@Telakh: I understand that you may be defensive, but be careful, you're sounding like you're full of it and you don't give any argument when you're just tossing the overused gimmicks "it's feudal" "it's a sandbox, not a theme park"...
Now about :
Telakh wrote:There will be no NPCs here, and there is no need of silly mechanisms to control players' aggression against hamsters and hermits.
Well, I actually read the FAQ and this isn't so clear :
FAQ wrote:Question: Will wars/pvp be fought mostly over the control of areas with better/rarer resources, rather than just for lols or e-peen? I really hope you stick to EVE idea of areas of very high risk/reward and safe areas with lower rewards, so that pvp is constant in certain areas of map. spending hours looking for pvp in darkfall was number 1 reason to quit the game for me.
Answer: We're on the same page here, about PvP, EvE security status zones and such. I'm pretty much sure, that there will be plenty of reasons to wage territorial wars and minor neighbor raids.
It seems that EvE Online is actually seen as a source of inspiration. EvE's system of security zones is basically the intervention of NPCs to defend players. So, will there be a similar system or was the answer just evasive circumventing of the question?
Also :
FAQ wrote:Question: Will there be something equivalent to guards or zap towers (from darkfall, I didn't like the player city towers.) in NPC or player cities?
Answer: Currently we plan something like vengeful ghosts that will be attacking criminals or players that are hostile towards the kingdom, that had built that church.
Now...
Telakh wrote:UO pvp system was great.
As I said in my first message : which one? There's been several.
And finally, talking about permadeath is just logical fallacy. It won't make LiF good just by knowing it could be worse.
@Tantal: Thank you for sharing your enthousiasm, I hope you will find your hapiness in this game. There are really interesting features even for a non-hardcore-PvPer. My opinion is that this game needs to attract more people like you rather than repel them by a scary communication.
@Belphegor:You can't discard my argument, which is based on previous experiences compared to the theory that is presented on the website, by telling me I should try it. First of all the website should convince me to try it, I shouldn't feel forced to try it to confirm my fears. Secondly you aren't sure yourself : "well.. i think thats how it works.."
There's a poll about paying for each character of an account to get out of newbie island. It means there will be several characters by account. If the solution of paying only once is chosen, it will cost only two accounts to do what I explain. It's not being rich, it's just committing to the playstyle. Multi-accounts are very common in MMORPGs. If the second solution is chosen, we can still do it, but it will come to the question of the real future of a "perma-red" character.
You say it'll become useless in the end, but :
Bobik wrote:3. Players cannot “ruin” or “gimp” their characters. You may always retrain your stats and skills (read more about Skill Cap and Stat Cap on our
Wiki) and there will be no special racial abilities whatsoever.
Note that if your character go perma-red, it will have no other goal than PK. That's pretty much locking it in a behavior that you're trying to subdue.
@Daniloy:Those are wishful thinking that have been proven not happening in other games. Unless there are very few players on this game and everybody knows each other, it'll be "attack a villager and enjoy his loot". Nothing more will happen. Revenge will be exceptional and will be avoided by the attacker(s).
@Rhade:I totally agree that harsh punishment is counter-productive. But here we are in a self-contradicting system. The key is what you consider as scarce and what you consider as abusive. The current system is punishing. That means there's a behavior that they want to discourage. So there's a kind of PvP encounter that we don't want to happen too often. I say there's a problem in the system that will make it need constant readjustments to be sure it really discourage that behavior, but that it doesn't remove it. It's really hard to do so through game designs.
My opinion is that it is necessary to re-center on what kind of PvP you want to see, and which one is low value, problem bearing, and only add a theorical sense of pseudo-freedom.
Typically, if you go and get some resources, it's great to have them at risk. But while you will do everything you can at the moment to take the less risks possible, the bandits will do the same. And if when you compare what's at stake on both side, one side has far more on the pile, there's a problem.
To compare what's as stake, you may reduce every resource (gathered, equipment, skill points) to the time spent to get them. Then you can adjust the bandits possible punishment so it's at the height of the full loot of the gatherer. It will look fair on the paper, but as human we always use all our creativity to find an easier way to obtain what we want. The consequence of such system is that bandits will adjust their choice of prey on the weakest targets. It may be a group of PKers assaulting isolated low skill miners for example.
Then you must compare what's to win. That's a big issue. If a PvP encounter occurs, what's to win for both? The bandits may earn the gatherer's loot: resources and equipment. If the gatherer wants to have a chance, he'll indeed have to put combat equipment at stake too. The gatherer may only earn the bandits' equipment, as skill loss is pure loss of the time spent. Basically, if PvP occurs, the advantage is already on the bandits side. So the interest of the gatherer isn't to learn how to defend himself, it's to avoid the fight. So he might as well not take any combat equipment and just play cat and mouse.
What are the consequences? It's not real combat PvP based on skill anymore, it's another sub-game of PvP : tracking and hiding. With a different system than full loot, the gatherer may be able to take his combat equipment and give a real fight to the attacker. Maybe that's more what you want, even if you didn't see it that way. Basically it may be something like the aggressor will drop one to several pieces of equipment on death while the victim can't drop worn equipment, just the content of the bag (the gathered resources). You remove or reduce the stat loss, and the competition will be in a real fight, not just a hide & seek game.
What kind of PvP do you want to see?
And maybe I wasn't clear enough, but full loot will hit new players harder than veterans. Veterans will know how to deal with it, have spare equipment etc, while new players are more likely to have nothing left after being fully looted. In terms of player retention, it isn't wise. You can play tough, "life is feudal" etc, but if there's not enough player, the mass PvP will be ridiculous, and the whole game will feel empty.
And a little bonus from the FAQ...
Spoiler
1. Alignment - those who kill innocents will receive a huge alignment hit and negative alignment means a huge loss of skills if he die and longe respawn timer (waaay longer)
Respawn times won't change that much or maybe even won't change at all - it is not FPS multiplayer, when every second counts. Negative alignment characters will suffer a greater skill losses and maybe longer resurrection sickness.
That's not very consistent.
There will be no permadeath, at least not at release.
That's not something you want to let hanging over the head of players as a possible change in an undefined future. Make a choice.
Thank you for reading. If you disagree, remember that nothing is personal, that I just care about the game. It's not about what I'd like in the game, but what the game should consider having in order to... survive. MMORPG's market is feudal. ;)
P
