Why we don´t need a flagging system

[Magos]

I think it's an entirely different atmosphere currently so we will see behavior tolerated a lot differently when persistence hits.

Right now it makes sense people don't tolerate random killing; there is 0 gain and it only serves to annoy/troll people. Once resource scarcity is introduced and especially persistence, the incentives to kill others indiscriminately changes drastically and so will how the behavior is tolerated. It will become the accepted norm because the incentives are understood and accepted by the playerbase.

One of the more interesting things about MO1 was if someone complained about being killed randomly, the reaction to their complaining often outweighed any condemnation for the person doing the killing.

Once guards are introduced the only way to RPK someone is to stand outside the guardzone and murder anyone that goes in or out of the town. And this will be accepted by much of the community as part of the core game. This is what MO1 devolved into after the non player killer avenger types were driven from the game en masse early on. The problem was the guards IMO. The reason they weren't safe was the guards and a community acceptance of normal gameplay.

 

[Teknique]

Let me get this straight:

When there is little to nothing to loose, players get angry for being killed, band together and deliver adhoc justice.

But when loot represents more time invested than now, they will care less? "Oh you just killed the guy next to me, that´s cool. Because of the value of loot we have decided that a FFA is really the best way to play this."

----

No one in MO1 got killed randomly. That would imply that there was a random element to it. I mean I´m sure there was someone who got out the old dice and rolled one every time they meet someone. But that seems to be an outlyer.

There always was and will be an element of consideration. In what I propose it will be someting like this: "I know these monks, WARD and MANA guys live in Vadda and kill me if I gank one of theirs. But I do want the loot." According to you that can´t happen because, you, the A-RPK and PvE guys have all turned into murdering maniacs that don´t care - because loot has value and there is no bit of code that tells you how many players someone has killed recently.

In a reputation system the consideration is different: "How many guys can I kill in this region, before I hit the limit and am not allowed to bank everything I looted." After this guy killed your buddy he will stand at the bank and have a little laugh - cause if you attack him you will be executed instantly by guards.

---

If you worry is that you won´t be able to defend yourself that is fair. Maybe the mentioned group above could have an agreement with Mýr to enforce whatever they think is just? That is in addition to the fact that every character can now fight or at least has a better chance of getting away.

I see tons of players claiming that they want to "protect" the little guy. Let them do that in a meaningful way.

I think its more that people won't risk their gear to save noobies who will probably do more damage to the friendly player on accident then anything meaningful in combat, versus a dedicated group of vets trying to kill you.

So basically i'm saying risk is a variable aswell, not just incentive for gear.

 

[ElPerro]

A flagging system isnt needed if players cant kill each other

 

[Eldrath]

I think its more that people won't risk their gear to save noobies who will probably do more damage to the friendly player on accident then anything meaningful in combat, versus a dedicated group of vets trying to kill you.

So basically i'm saying risk is a variable aswell, not just incentive for gear.

Fair enough. What about saving the guy who always gives those swords on a discount and chats with you from time to time? At what point would you decide to risk your gear to defend someone? What kind of reward are you looking for? I´m pretty sure that someone like Ichoros would reward you quite handsomely to keep order in his city.

To point out the obvious: If this was true, then everyone claiming to be "arpk" would be a hypocrit. Cause putting your gear on the line to defend said noob would be the definition of roleplaying "the good knight". You might be right, but coming from that corner I think there would be enough that could actually put action behind their words.

 

[Zyconnic]

I don't know how you did that quotation without too much editing...

[Text]
I call you heathen. You're a majority.
Maybe in the grand scheme of things regarding the lifespan of MO I am a majority but for the people who kept with MO throughout the years I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority :b

[Text]
I don't have a feeling on this one way or the other. The risk calculation of killing someone in a reputation based system is more complicated. It might happen more. It might happen less. Some may see an easy kill as risk free, however, I don't think those players would last long on their own. A few encounters that lead to them being mercilessly driven from their area are powerful instructions.
If the population is big enough it will be hard to account for all players and what they did. It probably will be easier to recognize players from their guild tag but that will probably be hidden when entering a town where you want to be the hunter.
What I am afraid of in the end, is that the majority of guilds goes PK for everyone they don't know or can't see a tag on. If keeping note of all players is too hard (I guess thats why we have the flagging system in principle) a reputation system will just make MO2 a bigger killfest. The guilds wont be affected much by this I guess.
However, I can agree that a reputation system would be the best... if it can work for everyone and somehow keep the game in order.

[Text]

A controlling group that can't rely on guards for their own weaknesses and weakest members would inevitably desire numbers, especially to combat rival groups. That creates a demand for players in the region to join rather than fight. That leads groups to develop more "fair" practices towards strangers. I think this is demonstrated in the Alpha. The assumption is you're cool, until you show otherwise. It is precisely because of guards that guilds can afford to be reckless with their justice, they don't really "need" numbers unless they are in a war or to accomplish some other task.

(Groups of people tend to populate in sizes that match the task that needs to get done. If the task is protection and safety, we can assume that if there is no system impediment, the size would grow to meet that need. In other words, I would expect much larger guilds, or at least larger coalitions of guilds that form to meet safety requirements in a region. This is also consistent with MO1, where we had 200 guilds on a server of 300 people.)

Isn't this all based on that the population is healthy and there will be enough people to defend a town at all time? If the population declines before a patch a new tendency will arise and change this playermade system. If it will recover is unknown.
We all know the population fluctuates and a reputation system is heavily influenced by this tendency. I'm sceptical that MO2 will become the next big hit and creates a healthy stable playerbase where a reputation system can work.
.. and still, I am not sure guilds wants to do the A-PK for long as guards work is just.. boring in the end. We did the A-PK when I was in WSX and we had a hard time defending our region most of the time even though we were a medium sized guild at that time.

Besides, Alpha has a small portion of players where it's very easy to track eachother. I do not really think a valid comparision can be made here, sorry

[Text]
No argument there. Heathens are always looking for the easiest path.

• [Text]

Agreed.

• [Text]

Agreed.

• [Text]

I'm might be missing some context here. I think you're saying that it will be impossible for guilds and groups of residents to create a relatively safe environment.
Yeah, I kinda doubt that the best solution for the population of the game is complete player control. I like the idea but I think ultimately that a guardzone will be better in the end.

Again, I think groups and guilds grow to the sizes needed, so I don't think that's the case. Key being relative safety. One way to think of this is that if the perimeter killers begin to outnumber the residents, the town basically has new leadership, the casuals switch sides, and there is a return to equilibrium. A group that remains small and murders everyone will not be able to hold the town, without guards and horrible flag mechanics. Ask any guild that attempted to keep the peace, the flag system worked against them. Guards worked against them.
A small group of murders will still have an oppotunity to work inside a controlled town and harass the players when the controlling guild is not around. I could see this as a small minigame for the murders trying to avoid the "guild guards" and harassing whatever subjects they find. Like how the thieves worked in MO1.
This minigame in not "wrong" or anything but it creates problems for the casuals as they will be the target of this game. It will create gameplay for the murders and the guildies but on behalf of the "sheeps". I think all in all, this relative safety the guild can provide will probably not be enough to create a stable town for casuals as they might still become the easy prey. Again, this is based on that every town works like this and there wont be a more secure town somewhere else. If that's the case, I believe a majority would be move to safety unless there is a greater payoff.

Also, we agree that casuals will go to the safest towns possible. This is part of what I mean by player regions will compete for the best rules and justice. There is no competition for casuals when every town with guards is roughly equal.

.

Unfortunately, unguarded towns in MO1 say very little about a game with guards and flags at default zero. The baseline of safety was a guarded town. That is the relative comparison no matter where you went in Nave. Casuals, as you pointed out, will stay in safer zones. That creates a selection bias for killers and risk takers in lawless regions that isn't a sustainable economy and not a reflection of a general populace.
Agree

I think you're again pointing at another reason why we would see large sustaining guilds. There would be a need for numbers and people to watch your back rather than a macro. The one character thing is pretty cool, lots of unexpected things will happen.
Agree

[Text]

To be clear, I think very limited and expensive guards that align with controlling guilds, and some sort of regional designation for people that are perpetually naughty are fine. They just shouldn't be default. It should be something a guild works to establish and maintain to supplement their reign, not replace it. If they are doing a good job, residents will support it. If not, they shouldn't last long.

As far as I know, they are going through with Haven. A horrible waste, but regardless, that's a safezone. The main game doesn't need any default safezones. Any system they create will be gamed and exploited to make things worse rather than better. In the loading screen the game used to instruct players to get to know the controlling guilds in their region to ensure access. That's good advice in a game without flags and default guards with a silly justice program. In MO 1, a naked blue could endlessly harass people and force murder counts that led the protecting guild to become exiled from the guardzone. That's an obvious issue that can't be avoided.

I think we're on the same page in the end and want the same thing - more control to the players and less hideous systems like the current flagging system. I might just be more negative towards this idea based on my experience in MO1. I always felt that the PK's had an easy time and the casuals had less and less oppunities to play how they wanted without being completely at the wolves mercy. Hindering or removing features which protects the players can in the end, just make it more one sided and I don't believe thats the vision of this game.
That's why I always voted for less PK-friendly features and more variety for everyone as I believe the PK's had it too easy already.

I also believe that one of the downfalls of MO1 was how they treated newer players and how easy it was to force them out of the game before they got used to the hardcore nature of the game. Removing guard zones might completely remove the fundation for new players to grow in if we're not careful.

 

[Speznat]

in the live game very much people will be assholes that kill you while youre looking in the other direction or just kill you randomly for fun. or rob you or stab you, or kill your mount just for the lolz. sry @Eldrath but have you actually played MO1?

than you know that most people behave like shit and will always. right now everything is fine because you fight for nothing and its pointless to piss on people. Like MO1 steam rleease.

Flagging systme and guards are needed.
Alone the idea of not having those, shows that you were not here at steam release 2015 were thousends of players get griefed out of the game.

 

[bbihah]

Well servers having Vietnam flashbacks from MOs release weeks during that time sure ran away a lot as well.

 

[Magos]

in the live game very much people will be assholes that kill you while youre looking in the other direction or just kill you randomly for fun. or rob you or stab you, or kill your mount just for the lolz. sry @Eldrath but have you actually played MO1?

than you know that most people behave like shit and will always. right now everything is fine because you fight for nothing and its pointless to piss on people. Like MO1 steam rleease.

Flagging systme and guards are needed.
Alone the idea of not having those, shows that you were not here at steam release 2015 were thousends of players get griefed out of the game.

guards and flagging were in back then. They did not help ppl getting griefed and driven from the game en masse. The illusion that they had a safe zone in towns, and a community acceptance of allowing PK's to patrol outside the GZ for easy kills, drove them off.
This is not how it worked in Asheron's Call with no guard/flag system. There was an extremist PK vs NPK community that developed and PK's were hunted down. There were safe areas because if you went there as PK you would be spotted and killed immediately.

 

[Speznat]

guards and flagging were in back then. They did not help ppl getting griefed and driven from the game en masse. The illusion that they had a safe zone in towns, and a community acceptance of allowing PK's to patrol outside the GZ for easy kills, drove them off.
This is not how it worked in Asheron's Call with no guard/flag system. There was an extremist PK vs NPK community that developed and PK's were hunted down. There were safe areas because if you went there as PK you would be spotted and killed immediately.

sounds good in theory will never work in Mortal.

i remember the first 2 years were guards were not automated running around, you had to call them on a target, that was worst gaming experience ever, got killed on crafters many times a day from idiots like guts in town.

and also 2015 has proven that a only player driven justice systme will not work.
Tindrem Life daily live also has proven that.

just a reality check. and a reminder to you all.

 

[Magos]

sounds good in theory will never work in Mortal.

i remember the first 2 years were guards were not automated running around, you had to call them on a target, that was worst gaming experience ever, got killed on crafters many times a day from idiots like guts in town.

and also 2015 has proven that a only player driven justice systme will not work.
Tindrem Life daily live also has proven that.

just a reality check. and a reminder to you all.

2015 proved nothing, you can't even compare the two at all. We are starting out with Haven Isle this time.
You can't compare how the community acted in a guarded MO1 vs how you think they would act unguarded. Without a dependence on guards the community would pick up at least some of the policing slack themselves.

 

[Eldrath]

Interesting.

So the fact that a reputation based system with guards failed (MO1 2009 till present), proves that player derived justice can not work.

Got it.

Are you guys sure we shouldn´t just disable PvP for you? Or would that disturb the victim narrative?

 

[Ministro]

Interesting.

So the fact that a reputation based system with guards failed (MO1 2009 till present), proves that player derived justice can not work.

Got it.

Are you guys sure we shouldn´t just disable PvP for you? Or would that disturb the victim narrative?

The flagging system was flawed. That means it needs to be fixed, not removed. Or some kind of reputation system, like Henrik said.

And it's not a victim narrative; it's a new player friendly one. You know, the new people this game needs to survive?

 

[Magos]

The flagging system was flawed. That means it needs to be fixed, not removed. Or some kind of reputation system, like Henrik said.

And it's not a victim narrative; it's a new player friendly one. You know, the new people this game needs to survive?

Again the new player argument is debunked. They are starting on Haven Isle.
Secondly, I have proof that a player run PK vs NPK system does work pretty well cause it was in Asheron's Call and the games are very similar at the core. You have no proof it couldn't work here just as well.

 

[Ministro]

Again the new player argument is debunked. They are starting on Haven Isle.
Secondly, I have proof that a player run PK vs NPK system does work pretty well cause it was in Asheron's Call and the games are very similar at the core. You have no proof it couldn't work here just as well.

Haven will definitely help, but it's no more of a magic bullet than the flagging system was. It should not be used as an excuse to remove any new/casual player protections from Myrland.

One would ask, since you can make your own towns in this game, why some are so obsessed with the idea of stripping NPC towns of any protections? NPC towns account for what, 1% of this game's geography? If 99% of the game being wide open isn't enough for you, you really just need to admit that you're a griefer that can't do any better than going after noobs. Don't like it? Fine, go make your own town. Have a nice day.

I don't know about Asheron's Call, so can't intelligently debate that, but MO is based on UO, and it had a flagging system, iirc, so there's my "counter-proof" I guess lol.

I would recommend that you raise your bar on what you consider "debunked" and "proof". You are confusing them with your opinions.

 

[Magos]

Haven will definitely help, but it's no more of a magic bullet than the flagging system was. It should not be used as an excuse to remove any new/casual player protections from Myrland.

One would ask, since you can make your own towns in this game, why some are so obsessed with the idea of stripping NPC towns of any protections? NPC towns account for what, 1% of this game's geography? If 99% of the game being wide open isn't enough for you, you really just need to admit that you're a griefer that can't do any better than going after noobs. Don't like it? Fine, go make your own town. Have a nice day.

I don't know about Asheron's Call, so can't intelligently debate that, but MO is based on UO, and it had a flagging system, iirc, so there's my "counter-proof" I guess lol.

I would recommend that you raise your bar on what you consider "debunked" and "proof". You are confusing them with your opinions.

my motivation is because I think it would lead to fun gameplay is all. A massive NPK alliance, serious reputation, more glory, and more tears.

 

[Eldrath]

my motivation is because I think it would lead to fun gameplay is all. A massive NPK alliance, serious reputation, more glory, and more tears.

I think you were supposed to say: Because I want to kill noobs without repercussions. That is the narrative. You are the bad guy, everyone else is the victim. Being able to socialize with others for protection is too much to ask. Standing up for your "values" is only possible if you got a lictor to back you up. But it all for the "noobs", right.

I think this has gotten as far as I thought it would go. To those that made a contribution I say thank you.

We will all be judged by the gods.

 

[barcode]

you really just need to admit that you're a griefer that can't do any better than going after noobs.

one need only look at the 'can attack blue' option in the settings for mo1 to know who the griefers were

-barcode

 

[Favonius Cornelius]

It's a thing on scales.

Sure, you can go to the max on freedom, where there is no system to create action accountability, but we all know full well that it will eventually just drain the numbers of people actually playing because the new people can't get a foothold on our world and leave for other games.

The smart pker knows that you don't over hunt the herd: you allow the herd to get fat and happy to a point, then you cull it peroidcally. That way there is always ample, rich game to hunt.

 

[Turbizzler]

I don't know why it took me long to click on to this...but just realized this is some weird roleplay fantasy the ZEAL guys want Mo to be. To be able to freely live their weird cleansing roleplay from MO1, in MO2 without hassle.

 

[Turbizzler]

Interesting.

So the fact that a reputation based system with guards failed (MO1 2009 till present), proves that player derived justice can not work.

Got it.

Are you guys sure we shouldn´t just disable PvP for you? Or would that disturb the victim narrative?

I've played both sides of the spectrum.

Played with GUTS for years, and we had our own form of player derived justice to keep Fabernum ours and safe for friends and allies...though our methods of player derived justice was murder, griefing and ultimatums(aka we'll blow your shit up and priest camp you for eternity). In that context, it certainly worked, for over half a decade in fact.

I also was there turning RPK into loot bags on Steam release, and all player derived justice did, was slow down the noob slaughter. RPK would just run to their walls and log off, until we left. Then log back on and continue their title farming, until we returned later or the next day. It worked while people were online willing to hand out justice, but when people were offline it allowed most of RPK to farm dreadlord titles.

I get it, you want to ride around on your desert/jungle horses, slay the nakeds/low geared, spamming your silly repentance spam macro, and have minimal consequence for it. Just be honest about it mate.