create a 'lawful' playstyle... There is mechanically none currently.

2) Continue fleshing out a framework for how and why PvP happens, it can't just be ALL RPKing ALL THE TIME, that just sucks. RPKing should be the dirty form of outlaw PvP, not the bread and butter vanilla PvP experience... There should be ample opportunity for PvP that is not RPKing, and that hopefully has some objective; TC, optional factions, more complex duel/arena/tournament style things, etc. etc... Again, this is very important for creating a 'lawful' playstyle; of course nobody will want to be lawful if it means almost no PvP, as it does currently.

3) Implement wilderness areas (most dungeons, lakes of territory surrounding lawless towns, farflung spots) where there is no reporting; so, the world is broken up into 1) guarded areas in and around towns 2) areas that are unguarded but in which murder can be reported (main-roads, outside cities; everywhere that isn't a city and isn't a 'grey' 'wilderness area'), and 3) wilderness/grey areas where there is no reporting (including red towns)

4) Give unlawful towns brokers & add more red priests (ie. Now that there are many kosher venues for PvP like wilderness/lawless areas, mechanics that create PvP opportunities between willing participants beyond GvG wardecs, functioning TC, etc., if you want to RPK anyway, you get to hang out with the RPKers in these towns, or more likely in a keep near a red town, where you'd probably only go to use the broker). Delineate the playstyles-- you are either someone who kills honorably, or someone who hangs out with fellow outlaws who do not.


The system I propose gives the elite group of people who want a 'battle royale' style game ample opportunity to exist at the apex of the PvP landscape in their RPK guild-keeps, while still allowing others to play the game casually. This system would provide the best of both worlds. It creates a healthy PvP landscape for people who want to have a lawful playstyle, and provides ample opportunity for people to rough it in the wild & be outlaws without tedious rez-walks, no access to brokers etc... It also creates a dynamic where reds who venture into the 'reportable but unguarded' zones are now one of the 'honorable' forms of PvP for blues. Blues who are hungry for open world PvP wouldn't just decide to RPK & take the rep-hit/MC like now (unless they are in a wilderness area), but would patrol around looking for reds near their base. It mechanically incentivizes & delineates realistic 'lawful' versus 'outlaw' playstyles, unlike now.

Ultimately I don't think what is an ideal RPK system for someone with thousands of hours and multiple accounts, several of which are exclusively camped-out murder-hobos, is actually an ideal RPK system, or is enjoyable on a basic level for the vast majority of people. Why? Well, that should be obvious. On that level, the level of, "Just let people RPK with abandon no law ffa this is a battle-royale game lol", we disagree-- which is no surprise, since we have been disagreeing like clock-work on the many threads on this subject over the last few months. As far as that goes, I think that's just bad design and does not deliver on the promise of 'realism' in any way. Go play a battle royale or Conan Exiles or something, if that's what you want. That's not actually what the game is billed as. So, we're gonna just have to agree to disagree. For a slow moving MMO whose unique alluring feature is delivering a realistic, static, sandbox world, it's a bad idea. It creates a system where there is really only one viable playstyle.


As a side note, I think it's kind of hilarious that this preposterous "Give RPKers permadeath" thread has derailed to this point. I'm glad people are actually talking about the RPK mechanics. Whether or not we can all agree on what needs changing, I'm glad we can all more or less agree that current mechanics are lacking. There is a reason these threads keep surfacing. I think both sides do make good points to some extent. What I'm proposing here is a compromise between them; no tedium for people who want to be RPKers(more red priests, brokers), and indeed venues for ALL players to RPK if they choose(wilderness), while also creating a world that doesn't exist solely as a venue for people to RPK complete with an actual lawful/blue playstyle(meaningful blue flags\advantages to not RPK\venues for PvP beyond RPKing).

Nope, i allways said realism" is something that shouldn't be the end, but the medium to an end.

The game doesn't "need" realism, because it's a fiction and i've never contradicted myself on this one at least.

I agree with most points to a certain degree but everything youve mentioned could be aswell removed since your actual Focus is item number 2 which i'm particularly against of.

People call unconsensual pvp a battle royale now?

Wrong approach to this type of game, if anything the game needs justice in hands of players and tools to make it work.
The same way i go out to murder innocent" poor fucks, anyone could be a criminal hunter. Problem is a crime hunter is subject of the same flagging rules so the ones that would like to enforce justice would just be another criminal, theres no mechanics yo support that gameplay and It's true.

What shouldn't be allowed under no circunstance Is to remove the unconsensual pvp element just because a few rotten apples can't deal with it. If any justice should be in hand of players and not stupid ass automatic themepark mechanics so a few steam kids can afk mine safe.

In this case i think less Is more, game doesn't need flamboyant anti-criminal systems or to remove criminal playstyle whatsoever. Game needs to offer a gamestyle to the counterpart so law can be seeked by players, and by law" i don't mean idiotic timesink features to make certain playstyles dogshit (like its already been made).

Pre-launch without the current shitty crim gamestyle limitations was more fun than the tedious garbo right now. And people like you demand more and better punishments to cripple player interaction, particularly something as good as non consensual pvp. People demonize non consensual pvp but It's actually one of the best things this game has, no matter how much TESO you want it to be.

 

[Kaquenqos]

Nope, i allways said realism" is something that shouldn't be the end, but the medium to an end.

The game doesn't "need" realism, because it's a fiction and i've never contradicted myself on this one at least.

I agree with most points to a certain degree but everything youve mentioned could be aswell removed since your actual Focus is item number 2 which i'm particularly against of.

People call unconsensual pvp a battle royale now?

Wrong approach to this type of game, if anything the game needs justice in hands of players and tools to make it work.
The same way i go out to murder innocent" poor fucks, anyone could be a criminal hunter. Problem is a crime hunter is subject of the same flagging rules so the ones that would like to enforce justice would just be another criminal, theres no mechanics yo support that gameplay and It's true.

What shouldn't be allowed under no circunstance Is to remove the unconsensual pvp element just because a few rotten apples can't deal with it. If any justice should be in hand of players and not stupid ass automatic themepark mechanics so a few steam kids can afk mine safe.

In this case i think less Is more, game doesn't need flamboyant anti-criminal systems or to remove criminal playstyle whatsoever. Game needs to offer a gamestyle to the counterpart so law can be seeked by players, and by law" i don't mean idiotic timesink features to make certain playstyles dogshit (like its already been made).

Pre-launch without the current shitty crim gamestyle limitations was more fun than the tedious garbo right now. And people like you demand more and better punishments to cripple player interaction, particularly something as good as non consensual pvp. People demonize non consensual pvp but It's actually one of the best things this game has, no matter how much TESO you want it to be.

Yeah, like I said man, we've been through this, and we fundamentally disagree.
You can call my opinion 'steam kid' or whatever, but your opinion is from a very hardline RPK camp. If anyone's a radical here, it's you, not me. You might not see it that way because on the forums, unlike in the actual game, RPKers make up an appreciable vocal-majority. The hardcore RPKers that make up the majority, or at least the vocal majority, of the official forums however, obviously don't make up the majority of the playerbase when you consider the differing opinions of the majority of people on other venues(ie. who you call 'steam kids'), or the average playstyle of in-game players.

I'm willing to concede that RPKers should not be punished with time-sink punishments, and that there should be lawless zones with no reporting-- because I do think RPKing is a valuable part of the game. The only difference between an RPK and non-RPK playstyle should be that RPKers don't get guarded/safe-zones, while non-RPKers do. If you want to participate and benefit from anarchy, you should have to live in anarchy. That's a meaningful sandbox play-style trade-off.


You, on the other hand, take a hardline that there should be pretty much no rules and RPKers should be able to do pretty much whatever they want wherever they want. You've been a proponent of no guards in other threads iirc. Essentially, in your view, there should be no RPKing at all, because it should just be a free-for-all 24/7. But, that's not going to be fun for the majority of players and it literally makes any playstyle except hardcore PvP RPKer protected by a top active PvP guild completely unplayable... That's not moderate. It's a design that takes away from the enjoyment of the many to meet the demands of a niche few.

The ultimate difference is that in my version of MO2, you would still be able to get to RPK anyone in the right circumstance(ie. as long as they aren't in town), and get lots of PvP action in general... On the other hand, your version of MO2 completely precludes the many people like me, who aren't hardcore RPKers & purely/solely PvP motivated, from getting to participate. The turn-over rate would be huge among people entering Nave for the first time.

 

[Albanjo Dravae]

Yeah, like I said man, we've been through this, and we fundamentally disagree.
You can call my opinion 'steam kid' or whatever, but your opinion is from a very hardline RPK camp. If anyone's a radical here, it's you, not me. You might not see it that way because on the forums, unlike in the actual game, RPKers make up an appreciable vocal-majority. The hardcore RPKers that make up the majority, or at least the vocal majority, of the official forums however, obviously don't make up the majority of the playerbase when you consider the differing opinions of the majority of people on other venues(ie. who you call 'steam kids'), or the average playstyle of in-game players.

I'm willing to concede that RPKers should not be punished with time-sink punishments, and that there should be lawless zones with no reporting-- because I do think RPKing is a valuable part of the game. The only difference between an RPK and non-RPK playstyle should be that RPKers don't get guarded/safe-zones, while non-RPKers do. If you want to participate and benefit from anarchy, you should have to live in anarchy. That's a meaningful sandbox play-style trade-off.


You, on the other hand, take a hardline that there should be pretty much no rules and RPKers should be able to do pretty much whatever they want wherever they want. You've been a proponent of no guards in other threads iirc. Essentially, in your view, there should be no RPKing at all, because it should just be a free-for-all 24/7. But, that's not going to be fun for the majority of players and it literally makes any playstyle except hardcore PvP RPKer protected by a top active PvP guild completely unplayable... That's not moderate. It's a design that takes away from the enjoyment of the many to meet the demands of a niche few.

The ultimate difference is that in my version of MO2, you would still be able to get to RPK anyone in the right circumstance(ie. as long as they aren't in town), and get lots of PvP action in general... On the other hand, your version of MO2 completely precludes the many people like me, who aren't hardcore RPKers & purely/solely PvP motivated, from getting to participate. The turn-over rate would be huge among people entering Nave for the first time.

Im not a "radical", this Is another type of game how hard Is that to understand. You keep trying to convert this game into another generic piece of garbage.

Polarizing pvprs and pvers Is idiotic. And what you call "pks" can often present better reasons on why not to go on a mainstream road, while theres people like you literally saying "just make it like UO".

What I see somewhat unique in the game's experience others want to dumb it down, add anti-criminal behavioral hardbrakes and shit you can already find in other games, why Is it you wanna change one of the deep rooted elements of the game i have no clue, specially when It's such a key part of the configuration of the world and has been in the previous game for longer than a decade.

Im just saying, SV has their real limitations, conceptually the development of social behavior good and bad are excelent for a real game and not another steam cattle drive simulator. Does it need More and better development to support the social interaction element? Well yes.

People thinks of games in the same mainstream structures, which suck. And maybe It's time to understand mortal even tho it has a lot of placeholder and themeparkish content its not a mainstream poop.

I do not vouch for a complete lawless world, even tho it would be spectacular if It's handed correctly, but how could i expect SV for delivering that, i mean look at the quality of content they keep getting out of the oven.

I've even suggested a whitness playstyle to involve players in a working law system that offers something better than the current insulting experience of having to ress to report.

If you read anything i said you could understand that im not against a law system, im just against trash quality brainstorming and terrible placeholder content. I mean you surf this forums and you can see it all, theres no "minority" of carebears, theres just a lot of people with really silly opinions not making an effort to understand the game's concept and artístic proposal.

This very own thread explains it very well, carebears be like "someone killed my horse while i was afk fixin me a sandwich, criminals need permadeath"

Now, there has to be an aknowledgment of the problematics, but not in this idiotic polarized terms. To be honest, the most upset" opinions are from either pvers or noobs. And most if not all are looking for a completly different experience than the game offers or It's designed to offer.

I mean, be my guest if you play mortal for It's pve. But the whole concept Is a package and i find it fantastic SV preserves "some" of that.

 

[Kaquenqos]

Im not a "radical", this Is another type of game how hard Is that to understand. You keep trying to convert this game into another generic piece of garbage.

Polarizing pvprs and pvers Is idiotic. And what you call "pks" can often present better reasons on why not to go on a mainstream road, while theres people like you literally saying "just make it like UO".

What I see somewhat unique in the game's experience others want to dumb it down, add anti-criminal behavioral hardbrakes and shit you can already find in other games, why Is it you wanna change one of the deep rooted elements of the game i have no clue, specially when It's such a key part of the configuration of the world and has been in the previous game for longer than a decade.

Im just saying, SV has their real limitations, conceptually the development of social behavior good and bad are excelent for a real game and not another steam cattle drive simulator. Does it need More and better development to support the social interaction element? Well yes.

People thinks of games in the same mainstream structures, which suck. And maybe It's time to understand mortal even tho it has a lot of placeholder and themeparkish content its not a mainstream poop.

I do not vouch for a complete lawless world, even tho it would be spectacular if It's handed correctly, but how could i expect SV for delivering that, i mean look at the quality of content they keep getting out of the oven.

I've even suggested a whitness playstyle to involve players in a working law system that offers something better than the current insulting experience of having to ress to report.

If you read anything i said you could understand that im not against a law system, im just against trash quality brainstorming and terrible placeholder content. I mean you surf this forums and you can see it all, theres no "minority" of carebears, theres just a lot of people with really silly opinions not making an effort to understand the game's concept and artístic proposal.

This very own thread explains it very well, carebears be like "someone killed my horse while i was afk fixin me a sandwich, criminals need permadeath"

Now, there has to be an aknowledgment of the problematics, but not in this idiotic polarized terms. To be honest, the most upset" opinions are from either pvers or noobs. And most if not all are looking for a completly different experience than the game offers or It's designed to offer.

I mean, be my guest if you play mortal for It's pve. But the whole concept Is a package and i find it fantastic SV preserves "some" of that.

I'm not actually proposing an end to RPKing... I'm just proposing a system that would allow people who don't want to RPK a lawful playstyle so that not literally everyone is an RPK. I don't think what I proposed would actually hinder the gameplay of hardcore RPKers, and in a lot of ways it would give them easier access to the gameplay they want, while on the other hand it would make the game a lot more fun for the majority of people who are not hardcore RPKers.

My bottom line here is, there is a reason this thread keeps coming up. It's because the RPK mechanics currently suck, and there is no such thing as a lawful playstyle. You put yourself at every disadvantage not to RPK, while the game's mechanics practically encourages you to RPK while maintaining your blue flag so that in a sense there is really no lawful playstyle; there is just blue RPKer and grey RPKer. It's completely understandable that a lot of people hate this system.

I'm just proposing a sensible framework for PvP, which, most MMOs with RPKing have for good reason. I think it might be problematic that the very thing some people seem to think makes MO2 special, ie. being able to RPK while remaining blue flagged, is the thing that a ton of people hate about the game. That's why I'm proposing a system that makes the blue flag meaningful, while also adding a framework for PvP to occur for blues(vs. reds everywhere but wilderness, or anyone at risk of losing blue flag), for reds(anywhere that doesn't have guards), and for everyone(in wilderness zones, or where other PvP mechanics allow it in non-wilderness zones).

I don't think any of that would make MO2 mainstream in any way. What it would do is make the game accessible to people who expect full loot RPK while also expecting sensible PK mechanics, and get rid of a lot of the reasons the RPK mechanics feel so cheap & unfair currently. It would just create a reason and framework for PvP, and would be every bit as sandbox as the current mechanics which, atm, make the game feel listless/pointless & actually encourages grief.

 

[Aszniko]

Killing newbie or innocent players by groups of gankers which do not facing any consequences for murdering other players is the worst thing this game have, completly killing the fun and experience... In reallity a murderer was hunted and permanently killed, people did not ressurect so the amount of kills for no reason was relatively low. With the system we have now is so sad to lose everythink and few min later see the guy who got all your things in city like nothing happend.... what is this joke?