Announcements

Join the ongoing conversation on Discord: https://discord.gg/w6Tpkp2

Please read the current update for instructions on downloading the latest update. Players with Mac versions of the game will not be affected, but you will have a slightly longer wait for your version of the new maps. Please make a copy of your character folder before running the new update, just to make sure you don't lose any of your custom work.

It looks like we can give everyone a list of minimum specs for running City of Titans. Please keep in mind that this is 'for now' until we are able to add more graphics and other system refinements. Currently you will need :
Windows 10 or later required; no Intel integrated graphics like UHD, must have AMD or NVIDIA card or discrete chipset with 4Gb or more of VRAM
At least 16GB of main DRAM.
These stats may change as we continue to test.

To purchase your copy of the City of Titans Launcher, visit our store at https://store.missingworldsmedia.com/ A purchase of $50 or more will give you a link to download the Launcher for Windows or Mac based machines.

How to make PVP fun

302 posts / 0 new
Last post
Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Here's a thought: we know

Here's a thought: we know that mez and hold effects (or anything that shuts you out of controlling your toon) are pretty brutal in PVP. Part of the problem with this is the fact that a player character is not an NPC, and mez effects were designed with NPC baddies in mind, really.

So, what if every PC toon came with a power called "Break Free" which you could use while mezzed, feared, slept, taunted, etc. So like when you get mezzed, you hit the "Break Free" power and it doesn't immediately break you free, but it builds your momentum and as you keep hitting it, you might eventually build momentum to the point where you DO break free after several uses. This would kind of be like the equivalent of mashing buttons and shaking the joystick to shake Blanca off of you in Street Fighter II, etc. Different magnitude mez powers would have different amounts of momentum needed to get out of them and the Break Free power could have a fairly fast cooldown timer to allow you to use it to get free of most mez effect is a few seconds in a PVP fight.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 6 months ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
When my brother is playing

When my brother is playing WOW PvP, I often hear him announce, "Trinket" or "Trinketing." Every PC in WOW has something called a "trinket," which can be used every so often to do exactly as you described, Radiac.

I think it would be better if mez and hold powers were less absolute in general, and interfered with one's ability to control with precision and strength.

Business Manager

Izzy
Izzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 11:09
So, when PvP starts, both

So, when PvP starts, both players have certain Mez Protection(s) Boosted?

AlienMafia
AlienMafia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 10 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/26/2013 - 09:45
Im here. Just been busy.

Im here. Just been busy. Other priorities.

-AlienMafia (Justice Server)
Main: Thorns 13xx Badges

Lin Chiao Feng
Lin Chiao Feng's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 12 hours ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/02/2013 - 09:27
Izzy wrote:
Izzy wrote:

So, when PvP starts, both players have certain Mez Protection(s) Boosted?

More importantly, mez won't be a binary thing where you are or are not mezzed. It would be more of a gradual degradation.

Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
Ilike Radiac's idea much much

Ilike Radiac's idea much much better.
Mainly because it's a lot easier to understand
and it gives you something to do to try to break free so you're not just sitting there waiting
I never minded being helpless in street fighter nearly as much as in COX
Because there was something I could do.

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 13 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
The idea is already covered

The idea is already covered in several ways. First, controls aren't binary. In the event of becomming fully controlled any gained momentum can decay into a Reserve which can be used to 'break free' from a control effect. Further more, everyone can end up with access to powers that provide mitigation against control effects by getting the appropriate Tertiary powers (not to mention those sets that would have their own native protections).


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
So does that mean we can

So does that mean we can click buttons to try to break free, or something else?

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 13 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
No rapid button mashing

No rapid button mashing involved. If it is a reserve that you want to use, you will click on that reserve to activate, the reserve depletes and you get the benefit gained from using that reserve.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
OK so by "reserve" you mean

OK so by "reserve" you mean something like inspirations?

JayBezz
JayBezz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 8 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/08/2013 - 14:54
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

The idea is already covered in several ways. First, controls aren't binary. In the event of becomming fully controlled any gained momentum can decay into a Reserve which can be used to 'break free' from a control effect. Further more, everyone can end up with access to powers that provide mitigation against control effects by getting the appropriate Tertiary powers (not to mention those sets that would have their own native protections).

You talking a whole bunch about how Crowd Control will be mitigated.. but I want to hear about how crowd control will be AWESOME.

Let CC be badass again! Why? Because unlike other games (Champions Online, Wildstar, DC Universe Online) City of Titans is devoting an entire play-style choice (class) to Crowd Control/Debuffs. You (hopefully) won't have these God-Mode builds who are ugly JOATs. If (WHEN) I pick crowd control as my primary powerset I want to do just that.. and I don't care who complains when I'm good at it. I wont complain when tanks are hard to kill or when DPS kills quickly either because EVERYONE should be awesome at their playstyle.

Crowd Control Enthusiast

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 13 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Yes. Reserves were mentioned

Yes. Reserves were mentioned in our Momentum update. There are posts on the thread that lightly touch on the subject.

Basically, Reserves are the CoT equivalent of inspirations except you don't get Reserves as a 'drop' from defeating an opponent.
Reserves are built as Momentum naturally decays. Momentum is built by attacking an opponent (or can be set to build by being attacked if needed as in the case of being under a control). We can tune different power sets as needed so their build and decay rates provide parity for Momentum and Reserves. Also attacks are loosely defined from health damage, controls, and debuffs.

JayBezz wrote:

Tannim222 wrote:
The idea is already covered in several ways. First, controls aren't binary. In the event of becomming fully controlled any gained momentum can decay into a Reserve which can be used to 'break free' from a control effect. Further more, everyone can end up with access to powers that provide mitigation against control effects by getting the appropriate Tertiary powers (not to mention those sets that would have their own native protections).

You talking a whole bunch about how Crowd Control will be mitigated.. but I want to hear about how crowd control will be AWESOME.
Let CC be badass again! Why? Because unlike other games (Champions Online, Wildstar, DC Universe Online) City of Titans is devoting an entire play-style choice (class) to Crowd Control/Debuffs. You (hopefully) won't have these God-Mode builds who are ugly JOATs. If (WHEN) I pick crowd control as my primary powerset I want to do just that.. and I don't care who complains when I'm good at it. I wont complain when tanks are hard to kill or when DPS kills quickly either because EVERYONE should be awesome at their playstyle.

Since we are making an entire Classification with Primary Sets devoted to control effects they should be an efrective play style as much as any other classification primary is effective at its particular play style.

The important thing to note is control effects are not boolean and therefore will have noticeable effect on the target as it is attacked with various control effects. Naturally some targets will be more difficult to apply controls to than others just as some targets will be harder to hit or harder to hurt more than others.

Having controls be an effective play style was kne of the very unique designs of the old game. We refognize it wasn't perfect (bolean effects) and naturally we seek to improve upon its design.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
I agree with Jay. I don't

I agree with Jay. I don't want a CC ability be worthless in PvP. I know people will whine when they feel like they've some how been robbed because they couldn't move. However, I want my mez protection to actually be useful! Which should be a CCers weakness.

Right way to do this I'm sure.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Even if there's no "Break

Even if there's no "Break Free" power, I personally don't want a lot of twitchyness required, but even despite that desire I would not have a problem with a thing whereby you get Mezzed and a message appears on the screen that says "You're Mezzed, rapidly press the number buttons to build momentum and break free." or something like that. It forces people to momentarily reposition their hands to get more number keys under their fingers for a few seconds, then when you're free you need to go back to the standard WASD and mouse.

I wouldn't be against that. But then I'm never going to do PVP, in all likelihood.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 6 months ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
Indeed, the very act of

Indeed, the very act of making CC non-binary - of allowing gradations of how much a target is "controlled" - will enable CC to be more awesome. Krillin, in DBZ, has as his ultimate trick the ALWAYS-effective (if it hits) Destructo-Disk. It can and will cut anything and anybody it touches. Nobody can ignore it. It is the weakest ultimate attack in the series because of narrative contrivance: if he ever actually gets to hit the bad guy with it in any way that is effective, the fight's over. No build up to an ultimate climactic victory.

The same is why CC is so often made next to useless: when it succeeds, it just flat-out wins.

Making it so that it can build up in a non-binary fashion means that CC can be given all sorts of tricks and buffs and tactics. Its total application becomes an alternate victory condition, like its own special health bar, almost.

It also, hopefully, will allow for battlefield control, so you're altering the terrain to your advantage (if only in the sense of area-denial).

So yes, it should be pretty awesome. That's why it's going to have counters; without them, it couldn't be made awesome enough to work reliably without making it game-breaking.

Business Manager

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Something to think of, is to

Something to think of, is to not make every defense set have every mez protection. Maybe it just doesn't make sense for certain sets to have that mez protection and for some of them to have them all.

I know it wasn't popular in CoH for that, but I thought the players whined a little to much on that, having played the other classes that had no mez protection :p

JayBezz
JayBezz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 8 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/08/2013 - 14:54
Make people choose their

Make people choose their defenses. It'll be popular to have DPS mitigation, likely also popular to have self heals, but the mez protection will likely be a great boon IF the PvE enemies are adept at using it

Crowd Control Enthusiast

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Instead of straight up KBack

Instead of straight up KBack/Up/Down Protection...have a percentage? Up and Down may be less likely to be knocked up or down, but the back could be percentage based. You'll only get KBed 0-100% of the knock. So someone with Invunerability AND Super Strength (don't be afraid to tie some mez protections/resistances to the attack sets...even if it's just "you get a little boost here for having this set") may be able to get their KB reduced to 0% (or 100% protection from KB).

Izzy
Izzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 11:09
Segev wrote:
Segev wrote:

No build up to an ultimate climactic victory.
The same is why CC is so often made next to useless: when it succeeds, it just flat-out wins.
Making it so that it can build up in a non-binary fashion means that CC can be given all sorts of tricks and buffs and tactics.

Why not Apply a gradual Slow effect, and the closer the HOLD reaches 100%.. PC gets Slower and slower till they just stop Moving?!?

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 13 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
All of our controls, from

All of our controls, from holds to knocks have non-binary functions. We've got quite a system for how it all works.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 14 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

All of our controls, from holds to knocks have non-binary functions. We've got quite a system for how it all works.

/em popcorn

Please ... do tell. Some of us would like to kick the tires and bang the doors on your system a little bit ...


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 13 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

Tannim222 wrote:
All of our controls, from holds to knocks have non-binary functions. We've got quite a system for how it all works.

/em popcorn
Please ... do tell. Some of us would like to kick the tires and bang the doors on your system a little bit ...

You'll just have to wait as we get closer to or at Alpha to start your tire kicking.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 6 months ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
Izzy wrote:
Izzy wrote:

Segev wrote:
No build up to an ultimate climactic victory.
The same is why CC is so often made next to useless: when it succeeds, it just flat-out wins.
Making it so that it can build up in a non-binary fashion means that CC can be given all sorts of tricks and buffs and tactics.
Why not Apply a gradual Slow effect, and the closer the HOLD reaches 100%.. PC gets Slower and slower till they just stop Moving?!?

That's the sort of thing I was more or less getting at. :)

Business Manager

Lin Chiao Feng
Lin Chiao Feng's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 12 hours ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/02/2013 - 09:27
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Redlynne wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:
All of our controls, from holds to knocks have non-binary functions. We've got quite a system for how it all works.

/em popcorn
Please ... do tell. Some of us would like to kick the tires and bang the doors on your system a little bit ...

You'll just have to wait as we get closer to or at Alpha to start your tire kicking.

After all, they still remember the last time Knockback was "discussed" here. >_<

Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...

Nadira
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 12 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/01/2014 - 13:25
Segev wrote:
Segev wrote:

What if there were a COST associated with curb-stomping?
This is an incomplete thought, and likely has gaping holes through which exploits could be driven, but as a conversation-starter...

This, and many other posts on this discussion thread show the essential problem clearly: Complicated, even convoluted, solutions must be devised to restrict the (stereo)typical excesses of PvP and make it possible to allow it into a fairly casual PvE game.

The fact that everybody can see the problem with abuse of integrating PvP into PvE and there hasn't been a palatable solution found despite decades of searching does show there is a fundamental incompatability between the two.

'Solutions' so far (that I am aware of) have been designing a game exclusively for PvP. This is the most popular and most succesful apprach, but it results in a game that is not at all an MMO.
Create a MMO but design it around open world PvP. Theoretically you can play without getting involved in PvP, but in practice if you try you will end up being forced into PvP (and to get past a certain very basic level you will have to anyway). The majority of Korean design MMOs fall in this category.
Create a MMO and prepare it for PvP, without completely forcing it onto players. Usually one of two things happen: PvP griefers find ways to force PvP on unwilling players and the game design is heavily skewed towards PvP leaving something a bit too close to PvP only designs. SW:TOR is a prime example of this approach, and of its pitfalls.
Create an MMO and completely separate the PvP (i.e. relegate the PvP to separate zones that you must queue up for, handle powersets differently in PvP as in PvE, level cap/raise players within the PvP zones). CoH did this, and WoW does it to an extent on the non-open world PvP servers. Dangers typically are that the developers are essentially creating two games at once, with the inherent risk of developing neither well, and in MMOs many archetypes do not translate well to PvP and either end up being unplayable in that arena, getting omitted entirely from the game, or additional game mechanics are piled on to attempt to make certain archetypes marginally playable in PvP (often creating loopholes that can be exploited by players).

If there exists a MMO that has PvP as well as Pve where the first does not negatively impact on development or PvE gameplay (or both) I certainly never head of it. Of course I am not exactly an expert so my lack of knowledge doesn't count for much.

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
Dungeons & Dragons Online has

Dungeons & Dragons Online has a few PVP arenas but that's the only place players can attack each other.
I used to see people in them from time to time. They're in taverns and you can look in from outside, and see what the people are saying on the general chat channel. It often included a lot of whining from loosers. Over time I saw fewer and fewer people there, and now I haven't seen anyone there in a couple of years. It hasn't affected the popularity of the game, overall. But since this is a heroes vs villains game I don't think we can just ignore PVP the way DDO has.

Of course I keep hearing people on other threads say I'm old fashioned for thinking this game is about heroes and villains, so maybe we really don't need PVP at all. Maybe it would help a lot if the Devs didn't have to figure out how to make it work.

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 3 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
TheMightyPaladin wrote:
TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Of course I keep hearing people on other threads say I'm old fashioned for thinking this game is about heroes and villains, so maybe we really don't need PVP at all. Maybe it would help a lot if the Devs didn't have to figure out how to make it work.

If players can play both sides of the party line ie someone be a hero, and someone be a villain, then I would expect that there would be SOME way for each of them to be able to fight each other if they so desire.

Hell, even a duelling system, where each encounter require the consent of BOTH parties to click "yep, i will fight you" can help out.

The thing is though, is that even just these simple tools allow players to be casually introduced to PvP if they wanted to.

I know on some CoX servers ran a "Friday Night fight club", and this was also the case in Tabula Rasa, where even if you didn't take part in the PvP Clan Wars, you could still do a boxing match style match.

In fact, this was possibly even more popular than the PvP maps, although that could be due to how broken Medics were. But even so, at least you got to stomp around in a huge mech if you could get into one.

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

Greyhawk
Greyhawk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/03/2015 - 19:17
Nadira wrote:
Nadira wrote:

The fact that everybody can see the problem with abuse of integrating PvP into PvE and there hasn't been a palatable solution found despite decades of searching does show there is a fundamental incompatability between the two.

Exactly the point I have been trying to make.

If you want to make a PvP game then by all means make an awesome PvP game.
If you want to make a PvE game then by all means make an awesome PvE game.

Trying to put both playstyles into the same game has been proven time and time again to leave one or the other group completely dissatisfied.

It is time for game designers to accept the reality that PvE and PvP will never be compatible.

Sure, a good friend and I can have a blast beating each other up on a console game. As soon as a complete stranger is introduced into the equation, all that mutual beating becomes just another form of bullying.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My author page at Amazon: https://amzn.to/2MPvkRX
My novelty shirts: https://amzn.to/31Sld32

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 14 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Hence ... AlienMafia's Last

Hence ... AlienMafia's Last Theorem on the subject.

/em popcorn


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 6 months ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
As I've said, my interest in

As I've said, my interest in PvP is twofold:

1) It strains credulity to have a game about superpowered individuals wherein the heroes are powerless to stop the villains from picking on the innocent civilians (and, alternatively, where the villains are powerless to target the innocent civilians on the grounds that they're nominally protected by heroes); and

2) I think designing for PvP and PvE to use the same mechanics will lead to better overall mechanics. (That is, it is possible to do if the starting point is to make both use the same mechanics, regardless of whether you're targetting PCs or NPCs, whereas we've seen how badly this fails if PvE is designed first and powers are geared to work on A.I.s without regard to how a human target would respond.)

In truth, I'm not a huge fan of PvP as a playstyle, personally. I like the theoretical challenge, but the practice tends to reveal my utter ineptitude as a gamer and result in highly frustrating experiences wherein I lose repeatedly and can't achieve anything. Therefore, I do not seek out PvP games, as a general rule. I'm very much in the camp that would stick with the PvE side of CoT. But that doesn't change that, were I playing and saw some villain PC picking on civilians, I wouldn't feel it utterly strains credulity that I am truly powerless to stop them. Not "they're so much stronger than I am," but "I can't even make the attempt."

It's almost its own form of griefing: the obnoxious taunter who abuses immunity to retaliation to wreck your game experience.

What prevents people in real life from engaging in obnoxious griefer-style behavior (PvP or PvE) tends to be a combination of social pressure and fear of potentially life-altering retaliation.

The anonymity of the internet greatly diminishes both.

However, for in-game behaviors, in-game consequences seem reasonable. Engaging in open-world PvP or PvE should likely be a relatively risky phenomenon. The solutions I tend to favor most strongly are a form of zone-based rights. An early iteration of this concept might be that even attacking NPCs in a "villain" area as a hero would flag you for PvP, and vice-versa (a villain attacking NPCs in a "hero" area would flag them for PvP). Doing so in your own area would merely have alignment-related consequences. So a villain mugging civilians in a villain-run area would only be flagged for PvE, not PvP, unless he wanted to be. A hero who tried to stop thugs (even NPC thugs) from picking on innocent NPCs in said villain area, however, would go positive for PvP as the villains might take exception to his heroics. This still has the problem of making it so that the hero in the villain zone literally can't stop the villain who's picking on NPC civilians, even at the cost of his own PvP risks. But it's a starting point.

Availability of NPC reinforcements may also be a factor. If areas have faction-influence ratings based on the strength with which a faction is represented, then open-world PvP might include an ability to call for reinforcements if somebody is PvPing in an area where your friends are strong. In a simplistic sense, the person who doesn't want to engage in PvP who fears being accosted by griefers will stay to his alignment/faction areas of the city and be able to call on sufficient force to bring down any aggressors.

This has the downside of potentially requiring PvP to be non-optional to be meaningful, which is a non-starter as an idea. It will require further examination to even potentially be reasonable.

The major, major problem with PvP (especially in any non-voluntary sense) is that it's frustrating to be caught up in a fight you can't escape, and that the worst kinds of it involve high-level griefers picking on low-level PCs as mere victims, denying them the ability to play the game for all the time they spend waking up at the respawn point. It may be that the best solution lies in mitigating this frustration factor. If griefers find that winning PvP doesn't so much as inconvenience their victims, they may stop. And even if they don't, their behavior stops being a problem in any real sense beyond the usual annoyances possible in any online community.

How to do that is not yet clear to me, but I think I'll start brainstorming along those lines. If anybody has further insight or ideas into what, precisely, makes PvP annoying, maybe it can be approached from the standpoint of mitigating the annoyance. (Even ideas that initially would make PvP also pointless are not bad places to start brainstorming!)

Business Manager

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 14 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Segev wrote:
Segev wrote:

1) It strains credulity to have a game about superpowered individuals wherein the heroes are powerless to stop the villains from picking on the innocent civilians (and, alternatively, where the villains are powerless to target the innocent civilians on the grounds that they're nominally protected by heroes)
This has the downside of potentially requiring PvP to be non-optional to be meaningful, which is a non-starter as an idea. It will require further examination to even potentially be reasonable.

These two factors are in direct oppositional conflict with each other. This is a conflict that CANNOT be resolved in a way that allows both to co-exist. There simply is no possible way to allow prevent the "But I can't stop them!" condition to co-exist with a purely optional PvP.

It.
Just.
Doesn't.
Work.

Segev wrote:

What prevents people in real life from engaging in obnoxious griefer-style behavior (PvP or PvE) tends to be a combination of social pressure and fear of potentially life-altering retaliation.
The anonymity of the internet greatly diminishes both.
Availability of NPC reinforcements may also be a factor.

Out here in the "real world" ... summoning NPC reinforcements is the NORMAL and EXPECTED way to resolve "griefer" behaviors. We know it as "calling the cops" or otherwise REPORTING observations to authorities who are trained (and paid) to deal with such issues. For most citizens, police officers are in effect "NPC Heroes" that can be summoned to resolve situations.

The flaw in the formulation of your premise, Segev is basically this:

*I* as a Player see another PC doing something that *I* don't want them to be doing, or get away with doing. So *I* have the RIGHT and the DUTY and the OBLIGATION to go and beat the snot out of them to teach that PC a lesson!

And guess what? If PvP is entirely optional, it doesn't matter how many dueling challenges you issue to that PC, so long as they decline and refuse every invite to PvP ... you STILL can't touch them.

And ... that right of refusal to PvP simply MUST be present because ... if it isn't there, the Developers of the game are promoting bullying and griefing behaviors by setting up conditions in which EVERY challenge to PvP *MUST* be accepted.

The only alternative is ... auto-flagging self for PvP as a result of the Player DOING SOMETHING with their PC. Whether that be defined as going to the wrong place (usually defined as maximally opposed territory, ie. Enemy Capital Cities) where your PC has no business being there ... or ... defined as your PC attacking NPCs of a particular "category" that can be viewed as potentially furthering griefing/obnoxious behaviors (such as attacking "non-combatant" NPCs in intensely hostile areas). The basic notion is that if your PC engaged in Maximal Opposition Behaviors then you will involuntarily flag your PC as being "vulnerable" to PvP and be forced to accept any PvP challenge that is given to you.

In other words, there would have to be known and recognized behaviors of gameplay that will enforce PvP Status on PCs that have nothing to do with being challenged by other PCs. There would have to be known conditions of "go HERE and you flag yourself for PvP" as well as "attack THESE NPCs and you flag yourself for PvP" conditions of CAUSE AND EFFECT.

So long as those conditions are not universal, you will have come as close as you can to making PvP entirely voluntary.

It's one of those "keep playing with matches and you'll eventually burn yourself" kinds of deals. So long as the Cause And Effect are known and appreciated in advance ... after that it's up to the Players to decide for themselves how they want to play the game.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Lin Chiao Feng
Lin Chiao Feng's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 12 hours ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/02/2013 - 09:27
Elsewhere it's been discussed

Elsewhere it's been discussed that the current plan (more or less) involves using phasing technology to split heroic, villainous, and PvP phases. So it seems to me that there is an obvious solution: forced phasing on misbehavior. I'm assuming there's no automatic initial sorting of characters into zones and phases based on heroism or villainy, i.e. there are no hero-only or villain-only zones.

So let's say we have a player in a heroic phase that, for whatever reason, decides to beat up some civvies. Let's leave aside the alignment consequences. WHat happens? Are the other players in the phase expected to stand back and watch?

Well, what if they didn't have to because the aggressor player was immediately shifted to the PvP or villainous phase? In which case none of the players in the heroic phase even see the attack; they just see the aggressor player silently fade away.

The obvious issue here is what happens to the attacked NPCs (do they get brought along or do they stay behind?).

The next obvious issue is how would the reverse work: in the villainous phase, are there things that the player could do that would get them booted out? (It should be self-evident that anything you do in the PvP phase won't get you booted out.)

Some salt on the wound would be if a player who was force-phased like this had to pay to get back to the heroic phase...

Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...

WarBird
WarBird's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 9 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/17/2013 - 19:11
I am not a PVPer by any means

I am not a PVPer by any means. Partly because of a few experiences like those listed above, partly for the immature and dishonorable behavior of the majority of PVPers I have encountered but mainly because I don't have the time or inclination to devote to a game to become competitive at it. Got a life, thanks.

But what about this for a 1 on 1 PVP scenario: Let us assume that, whatever the intrinsic costs for losing (armor repair, corpse walking, etc) you lose ONE item from your inventory, or X amount of IGC. What if you could decide what that item/amount was? But more importantly, before the fight begins, you had to "put up your stake" so your opponent could see it and decide if your challenge was "worthy?" IF you accept the challenge, both items go into a "bank" if you lose or log out both items go to the winner. This is just an extension of the mechanic for a lot of 1 player race games. As soon as you accept a challenge race, the "bet" comes out of your account and the game does a temp save. You don't get it back unless you complete and win the race.

This of course wouldn't apply to zone PVP or faction battles, etc. But it doesn't sound like the whining is as pervasive in those scenarios. OTH, there could be some kind of "entry fee" for big battles, but I don't know how you would dole out rewards ::shrug:: like I said, I'm not a PVPer.

Beamrider
Beamrider's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 5 months ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/05/2012 - 21:41
Wasn't there a professor who

Wasn't there a professor who did some sort of social study using PvP in CoH? Although all I recall was that they learned was that if you act like a jerk, other people act like jerks back.

Composition Team

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 14 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
That's the classic Tit-for

That's the classic Tit-for-Tat "solution" to the Prisoners Dilemma. Do Unto Others As They Do Unto You.

In MMORPGs, the "incentive" for being dishonorable is ... victory ... and with human nature being what it is, a lot of people have no problem with being jerks so long as they win.

This is why I maintain that the only possible "solution" to the problem as outlined by Segev is involuntary flagging of Self for PvP when engaging in a specific set of "over the line" actions that ought to invite (although not guarantee) a reprisal from other (presumably opposing) PCs. The important point is that doing certain things (going places you're not welcome, harassing NPCs, etc.) will result in a vulnerability to PvP activities.

Speaking of which ... I know that people hate the thought of there being a Death Penalty for being defeated in PvE. Do people feel the same objection to there being Death Penalties for being defeated in PvP? Should the penalty for "losing" in PvP be greater for displaying cowardice (ie. running away from a duel/challenge) than being defeated and kissing pavement? If there is a penalty, should it be levied in IGC?


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Yup. http://www.nola.com
Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 6 months ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
In point of fact, if the

In point of fact, if the solution chosen were to be "take X action, flag yourself for PvP," I would suggest one of the two following implementations: Engaging in the act puts up (by default, which you could turn off) a dialog box warning you that you're about to flag yourself positive for PvP to let you back off the action if you don't want to; or you are literally unable to engage in the act without deliberately flagging yourself postiive for PvP.

However, I am interested in further examination of what makes involuntary PvP bad. (I am not, by any means, suggesting it isn't. I have my own reasons why I dislike it, personally.) Specifically, what is it that causes it to be worse than involuntary PvE. (I know, for instance, taht I'd be peacefully flying along, contemplating my next act of villainy, when some obnoxious jerks in rocket packs would come after me for no reason other than I happened to be flying near their heroic vantage point atop some skyscraper in the Rogue Isles. This was no less unwelcome than it would have been if it had been an obnoxious PvPing hero.)

I think part of it is the penalties, obviously: you go to a respawn point rather than making progress towards where you wanted to be, you lose some XP/take on XP debt/whatever other costs the MMO inflicts for dying... Those, however, are true if you happen to traipse through an area and a nigh-level NPC of the wrong persuasion takes a disliking to you.

Part of it, I think, is that there is at least a moderate expectation that in PvE, the P wins (as a general rule). Whereas, in PvP, an "even" fight is one wherein there's a 50/50 shot that a given duelist will come out victorious. But even in PvE, if you pick the wrong fight (or the wrong fight picks you), you're facing an unwinnable scenario. I've been one-shotted by Circle of Thorns jerks while I was trying to get from one place to another because I travelled foolishly through an overly-high-level area.

If one is picking fights intelligently, one is either going for curb-stomps (just to satisfy a bit of bloodlust) or for relatively even matches (for challenge and reward). When talking PvP, this means the aggressor chooses the fight level, and thus the target will almost always feel more the victim. The aggressor would be unlikely to foolishly challenge PCs who are high above him in level, so the target is, at best, facing an even fight against a foe more clever and intelligent in use of tactics than the computer AI would ever be. At worst, he's being sniped by somebody who can one-shot him into oblivion.

Again, this is partially mirrored by being targetted by NPCs who are supremely over your level, but that's got an element of "your fault" to it: you went close enough to them to draw attention.

So one aspect of PvP that is worse than PvE is that you can be specifically targetted by an intelligent enemy who is looking to take you out like you're an NPC victim.

Building from that, there's also the chance for deliberate, targeted griefing. An NPC is not likely to chase you, personally. But a PC griefer might seek you out on purpose just to harass you. While reporting mechanisms could be used, that's going to be slower than one might like, and could easily become more trouble than it's worth.

My focus on this topic as I write this post is on trying to identify and mitigate the issues that make involuntary PvP problematic. Aside from (or in elaboration of) the above thoughts, what makes it worse than involuntarily being hit with PvE? What are the actual "bad things" that make it unpleasant? How might these be mitigated?

(A thought regarding at least the "I'm being targetted by a bully" sort of thing would be, perhaps, an ability to create not just an ignore by an avoid list; you will not ever be in the same phase as somebody on your avoid list.)

Business Manager

Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 6 months ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

Yup. http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/07/loyola_university_professor_be.html
Be Well!
Fireheart

Reading that, while I think the counter-behavior in terms of personal attacks was reprehensible, his behavior was deliberately provacative, and was actively impeding the enjoyment of others. I'm surprised he was unbeatable by others; I'd think that anybody who disliked him enough to want to get rid of him would just start making a duplicate of his tactic to use on him. 2-3 opponents using his teleport tactic on him should have done the trick, right?

The more interesting phenomenon in his study, to me, is that the open PvP zone (purportedly) lacked much in the way of actual PvP. The community that developed there didn't want it, and enforced its absence. A little obnoxious, since they were effectively driving off those who might have WANTED it, but still interesting that they not only did, but were ABLE to.

I think he's both right and wrong about the whole "tribalism" thing he brings up. He's right: it exists. It's the foundation of community. Social pressures to enforce behavioral norms are critical to smooth operation of communities which do not devolve into violence. (Those which DO so devolve wind up having behavior enforced by those with the biggest sticks.) He's wrong in seeing it as a bad thing, for the reasons stated.

Tangentially, I again wonder that nobody made an Anti-Twixt character just to keep dumping him in front of the firing squads, himself, if he annoyed people enough that they would gang up on him to try to make him quit. It would at least be a fast way to dispose of him when he showed up again. Also, avoiding him should be as easy as staying off his server or out of that zone. That it was ONE PERSON who was the problem for those who didn't like that kind of PvP playing in a zone designed for that kind of PvP is telling not in the negative way he indicates, but in the positive sense that it means a community can, in fact, self-police for what they consider good behavior.

Business Manager

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 14 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

Yup. http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/07/loyola_university_professor_be.html

Here's the most important part of that article for me ...

Quote:

The professor was disturbed that game rules encouraging competition and varied tactics hardly mattered to gaming community members who wanted to preserve a deeply-rooted culture.

Gaming culture first ... and the rules of the game had better support and reflect that culture.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Izzy
Izzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 11:09
hehe.. this talk about

hehe.. this talk about community sorta makes me think back to that documentary i saw on Netflix called `Life 2.0` about players in Second Life. :)

Empyrean
Empyrean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2014 - 07:51
I never heard of "Twixt" in 8

I never heard of "Twixt" in 8 years on the game, and that's the first I've heard of that article. I never got griefed much--maybe a few times--and it was no big deal. Can't even remember the exact events any more.

I say that just to show that I don't have a strong pre-existing stance or feelings on the behaviors that this Myers guy was "studying".

That being said, even in an article that portrays his hero as "scrappy" and him as "too skilled to be run off" and "coolly picking off" his opponents, and that was clearly written under the assumption that his methods and motivations were valid and his conclusions sound--he still comes off like a weenie hiding behind being a professor doing research.

His "conclusions" come across as intensely self-centered and emotionally biased ("bad high school experience" and "I look at social groups with dismay"), and his methods seemed tantamount to "I'm going to do a bunch of stuff that upsets people and see what happens".

I don't know. Maybe I'm missing something, but none of it comes across like serious social science or psychological research. It sounds more like he did a bunch of textbook griefing and then got his feelings hurt when people got mad at him. And that he was amazed that when he persisted in doing it, people got really really mad.

How is that science?

FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)

Foradain
Foradain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 21:06
Segev wrote:
Segev wrote:

As I've said, my interest in PvP is twofold:
1) It strains credulity to have a game about superpowered individuals wherein the heroes are powerless to stop the villains from picking on the innocent civilians (and, alternatively, where the villains are powerless to target the innocent civilians on the grounds that they're nominally protected by heroes); and

A quote one of the devs uses in the signature block seems appropriate: Know your users, for they are not you.

(sorry, the search doesn't seem to be pulling it up for me to give proper credit)

I consider the loss of immersion to not be able to attack another player without that player's consent to be a very small price to pay to be able to play without other players being able to attack me without my consent.

Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
Foradain's Character Conclave
.
Avatar courtesy of Satellite9 Irezoomie

JayBezz
JayBezz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 8 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/08/2013 - 14:54
Foradain wrote:
Foradain wrote:

Segev wrote:
As I've said, my interest in PvP is twofold:
1) It strains credulity to have a game about superpowered individuals wherein the heroes are powerless to stop the villains from picking on the innocent civilians (and, alternatively, where the villains are powerless to target the innocent civilians on the grounds that they're nominally protected by heroes); and

A quote one of the devs uses in the signature block seems appropriate: Know your users, for they are not you.
(sorry, the search doesn't seem to be pulling it up for me to give proper credit)
I consider the loss of immersion to not be able to attack another player without that player's consent to be a very small price to pay to be able to play without other players being able to attack me without my consent.

Hear here.

+1

Crowd Control Enthusiast

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 13 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
JayBezz wrote:
JayBezz wrote:

Foradain wrote:
Segev wrote:
As I've said, my interest in PvP is twofold:
1) It strains credulity to have a game about superpowered individuals wherein the heroes are powerless to stop the villains from picking on the innocent civilians (and, alternatively, where the villains are powerless to target the innocent civilians on the grounds that they're nominally protected by heroes); and

A quote one of the devs uses in the signature block seems appropriate: Know your users, for they are not you.
(sorry, the search doesn't seem to be pulling it up for me to give proper credit)
I consider the loss of immersion to not be able to attack another player without that player's consent to be a very small price to pay to be able to play without other players being able to attack me without my consent.

Hear here.
+1

While this opinion is understandable. It fails to account for implications of gameplay such as using environment such as opposing factions to induce a way to force combat upon another individual of opposing alignment-related faction reputation. Essentially introducing even unintentionally so by the inherent design, a way for players ending up in pvevp. It also fails to account for possible implications of forms of social pvp which could occur. When the avowed statement of pvp will never be forced decision, all forms of it must be accounted for in design to the best of the dev's ability to do so.

If these and other forms of pvp are intended for the game or desired by a sufficient portion of the player base, then a space for them should be provided that is completely avoidable by others (to keep in line with the aforementioned promise).


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Greyhawk
Greyhawk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/03/2015 - 19:17
Segev wrote:
Segev wrote:

What prevents people in real life from engaging in obnoxious griefer-style behavior (PvP or PvE) tends to be a combination of social pressure and fear of potentially life-altering retaliation.

Maybe I am unique in this, or maybe I am just delusional, but I would hope that what prevents people in real life from responding with violence to every provocation is the realization that we are all human and we all have the same fundamental human rights.

Not to mention the very real possibility that the person tempted to violence is probably misreading the entire situation and about to cause an irreversible tragedy.

Real life is not the same as virtual life. One of the trends of the past three decades that horrifies me more and more with every passing day is how many tens of millions of people around the world expect virtual reality to mimic reality in every aspect EXCEPT human dignity and civilized behavior.

You know what happens when virtual ethics moves into the real world? Ferguson and Baltimore.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My author page at Amazon: https://amzn.to/2MPvkRX
My novelty shirts: https://amzn.to/31Sld32

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 3 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
I am with Red on the "Go to

I am with Red on the "Go to an enemy stronghold, expect to be hit by SOMETHING" experience.

It makes sense. Hell, I have even been part of RP organised events where it was broadcast as such across the zone/local/shout channels a few times. If people wanted to join in and defend themselves/fight off the attackers, they could hop right in.

But the thing was, we NEVER went after non combattants. Due to how the flagging system worked, they would had to have done the first hit to complete the "auto flagging" for PvP, which would give them the advantage for engaging us, but with a whole load of AOE's flying around, we never actually killed anyone who didn't engage us at all.

But even so, even if you do have a system where you are autoflagged for PvP just by being in the wrong area, as long as you make that boundry OBVIOUS (ie large walls are a sign) and a warning flashing on the screen going "PvP mode starting in 5...4...3...2...1..." style of thing. If someone, even after all of that, is still heading into the PvP zone, then chances are they are WELL aware of what they are doing. If they are by the boundry and heading away, I personally would let them go most of the time.

Unless they are being a dick and taunting me[1].

To an extent, you cannot say that you don't want to do PvP if you are in the Arena. If you didn't want to PvP someone, why are you IN the arena against me?

Side note: It was also unwritten an rule to not engage anyone lower level than you. I only defeated someone like that because I was within a sliver of health of defeat, and I just did some stuff on reaction.

[1] Only kidding, I suck at open PvP, but I have no problem jumping into structured forms of PvP, even if the structure is just limited to the duelling system, at least that gives a benchmark testing area to work from.

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

Greyhawk
Greyhawk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/03/2015 - 19:17
Segev wrote:
Segev wrote:

My focus on this topic as I write this post is on trying to identify and mitigate the issues that make involuntary PvP problematic. Aside from (or in elaboration of) the above thoughts, what makes it worse than involuntarily being hit with PvE? What are the actual "bad things" that make it unpleasant? How might these be mitigated?
(A thought regarding at least the "I'm being targetted by a bully" sort of thing would be, perhaps, an ability to create not just an ignore by an avoid list; you will not ever be in the same phase as somebody on your avoid list.)

You can't mitigate the annoyance factor.

At least not for me.

I will not play a game where I can be attacked simply because another player is bored or overzealous. If I had any desire to participate in PvP I would be in kicking ass and taking names in League of Legends working my way into the top most ranks. Wouldn't take me more than a year, probably more like half a year.

Your entire inquiry is flawed, Segev, because you are assuming NPCs and PCs are morally and ethically equivalent. They are not.

Player characters should not have the ability to attack unaligned NPCs. Period. There never should be a situation where Player A feels compelled to attack Player B because Player B is beating up on NPCs that have no purpose beyond window dressing. Those NPCs that function as window dressing should not be targetable and should not be effected by AoE attacks, heals, buffs, debuffs, or any other player actions. Therefore, Player A will never feel compelled to protect "innocent" NPCs because "innocent" NPCs cannot be attacked. If Player B feels some need to destroy the scenery then set up instanced maps where that is possible but keep it out of the main game world. If they don't like this then let them set up a home server with a fully destructible map and attackable NPCs.

Every player in the game is a human being. They are either a paying customer or a potentially paying customer. They have the right to experience the full game that falls within their financial support level. They have the right to see the world without some other player coming along and ruining their experience by attacking them, destroying the scenery they are viewing, or removing a mission goal they need.

Griefing IS bullying. Period. It is sadistic behavior. It brings pleasure to the griefer because they know they are harming the gameplay for another player. That is pure sadism. If a player is subject to attack without warning then the game is empowering sadistic bullies. Period. You can dress it up any way you like and it does not change the nature of the game mechanic.

Therefore, it is NOT possible to "mitigate" the annoyance factor. That "annoyance factor" is victimization by sadists and that is exactly why the sadists enjoy it so much. The reason they enjoy attacking players rather than NPCs has NOTHING to do with "I'm a hero! It's my duty!" or any other pseudo-moral justification. Their pleasure is derived from attacking the player through the media of the game because they know it will cause annoyance. That is their entire purpose. "I'm a hero! It's my duty!" is complete and total bullshit.

That's my position on the issue and it will not change.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My author page at Amazon: https://amzn.to/2MPvkRX
My novelty shirts: https://amzn.to/31Sld32

Empyrean
Empyrean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2014 - 07:51
Greyhawk wrote:
Greyhawk wrote:

Maybe I am unique in this, or maybe I am just delusional, but I would hope that what prevents people in real life from responding with violence to every provocation is the realization that we are all human and we all have the same fundamental human rights.
Not to mention the very real possibility that the person tempted to violence is probably misreading the entire situation and about to cause an irreversible tragedy.
Real life is not the same as virtual life. One of the trends of the past three decades that horrifies me more and more with every passing day is how many tens of millions of people around the world expect virtual reality to mimic reality in every aspect EXCEPT human dignity and civilized behavior.
You know what happens when virtual ethics moves into the real world? Ferguson and Baltimore.

Mmmmh.

I like you as a person for saying what you just said, but...

Things like Ferguson and Baltimore have been going on since way before there was anything virtual in the modern technological sense.

I remember when my buddy first played Ultima way back at the beginning. It deeply shocked him what people acted like with anonymity and no accountability.

I believe in the basic goodness of human nature, but I don't believe a lot of people are sane enough to access much of it.

Which means I believe that while some good behavior is really good, a lot of it is due to accountability and lack of anonymity.

I think online, it comes down to this: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/greater-internet-fuckwad-theory

FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)

Brutum
Brutum's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 2 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/13/2013 - 19:18
Ahahahaha that "theory" just

Ahahahaha that "theory" just about sums up the internet if you ask me.

Puny Heroes.

Izzy
Izzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 11:09
Greyhawk wrote:
Greyhawk wrote:

Griefing IS bullying. Period. It is sadistic behavior. It brings pleasure to the griefer because they know they are harming the gameplay for another player. That is pure sadism. If a player is subject to attack without warning then the game is empowering sadistic bullies. Period. You can dress it up any way you like and it does not change the nature of the game mechanic.
Therefore, it is NOT possible to "mitigate" the annoyance factor. That "annoyance factor" is victimization by sadists and that is exactly why the sadists enjoy it so much. The reason they enjoy attacking players rather than NPCs has NOTHING to do with "I'm a hero! It's my duty!" or any other pseudo-moral justification. Their pleasure is derived from attacking the player through the media of the game because they know it will cause annoyance. That is their entire purpose. "I'm a hero! It's my duty!" is complete and total bullshit.

+10

Also, we haven't discussed what sort of players this sort of PvP might bring into the fold, and do we really need them? Do we really want their money that much? Yes, No, Maybe If? :)

dawnofcrow
dawnofcrow's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/31/2013 - 08:56
TheMightyPaladin wrote:

whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster and when you look into the abyss, the abyss also look into you, -Friedrich

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
I can't say I agree with

I can't say I agree with griefing being bullying. Sounds like a stretch to me. You play an easy target in PvP, you're going to be target number 1 to many people and for some being the easy target is considered being griefed. :p

Maybe the devs need to make it so people of lower levels aren't easy targets. If you don't like PvP don't participate in the game that has it or don't go into it when it's an option.

Empyrean
Empyrean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2014 - 07:51
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:

I can't say I agree with griefing being bullying. Sounds like a stretch to me. You play an easy target in PvP, you're going to be target number 1 to many people and for some being the easy target is considered being griefed. :p
Maybe the devs need to make it so people of lower levels aren't easy targets. If you don't like PvP don't participate in the game that has it or don't go into it when it's an option.

I wouldn't consider being and easy target, or even getting beaten by the same opponent or group over and over again griefing. I wasn't a very good PvPer and I got my ass handed to me repeatedly many times.

I guess the problem is that it's hard to define griefing in PvP. It has to do with intent. When someones specific goal is to annoy or be cruel rather than just to win, and they go out of their way to use behavior and methods above and beyond just winning specifically to annoy or be cruel.

What that looks like in a particular instance varies.

So, we're left with the old unsatisfying pornography definition--"you know it when you see it." Which means it will be different things to different people : /.

FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)

Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 6 months ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
I would agree that griefing -

I would agree that griefing - defined as "deliberately setting out to ruin somebody else's fun" - is bullying.

I would disagree that you cannot mitigate the annoyance factor.

The statement that NPCs and PCs are not morally and ethically equivalent is true, but - and I could be wrong, here - the points it is used to support seem to be aiming at a position I'm not advocating.

I am in no way suggesting that NPCs have as much right to their "fun" as PCs, nor that PCs are as much "valid targets" for the aggressions of other PCs are are NPCs in the sense that a player should feel no moral compunction about picking on a PC.

But even considering it from the perspective of "Is it my right as a PC to attack that target?" is looking at it from the wrong angle when it comes to discussing mitigating annoyance factor.

The equivalence of NPC and PC that I'm examining is as a SOURCE of grief. Does it really matter to a player whose PC is suddenly accosted whether he is being accosted by a PC or NPC? If so, how and why?

Business Manager

Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 6 months ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
Greyhawk wrote:
Greyhawk wrote:

Maybe I am unique in this, or maybe I am just delusional, but I would hope that what prevents people in real life from responding with violence to every provocation is the realization that we are all human and we all have the same fundamental human rights.

Ideally, yes, but societies that assume this is the case invariably fall to chaos as those individuals who do not behave that way are unchecked. This is, essentially, why people increase in dickery online: fewer consequences due to physical distance and at least perceived anonymity.

A healthy society will typically inculcate your listed ideals as good behavior. It will have many, hopefully the vast majority, believe and behave that way, such that they are in the dark good and noble as they are in public scrutiny. However, no matter the society, there will all but invariably be a bad actor or two. There will be those who maintain good behavior because it is expected or rewarded, but who would, if they could get away with it, behave badly and even hurt others. This is evidenced by the fact that there are those who do, even with the threat of reprisal should they get caught. And those who do not fear reprisal often include a distressingly high number of jerks who will abuse others to the limit of what they think they can get away with (see: bullying in schools where the bullies are experts at gaming whatever system exists).

Greyhawk wrote:

Not to mention the very real possibility that the person tempted to violence is probably misreading the entire situation and about to cause an irreversible tragedy.

Only matters if they a) consider the possible consequences both tragic and irreversible (neither of which is likely the case in an MMO, as I believe you're noting), and b) they care about others.

There are jerks and even outright monsters who don't care as long as it's not them or somebody they know who is being irreversibly hurt. There are those, too, who will justify it as reversible and therefore okay if it's NOT demonstrably permanent. "He'll heal," or, in an MMO, "He'll jsut respawn."

Greyhawk wrote:

Real life is not the same as virtual life. One of the trends of the past three decades that horrifies me more and more with every passing day is how many tens of millions of people around the world expect virtual reality to mimic reality in every aspect EXCEPT human dignity and civilized behavior.

Actually, my hypothesis is that, if you provide penalties sufficently severe, you will see the same curtailment of virtual misbehavior you see in real life. It is because consequences are diminished that behavior worsens. Especially in the modern day, when we tend less to value morals and ethics as a society save as utilitarian things which are subjective, the fact that it "doesn't really hurt them" means "they just need a thicker skin," which combines with the notion that you're untouchable because the worst anybody can do is type in all caps and maybe ignore you. to make those who do not internalize the notion that others are deserving of respect for their own sake feel free to be jerks.

Greyhawk wrote:

You know what happens when virtual ethics moves into the real world? Ferguson and Baltimore.

Actually...you've got that backwards. When the lack of consequences that pervade the virtual world start to be equally lacking in the real world, and you reduce the notion that one is responsible for oneself and that others are deserving of dignity and respect, you get Fergusson and Baltimore.

(It doesn't help that, in both cities, there were/are political forces fomenting and capitalizing on the unrest for their own enrichment and political purposes. That's another matter entirely, though.)

Business Manager

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 14 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Segev wrote:
Segev wrote:

Greyhawk wrote:
Maybe I am unique in this, or maybe I am just delusional, but I would hope that what prevents people in real life from responding with violence to every provocation is the realization that we are all human and we all have the same fundamental human rights.

Ideally, yes, but societies that assume this is the case invariably fall to chaos as those individuals who do not behave that way are unchecked. This is, essentially, why people increase in dickery online: fewer consequences due to physical distance and at least perceived anonymity.

Pretty much the only way for civil societies to persist and perpetuate themselves is a monopoly on the use of force ... up to and including deadly lethal force. This is why in almost every society that is governed (and governable) the right to use force is reserved to the authorities and deputies of the state. It's why vigilantes, who "take the law into their own hands" are severely frowned upon ... because they threaten the monopoly of force that the state has reserved for itself.

Without that reservation of the use of force (and often defined by laws) you wind up with a Lord of the Flies type of society that is neither inherently stable nor long lived.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 6 months ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
You wind up with a de facto

You wind up with a de facto monopoly on force, really. The guy who can exert the most of it intimidates those who try to use any, and kills those who won't be intimidated.

You can still have a society that allows liberal use of force, as long as there's an understanding between those who have the capacity to wield it. It's why nations are not perpetually at war: there are ways to agree that it's better to behave than to be constantly trying to conquer the other guy.

Superheroes, such as they are, work because they are, by genre convention, usually really, really good guys with superb judgment. They may take things into their own hands, but they bow (mostly) to the legitimate authority when that authority is able to do anything. Even Batman generally only acts in defiance of the police when the police are unable to use their methods to effectively solve problems.

The monopoly on legitimate use of force is important because it spells out who has the authority to lay down how others may behave. Having legitimate, circumscribed uses for force which anybody may engage in are also useful to a healthy society, if only because self-defense is the first-line deterrant against the malefactor who would flout the rules of society and use force illegitimately to get his gain at the expense of the law-abiding.

If the boys in Lord of the Flies had grown up, there would have been, eventually, a somewhat stable structure based on who could invoke the most force and who was unwilling to pay the price to test whether they could invoke more. That doesn't make it the best possible society; it just is how things work. Anarchy leads to tyranny, because no rules means anybody who can exert force is free to start imposing them as much as his strength will allow.

Business Manager

JayBezz
JayBezz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 8 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/08/2013 - 14:54
This whole conversation from

This whole conversation from the devs is being framed from the view that even SEEING PvP is ENGAGING in PvP. It is not.

PvEvP will happen as long as there are adds. A hero can easily pull enemies toward another hero and then ghost.. forcing the second player to engage. Your assumption that this needs to not happen just because of the faction of player 1 and player 2 are different is mathematically proofed to be false.

- -

I have some very serious questions about the player faction system. If it is tied to the character reputation system I have even MORE major concerns.

1) I'm against player segregation
2) I'm against the premise that PvE players need engage in PvP just because someone else is.
3) I'm against the server/instance setup that copies different content on separate maps
4) I'm against "forced PvP zones" in which you cannot turn PvP off
5) These are fundamental to gaming to me, not to just MMORPGs, not just City of Titans..

Why are devs trying to re-invent this wheel? What is the real purpose of this change versus the traditional MMO design where players (even of opposing factions) can still engage with each other, but simply can't "fight" them without PvP flagged?

Crowd Control Enthusiast

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 13 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
JayBezz wrote:
JayBezz wrote:

This whole conversation from the devs is being framed from the view that even SEEING PvP is ENGAGING in PvP. It is not.

You are correct, seeing PvP isn't engaging PvP, it could even possible encourage or lead to discouragement. What is different about a game like this is the psychology inherent in its theme.

We are in one instance encouraging players to decide what side of the law they are on, what role they play in society, and give them the ability to do something about it.

Then on the other side we would (in open pvp), end up with a result where choices are taken away and it can be put right in their face consistantly.

The real crux of the set up is based on providing Safe places for people to play the way that they want - a place where people can pve without even dealing with pvp in any form even seeing it. And a place for people to PvP without dealing with pve players roaming around in their midst.

Quote:

PvEvP will happen as long as there are adds. A hero can easily pull enemies toward another hero and then ghost.. forcing the second player to engage. Your assumption that this needs to not happen just because of the faction of player 1 and player 2 are different is mathematically proofed to be false.
- -

Having adds and pulling are largely avoidable on frequent basis and while it could be griefing, if consistant in behavior, the way the faction reputation system is set up, if everyone were in the same location, it would be constant and rather unadvoidable.
One provides places for players to engage in content suited to a particular style of play thematic in their choices, while there is the possibility of pulling tactics, still being avoidable sufficiently to be negligable.
The other would result in being rather constant and even to the point of resulting in frustatingly high levels of difficulty just "going about your business" type of play much less the engagement of players using environment spawns against players.

When we've stated PvP is completely optional, the game must support that promise in all its forms.

*Edit*
There should also be an understanding of the nature of this project as it is being developed.
PvE MMO design is easily the largest consumer in terms of all available resources (budget, tech, and developer time). MMO design teams are usually large, very large in terms of sheer number of prorgrammers involved. We are what would amount to a skeleton crew or a decent sized team for an indie publisher making a single player or small -team multiple player game.

As such we have to be realistic as to how and what we design for the PvE portion of the game so that it is modular and manageable. Especially since those involved are volunteers. People pop in and pop out, real life happens and a paying gig takes priority over the volunteer labor of love.

Many would love to design complex systems involved in the PvE world with many forms of gameplay and sub-games to play within a rich, vast open world. We are limiting ourselves to a city, instanced maps, and design that we can manage with new people coming in, suddenly leaving, and old people returning.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Mendicant
Mendicant's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/26/2013 - 11:27
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

Here's a thought: we know that mez and hold effects (or anything that shuts you out of controlling your toon) are pretty brutal in PVP. Part of the problem with this is the fact that a player character is not an NPC, and mez effects were designed with NPC baddies in mind, really.
So, what if every PC toon came with a power called "Break Free" which you could use while mezzed, feared, slept, taunted, etc. So like when you get mezzed, you hit the "Break Free" power and it doesn't immediately break you free, but it builds your momentum and as you keep hitting it, you might eventually build momentum to the point where you DO break free after several uses. This would kind of be like the equivalent of mashing buttons and shaking the joystick to shake Blanca off of you in Street Fighter II, etc. Different magnitude mez powers would have different amounts of momentum needed to get out of them and the Break Free power could have a fairly fast cooldown timer to allow you to use it to get free of most mez effect is a few seconds in a PVP fight.

Sounds just like CO's 'Hit Z to escape from being held' key-spamming feature. I hate that feature. I much preferred CoH's Break Free inspirations (Or, I am guessing, CoT's reserves)

Greyhawk
Greyhawk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/03/2015 - 19:17
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

Segev wrote:
Greyhawk wrote:
Maybe I am unique in this, or maybe I am just delusional, but I would hope that what prevents people in real life from responding with violence to every provocation is the realization that we are all human and we all have the same fundamental human rights.

Ideally, yes, but societies that assume this is the case invariably fall to chaos as those individuals who do not behave that way are unchecked. This is, essentially, why people increase in dickery online: fewer consequences due to physical distance and at least perceived anonymity.

Pretty much the only way for civil societies to persist and perpetuate themselves is a monopoly on the use of force ... up to and including deadly lethal force. This is why in almost every society that is governed (and governable) the right to use force is reserved to the authorities and deputies of the state. It's why vigilantes, who "take the law into their own hands" are severely frowned upon ... because they threaten the monopoly of force that the state has reserved for itself.
Without that reservation of the use of force (and often defined by laws) you wind up with a Lord of the Flies type of society that is neither inherently stable nor long lived.

In the United States of America the government does not have a monopoly on the use of force. It does have a presumed prerogative to fire first, but that is a cultural presumption. The entire purpose of the Second Amendment is to prevent the government from establishing a monopoly on the use of force. This is why people like me send hundreds of dollars every year to the NRA to work with Congress to preserve the Second Amendment and prevent the government from ever establishing a true, working monopoly on the use of force.

I am the militia. That is the spirit and the intent of the Second Amendment.

Civilizations prosper when the majority of the citizenry are bound by an internalized moral system to treat others with dignity and respect. Civilizations begin to decline in direct proportion to the failure of succeeding generations to preserve this internalization. Granted, there is no golden past where everyone held firm to an internalized moral system, but as long as the majority do, the civilization will continue to march forward and with a bit of luck, might even experience a great deal of social progress.

One of the main reasons the United States has suffered so much since the late sixties is that a generation rose up wherein the vast majority failed to adopt the moral system of their parents. That generation redefined "social progress" into a narrow range that actively increased social division while claiming to decrease social division. The economically disadvantaged in the United States are far better off now than they have ever been by any and all measurable attributes, however, because of this redefinition of social progress they perceive themselves to be even more oppressed than ever. Perception now obscures reality and that is one of the reasons things like the violent riots in Ferguson and Baltimore are becoming more frequent.

Culture and entertainment both reflect and help create these misperceptions, often intentionally emphasizing a delusional perception in order to increase popular appeal and generate more revenue.

One really good way to raise money in America is to tell people they are oppressed and present yourself as the solution in exchange for a token monthly contribution. Works pretty much every time.

All of this is reflected in the industry-wide debate over PvP in online games.

The internet increases the disconnect between an action and the consequences of that action. A PvP aggressor is rewarded with ranking, IGC, awards, and often items regardless of whether or not the target shares the aggressor's enthusiasm for PvP. The aggressor is effectively shielded and rewarded from the personal impact they are having on their victim through the medium of the virtual reality while no such shielding exists for the victim. Since the victim is perceived as the "loser", not only are they not shielded from the consequences they are punished through a loss of experience, IGC, time spent pursuing more attractive gameplay, or rare items in their possession (depending on the mechanics of the game).

The bully is rewarded for every victim and the victim is not allowed to demand justice. Any attempt by the victim to demand justice or recompense or both is met with derision by both the PvP advocacy community and the developers of the product. As a result, frequent victimization works as a powerful disincentive to continue playing, and thus, continue paying for the game.

This is one major reason why in almost every single case, PvP-centric games open to huge fanfare only to very quickly become abandoned. Unless the game has some way to continue attracting either PvP advocates or more victims, it is destined to fail. WoW, Eve Online, and League of Legends are three noteworthy exceptions. In the case of the first two, there is huge amounts of sheltered game world the victim can withdraw into and still enjoy the game.

I am not certain how League of Legends handles consistent losers in PvP matches. In all honesty, I don't have any desire to learn how either. Their success clearly demonstrates they have provided something to keep people coming back and participating in PvP. Since I am no longer a fan of PvP, I have no desire to learn what that might be.

The post-1933 success of the United States both politically and economically was largely due to American society's ability to transform competition into cooperation. The threat of World War Two helped a great deal in this transformation, while the stalemate in Korea helped begin the slow reversal of that transformation into the situation we have today. In 21st Century American society we have come nearly full circle to the point where competition is seen as a high ideal, with winning a necessary goal and losing something that results in both economic and social stigmatization. The social morals of 21st Century America have very nearly returned to the same place they were in the interim between the First and Second World War, a situation which directly contributed to massive economic risk taking that resulted in not only a national economic depression, but a global economic depression.

Whenever a PvP victor resorts to terms like "pwned", "carebear", "noob", and other denigrations of those who dislike PvP or those who consistently lose at PvP, they are acting on the basis of an endorphine rush triggered by either latent or active sadistic tendencies inherent in all of us. Hypercompetitiveness in gaming is a reflection of hypercompetitiveness in the greater culture, both of which derive their pleasure from the same basic physiology.

Crushing an enemy feels good. This is a powerful survival instinct. It is also extremely damaging to the individual who consistently falls on the losing side. PvP reflects and endorses social obsession with this inherent physiology. The great downside to PvP victory in virtual worlds is that there is zero benefit received by the greater society. Crushing PvP opponents in an online game does not advance the victor in real economic terms (except in extremely rare, statistically irrelevant cases), real social terms, or real cultural terms. Being a successful PvP bully does not make a person wealthier, does not make them a more desirable mate, and does not make them a positive contributor to society at large. It is a false activation of a basic survival instinct that generates huge positive benefits when activated through victories in war, victories in business, victories in education, or victories in securing a better mate.

The only people who benefit from a successful PvP game are the game's designers. Society as a whole loses and loses big because the PvP advocate now has no motivation to apply that same survival instinct to improving their education, succeeding in business, or achieving victories in real world combat.

And expanding on all of that here is probably just as useless, but what the heck, today's my birthday and I'm very intentionally not doing anything important anyway.

The short answer is, PvP in online games is bad for society. Not because it encourages violent acting out in the real world, but because it discourages real world cooperation and competition. Ferguson and Baltimore are not the result of increased virtual aggression. They are the direct product of decreased enthusiasm for doing the work necessary and making the sacrifices required to achieve real world success. Online gaming is only one of many factors contributing to this widespread decline in individual motivation, but it is indeed, a factor.

And it just so happens to be a factor that MWM has a great deal of control over. CoT can change the way people play online games, or it can continue the tendency to weaken personal enthusiasm for real world success.

Making a online game is a huge responsibility that so far, no one has ever taken seriously enough.

And that's my "world of cardboard" speech for today. I hope I didn't bore everyone too badly.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My author page at Amazon: https://amzn.to/2MPvkRX
My novelty shirts: https://amzn.to/31Sld32

Izzy
Izzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 11:09
Mendicant wrote:
Mendicant wrote:

Sounds just like CO's 'Hit Z to escape from being held' key-spamming feature. I hate that feature.

+1

if it was just Press and HOLD a key to escape.. that might be a bit better. ;)

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
Like most of our constitution

Like most of our constitution, the second amendment was a terrible mistake.
Ordinary citizens going beyond protecting themselves from immediate danger, to taking the law into their own hands, is the sort of thing that only works in 2 situations:
1) when there's no law to appeal to
2) in action adventure stories that aren't real

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
TheMightyPaladin wrote:
TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Like most of our constitution, the second amendment was a terrible mistake.
Ordinary citizens going beyond protecting themselves from immediate danger, to taking the law into their own hands, is the sort of thing that only works in 2 situations:
1) when there's no law to appeal to
2) in action adventure stories that aren't real

o.O

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
I'm more in alignment with

I'm more in alignment with Greyhawk than with Paladin on this.

I'm a healer and a communicator and a genuinely Nice Guy. I also own a rifle and know how to use it well.

My problem with PvP is much the same as my problem with the Rogue Isles and Praetoria. They support destructive behavior and ideals.

I made Red-side characters, but very quickly I decided that all they wanted out of life was to ESCAPE that wretched place. It was an Ugly place full of Ugly people and you couldn't Help anyone because they were only looking to take you down too. (Except in very specific mission arcs.) The progression was all about gaining enough power to take over the cesspool, when all I wanted was to Get Out.

I was only able to survive by maintaining a "Have I got a surprise for You!" attitude and constantly reminding myself that _I_ was a hero.

I made Gold-side characters and was immensely relieved when the progression led to my escaping a world where there was no good or bad, but only morally ambiguous choices. And, worse, when you did a good deed, you won Nothing. If you did a bad deed you got nothing too. Rescue 'policemen' from sewers full of mutant zombies and the 'policemen' on the streets would still 'arrest' you just for walking by.

And what does this have to do with PvP?

Well, here's another tale of PvP experience... I'm in a city and I see a fellow who is badly injured. So, being a Nice Guy, I stop and toss a heal and a buff on him. He thanked me... and his buddy stepped out of the shadows and back-stabbed me for godawful damage. In a few seconds I was dead, because, by helping that guy, I'd been 'Flagged for PvP'.

I was dead because 'Good is Dumb'?

It gets worse... while I'm lying there, dead and completely gob-smacked, another Good Samaritan came along and tried to help me. I screamed, "Stop, don't touch me!" And those two PvPers stepped out of the shrubbery... and then there were two dead people. And my erstwhile savior is now screaming filth AT ME!

Now, I Know, there are good, honorable, friendly people who also PvP. And I ran into plenty of pleasant companions in the struggle through Red-side and Gold-side. However, the vast preponderance of my experiences with all of this is pure, soul-corroding poison.

So I very definitely want to be able to throw my switch over to the 'good-guy', 'No-PvP' side and WELD that sucker so it never moves! I want citizens and police-persons and little birdies, cats, and dogs to run over and Thank me for saving their little piece of the city. I don't need a parade, but being acknowledged for my good deeds is great. I want villains and even PC villains to take one look at my shining example and Consider giving up their selfish, self-destructive, anti-social ways. I want street-thugs to COWER at the *ting!* lens-flare off my shining smile.

In my opinion, the best way to 'Make PvP Fun' is to not have any. But, I'm realistic enough to know that some people like it and consider it an essential part of any game. So, the only way that I can see, to make PvP work, so that it's kinda fun, is to make it indirect - turn it into a board game.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Izzy
Izzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 11:09
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

In my opinion, the best way to 'Make PvP Fun' is to not have any. But, I'm realistic enough to know that some people like it and consider it an essential part of any game. So, the only way that I can see, to make PvP work, so that it's kinda fun, is to make it indirect - turn it into a board game.

HeartStone'ish? like Heroes of Warcraft?

Call it what?

Corner Stoned. Heroes of Leotards?
;)

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Chutes and Ladders?

Chutes and Ladders?

Do it with parallel, linked mission-arcs. Hero (team) runs one side, while Villain (team) runs the other... Pass 'Go', pick up a reward, try to stay out of Jail, actions and choices on one side trigger reactions on the other. Heroes discover a clue for Titan Police - extra guards when the Villains try to heist the Museum. Villain picks up the side mission with the Street Gang and finishes before whatever the Hero is doing - Extra Ambush(es) for the good-guys to deal with.

It's PvP Competition, rather than direct Combat.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Izzy
Izzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 11:09
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

Chutes and Ladders?
Do it with parallel, linked mission-arcs. Hero (team) runs one side, while Villain (team) runs the other... Pass 'Go', pick up a reward, try to stay out of Jail, actions and choices on one side trigger reactions on the other. Heroes discover a clue for Titan Police - extra guards when the Villains try to heist the Museum. Villain picks up the side mission with the Street Gang and finishes before whatever the Hero is doing - Extra Ambush(es) for the good-guys to deal with.
It's PvP Competition, rather than direct Combat.
Be Well!
Fireheart

i feel a bit ashamed. I never really played those.
But it sounds a bit like Chess. :)

Isn't Fable: Legends on the xbox one, a little like that?

I played Tower Defense once or twice and always though CoH/CoV was talking about using that approach for some bases where War Boot camps were going to be built... But i never saw or heard anything about SG's inviting outside players to try and brave through their Tower Defense SG bases... or any kind of SG Prize awarded. Or Just having 2 SG's playing for Pink Slips! ;D

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 14 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

Well, here's another tale of PvP experience... I'm in a city and I see a fellow who is badly injured. So, being a Nice Guy, I stop and toss a heal and a buff on him. He thanked me... and his buddy stepped out of the shadows and back-stabbed me for godawful damage. In a few seconds I was dead, because, by helping that guy, I'd been 'Flagged for PvP'.
I was dead because 'Good is Dumb'?
It gets worse... while I'm lying there, dead and completely gob-smacked, another Good Samaritan came along and tried to help me. I screamed, "Stop, don't touch me!" And those two PvPers stepped out of the shrubbery... and then there were two dead people. And my erstwhile savior is now screaming filth AT ME!

Best preventative measure I can think of to guard against such AMBUSH tactics is the pop up dialogue box informing you that the action you tried to take will flag you for PvP. Accept consequences? (Y/N)

The reason that the ambush condition you described was possible because it was relatively easy for PvPers to masquerade as PvEers and prey upon the Good Samaritan instincts of passers by. It was a case of exploiting Mode Confusion in which it was difficult to discern quickly/easily/OBVIOUSLY that they were flagged for PvP due to how the UI represented that information (or not, which is typically the case).

Foil the capacity to masquerade and the ability to engage in the kind of ambush behavior you've described is substantially mitigated/reduced.

Indeed, a cautionary tale about the dangers of poorly designed PvP flagging systems.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Lin Chiao Feng
Lin Chiao Feng's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 12 hours ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/02/2013 - 09:27
That kind of setup makes me

That kind of setup makes me want an SAO-like system, where player cursors are green normally but orange if they have engaged in PvP in the last 24 hours. Keeps the number of people they can gank down to 1/day, at least. The idea being that you should know who nearby can attack you if you activate the PvP flag, so answering the PvP Y/N question isn't as blind.

Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 14 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

Do it with parallel, linked mission-arcs. Hero (team) runs one side, while Villain (team) runs the other... Pass 'Go', pick up a reward, try to stay out of Jail, actions and choices on one side trigger reactions on the other. Heroes discover a clue for Titan Police - extra guards when the Villains try to heist the Museum. Villain picks up the side mission with the Street Gang and finishes before whatever the Hero is doing - Extra Ambush(es) for the good-guys to deal with.
It's PvP Competition, rather than direct Combat.

That kind of PvEvP sounds like it could be fun.

You'd want to structure things such that you need two Teams of equal size playing both "sides" of the competition, and set things up such that specific actions of Team 1 affect what's happening to Team 2 (and vice-versa) to keep things tied together. That way, you can have 1-on-1 or 2-on-2 and so on all the way up to 8-on-8 if you can organize that many PCs to participate. The two "sides" are competing against each other through the medium of the game environment, rather than facing off against each other directly.

So more of a Great Race rather than a Cage Match.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 6 months ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
I think I'm going to get out

I think I'm going to get out my 11-foot pole regarding the discussion of the Constitution. I'll say that I fully support our Constitution as originally written, and most of the amendments to it (I have a few policy disputes with some, mostly involving taxes and representation, but I still respect that it is the law of the land and the source authority on what is legal for the government to do).

Regarding League of Legends (LoL), the way they and other "head-to-head" PvP games (MOBAs, games like Hearthstone, Star Craft II, even online chess games with semi-random match-ups to strangers-as-opponents) handle "repeat losers" is to have an internal ranking or scoring system. They look at your record and the relevant score, and they try to pair you up against others with similar scores. It's similar to the ladder systems in the same games, but more hidden. This record/score serves as a means of roughly estimating your skill, and making sure you're pitted against people who are just about as good as you are.

LoL has the added benefit of being a team game, so you can sometimes be "carried" to victory by your team if you're just that bad. (This doesn't stop your teammates from screaming at you in text for being lousy, of course.)

Thinking on that, perhaps one way to handle it would be to have some sort of "bounty" system, whereby those who've been picked on repeatedly and lost a lot actually COST something to attack at all, while those who've won a lot are worth a lot if you can beat them. The difficulty here is that it's gamable. Remember to always examine any idea for how it could be exploited in unintentional ways: This one could be exploited by people willingly beating each other up to keep their scores artificially low. So again, not even close to a perfect solution. Still, perhaps there's some nugget of an idea worth mining, here?

Business Manager

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 13 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Segev wrote:
Segev wrote:

Thinking on that, perhaps one way to handle it would be to have some sort of "bounty" system, whereby those who've been picked on repeatedly and lost a lot actually COST something to attack at all, while those who've won a lot are worth a lot if you can beat them. The difficulty here is that it's gamable. Remember to always examine any idea for how it could be exploited in unintentional ways: This one could be exploited by people willingly beating each other up to keep their scores artificially low. So again, not even close to a perfect solution. Still, perhaps there's some nugget of an idea worth mining, here?

Already way ahead of you on that, with internal discussions starting on the nugget of the idea going back a couple of years ;).


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Felix
Felix's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 4 months ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/04/2013 - 20:45
Foradain wrote:
Foradain wrote:

Segev wrote:
As I've said, my interest in PvP is twofold:
1) It strains credulity to have a game about superpowered individuals wherein the heroes are powerless to stop the villains from picking on the innocent civilians (and, alternatively, where the villains are powerless to target the innocent civilians on the grounds that they're nominally protected by heroes); and

A quote one of the devs uses in the signature block seems appropriate: Know your users, for they are not you.
(sorry, the search doesn't seem to be pulling it up for me to give proper credit)
I consider the loss of immersion to not be able to attack another player without that player's consent to be a very small price to pay to be able to play without other players being able to attack me without my consent.

I have no idea which dev has that sort of quote. :P

Felix

Know thy users, for they are not you.
"Preliminary optimization is the root of all evil." -Knuth
Coding Lead
a.k.a. Mr Sigma, Mr. Stochastic, Balancing Act, The Oncoming Storm

Foradain
Foradain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 21:06
Felix wrote:
Felix wrote:

Foradain wrote:
Segev wrote:
As I've said, my interest in PvP is twofold:
1) It strains credulity to have a game about superpowered individuals wherein the heroes are powerless to stop the villains from picking on the innocent civilians (and, alternatively, where the villains are powerless to target the innocent civilians on the grounds that they're nominally protected by heroes); and

A quote one of the devs uses in the signature block seems appropriate: Know your users, for they are not you.
(sorry, the search doesn't seem to be pulling it up for me to give proper credit)
I consider the loss of immersion to not be able to attack another player without that player's consent to be a very small price to pay to be able to play without other players being able to attack me without my consent.

I have no idea which dev has that sort of quote. :P
Felix

^_^

Related to this, is the idea that we users need to remember that each of us is not all users.

Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
Foradain's Character Conclave
.
Avatar courtesy of Satellite9 Irezoomie

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 14 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Already way ahead of you on that, with internal discussions starting on the nugget of the idea going back a couple of years ;).

Here's a half-formed idea for you to put through the sausage maker.

Level disparities in PvP.

Essentially it involves PvP Flag On state being "sticky" and not able to be voluntarily turned off in a timely fashion.

Higher Level PC vs lower Level PC

High Level PC has their PvP Flag On state "stick" to them beyond the duration of the encounter. The larger the discrepancy between the Levels of the combatants, the more "penalty time" gets added to the duration of the PvP Flag On state before the higher Level is permitted to switch to PvP Flag Off.

In contrast, if a lower Level PC engages a higher Level PC in PvP, the lower Level PC is given permission to switch to PvP Flag Off at any time including while engaging in PvP combat. If a lower Level PC "withdraws" from PvP by switching PvP Flag Off while in combat, they will incur a Draw rather than a Loss to their opponent(s).

Now, the "penalty time" applied for Level discrepancies could be something as simple as 1 minute delay per 1 Level of difference ... so a Level 30 jumping a Level 10 would incur a "penalty" of a mandatory extra +20 minutes of PvP Flag On for the Level 30 character. Essentially, the high Level PC is making themselves "vulnerable" to retaliation for an extended period of time for "ganging up on" (presumably in a surprise ganking attempt) on a Level 10 in a fashion that very likely would be interpreted as Griefing.

By contrast, the Level 10 would be given the option to "evade" the onslaught by the Level 30 by going to PvP Flag Off, denying the Level 30 the satisfaction of achieving a quick defeat (maybe).

Point being, the system ought to encourage PCs of similar Levels to seek each other out, rather than allowing the "strong" (or simply more experienced) to prey on the "weak" (or inexperienced) without repercussions or consequences.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Nadira
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 12 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/01/2014 - 13:25
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

The flaw in the formulation of your premise, Segev is basically this:
*I* as a Player see another PC doing something that *I* don't want them to be doing, or get away with doing. So *I* have the RIGHT and the DUTY and the OBLIGATION to go and beat the snot out of them to teach that PC a lesson!

This brings us perilously close to Marian's Tailor's Dilemma.
Player's are in the game to play it, not to police it. The dilemma is about what happens to players who do not want to get involved in the policing, but are forced to by the game mechanics because the rules, such as they are, must be enforced by the players themselves.

Redlynne wrote:

And guess what? If PvP is entirely optional, it doesn't matter how many dueling challenges you issue to that PC, so long as they decline and refuse every invite to PvP ... you STILL can't touch them.
And ... that right of refusal to PvP simply MUST be present because ... if it isn't there, the Developers of the game are promoting bullying and griefing behaviors by setting up conditions in which EVERY challenge to PvP *MUST* be accepted.

This pretty much needs to be bolded underlined, printed at 48 points and pinned to the wall of any board meeting about game design.

Redlynne wrote:

The only alternative is ... auto-flagging self for PvP as a result of the Player DOING SOMETHING with their PC. Whether that be defined as going to the wrong place (usually defined as maximally opposed territory, ie. Enemy Capital Cities) where your PC has no business being there ... or ... defined as your PC attacking NPCs of a particular "category" that can be viewed as potentially furthering griefing/obnoxious behaviors (such as attacking "non-combatant" NPCs in intensely hostile areas). The basic notion is that if your PC engaged in Maximal Opposition Behaviors then you will involuntarily flag your PC as being "vulnerable" to PvP and be forced to accept any PvP challenge that is given to you.
In other words, there would have to be known and recognized behaviors of gameplay that will enforce PvP Status on PCs that have nothing to do with being challenged by other PCs. There would have to be known conditions of "go HERE and you flag yourself for PvP" as well as "attack THESE NPCs and you flag yourself for PvP" conditions of CAUSE AND EFFECT.
So long as those conditions are not universal, you will have come as close as you can to making PvP entirely voluntary.
It's one of those "keep playing with matches and you'll eventually burn yourself" kinds of deals. So long as the Cause And Effect are known and appreciated in advance ... after that it's up to the Players to decide for themselves how they want to play the game.

The big problem with autoflagging is that it is eminently abusable. Griefers are creative in finding loopholes and no matter how careful the developers, there will be ways around the protections as soon as you add an automatism. E.g. SW:TOR had high level griefer PvPers hiding invisibly between friendly NPCs until a player of the opposing faction came along and attacked them. Most classes and all companion characters had AoE attacks and as soon as one of those was used it would hit the hidden player, autoflag for PvP and the unprepared level 20 or 30 would be facing a level 50 character specialised for PvP. At first death did not clear the PvP flag, and the message that flashed by about what had just happened was both cryptic and incorrect in how to get rid of that flag again (and would require 15, later 5 minutes of downtime in a safe area in town).
Most games that autoflag for PvP have problems like this.

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 14 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Any predictable system can be

Any predictable system can be gamed. It's that whole "spirit of the law" being in conflict with the "letter of the law" stuff ... and the fact that humans who play games are Ebil Tricksy BAHstids.

This is one of those situations where the Perfect is most definitely the enemy of the Good Enough.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 6 months ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
It's worth noting that all

It's worth noting that all the arguments about "the devs are encouraging bullies and griefing" can apply equally to the no-PvP and yes-PvP designs. If somebody is immune to retaliation, they are free to come up with "creative" ways to make others' lives miserable.

This is not an argument for or against PvP in any form. It is just a note that PvP is utterly unnecessary to permit griefing, and that tricks to force PvP and means of avoiding it can both be exploited.

This is why I am more concerned, at this stage, with analyzing what it is that makes PvP undesirable.

Let's say there is an NPC who, for whatever reason (perhaps a glitch in his code) is 40 levels higher than your PC and keeps hunting him down. Is that any different than a PvPer who is doing similarly? If so, why?

Business Manager

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
I don't think anyone has a

I don't think anyone has a problem with NPCs LOSING fights, but when the NPC wins it's generally like "ok I didn't beat the end boss THAT time, I need to strategize better" and then the terms of when and if the rematch happens are on the PC to decide. If the NPC just starts stalking you and attacking you at random times of THIER choosing, that would be a thing that makes you feel like you're being harassed, terrorized even. When REAL poepole do it its ten times worse because they're, like, better at it in the sense that they know how to maximize the grief.

If I get to set the time and place of the encounter with the NPC, that's fine. Maybe I just don't go back without more people to help me. If the end boss comes after me and won't go away, that's almost as bad as PVP griefing, except you at least know it's running a set script not just some dude trying to make you quit or keep getting killed.

Also, there are times when you realize (or start to believe) that the boss is too tough for you and that feeling is generally one of "ok, back to the drawing board" if you can dictate the time of the rematch. When you can't you just feel like you're the other character's b1tch for the rest of your life. That kind of feeling of impotence and lack of options has been demonstrated to cause prisoners in jail to commit suicide. THAT'S how bad that feels. If it's an NC, you just avoid it. If it's a PC, they can hound you as often as they want for a as long as they want.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Foradain
Foradain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 21:06
Segev wrote:
Segev wrote:

Let's say there is an NPC who, for whatever reason (perhaps a glitch in his code) is 40 levels higher than your PC and keeps hunting him down. Is that any different than a PvPer who is doing similarly? If so, why?

In terms of my enjoyment of the game, none at all. In terms of my response, yes.

In the case of the PC PvPer, my response would be to hide until I am no longer flagged as a valid PvP target. End of problem. And if that's not an option in that game, I'm not likely to continue playing it.

In the case of a glitchy NPC, I must first identify it as a glitch, and not some odd feature. Once I think a glitch of a sort that I've never experienced before in a game is more likely, I report it as a bug. Then I try playing with my alts and check from time to time on the status of the bug.

The difference from the dev's point of view? In the PvP case it depends on what game they are running, and it's not likely to be anything they can or should change. In the case of the glitch? There, it would all be on them to fix it.

Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
Foradain's Character Conclave
.
Avatar courtesy of Satellite9 Irezoomie

Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 6 months ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
Okay, so it seems that, at

Okay, so it seems that, at the least, if an NPC behaves like a griefer, it doesn't matter that it's an NPC and not a PC in terms of how irritating it is. Therefore, it's not inherently a matter of PCs being more annoying as aggressors just for being PCs.

Let's say the devs apologized, but they just couldn't fix this glitchy NPC. Something really weird is going on. What steps could they take to make the consequences of this NPC's behavior less bothersome to the players? What about the NPC's actions is irritating? Is it that he's there, doing what he's doing, or is it the consequences of the losses he tends to inflict? If the latter, what, in particular, makes them "game quitting" worthy?

Business Manager

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
The thing that makes pvp

The thing that makes pvp undesirable to me is the fact that as a soloer it's impossible to win against a group or even a pair of other players because we're supposed to be equal but they have you outnumbered.

As a player against NPCs I can take on a bunch of bad guys and often handle bosses that are higher level than me.
but against other players with very little level difference 2 against one is more than enough to make it hopeless.
and often it's more than 2 against one.

I remember once I had a long 1 on 1 fight against another player in an isolated area of a pvp zone. He was invisible and couldn't damage me as fast as I could heal, I couldn't target him but I could still hit him with my one and only Area attack.
Unfortunately that attack took so long to recharge that He also recovered faster than I could damage him.
after about 15 minutes we both gave up and went our separate ways.

another time I attacked a bad guy and nearly beat him but suddenly he managed to activate some defense and I couldn't even get close to him after that. He got away. After that I realized that as long as my movement power was super jump or flight all the regular PVPers who used super speed AND super jump could always get away from me and the best I could ever hope for was to make them run away.

Another time I jumped on a villain and actually managed to defeat him pretty quickly, But it turned out that the player was AFK. OOPS! I sadly didn't realized it because he hadn't been gone long enough for the game to mark him as afk.

Once I was the victim of a couple of snipers who had found a safe place close enough to the hero's spawn point that they could hit people as soon as they came out of the hospital. there was no way out. after getting hit 4 times I logged off.

So I lost interest in pvp.
Any solutions?

Impulse King
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 3 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 18:55
TheMightyPaladin wrote:
TheMightyPaladin wrote:

As a player against NPCs I can take on a bunch of bad guys and often handle bosses that are higher level than me.
but against other players with very little level difference 2 against one is more than enough to make it hopeless.
and often it's more than 2 against one.

Since you asked, I'm going to highlight what I think may have been the problem area. The mindset.

You simply cannot judge PvP performance by PvE standards, period. An even fight means you will die half of the time. For what it's worth, I'm not sure you gave yourself enough time to learn. In PvP you simply MUST give yourself permission to die while learning. Don't worry about the bad sports and if you find a good sport strike up a conversation so you can learn more.

I died repeatedly in Bloody Bay that 1st week. I jumped in as soon as I could at level 15 and my PvE leveling slowed to a crawl. I was often facing multiple opponents on a Merc/Dark MM, and my opponents were naturally 50's. (Well, what would YOU bring?) So there I was. Alone, outnumbered, and totally outgunned on an AT many folks were screaming couldn't PvP. But I stuck with it and gave myself permission and time to learn. Eventually at level 17 I scored my 1st kill, a level 50 Stone/Stone Tanker.

After that it got easier pretty quickly. It even came to the point that I was deliberately taking on 2 opponents for more challenge. Eventually I went through a 4 hour(!) respec trial to get Fly/Group Fly instead of SJ/Acrobatics and it got MUCH easier to keep my pets with me. (That's another point. Make the same choices everyone else makes and you get their results. Make different choices and you can get different results.)

Did you know that if a Blaster got hit with Howling Twilight at the maximum height in Siren's Call, the automatic hit stunned them and toggled off Fly? Then the Mercs hit them with DOT as the ground brought them to 1 hp. No one really claimed me as a bounty in that situation. Where was I? Oh yeah tactics! Have a plan. Know what you're going to do in a variety of common situations just as in PvE.

Having a plan also extended to slotting enhancements. Base accuracy in PvP was 50% vs 75% in PvE. My toons tended to slot 2xACC on the off chance I might go PvP with them. So knowing the system can pay as much as knowing the terrain.

Foradain
Foradain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 21:06
Segev wrote:
Segev wrote:

Okay, so it seems that, at the least, if an NPC behaves like a griefer, it doesn't matter that it's an NPC and not a PC in terms of how irritating it is. Therefore, it's not inherently a matter of PCs being more annoying as aggressors just for being PCs.
Let's say the devs apologized, but they just couldn't fix this glitchy NPC. Something really weird is going on. What steps could they take to make the consequences of this NPC's behavior less bothersome to the players? What about the NPC's actions is irritating? Is it that he's there, doing what he's doing, or is it the consequences of the losses he tends to inflict? If the latter, what, in particular, makes them "game quitting" worthy?

For me it would be the consequences. Time spent fighing the glitch, time spent faceplanted, time spent recovering and paying off whatever death penalties there are.

The last is the tough question, because ultimately it depends on how much fun I'm having when not being faceplanted, and how much of my time the faceplanting and recovery is taking up. Also to be considered is how widespread the range (gamespace, real time, level range of targets?) in which the glitch is acting. The easier it is to avoid the more tolerable it would be.

Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
Foradain's Character Conclave
.
Avatar courtesy of Satellite9 Irezoomie

Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 6 months ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
Hm, some good observations

Hm, some good observations and feedback here. Thanks!

For The Mighty Paladin's issue, part of it is, in fact, perception. I'm not saying "it's your fault," Paladin, please don't get me wrong. But from an objective standpoint, you commented that you could take on groups of "evenly matched" enemies and even solo bosses that were "much higher level" than you, but you're having a hard time against solo even-level PCs and lose to even two-to-one odds against PCs.

This is, I think, a symptom of the fact that the PvE levels were fibs. That is, that "even" fight wasn't even. You actually were significantly more powerful. You might even have been on par with or stronger than that boss "levels higher" than you (particularly if the weakness of it was in its A.I. rather than its powers).

That said, the "gang up on the little guy" problem is noteworthy. If all it takes for a griefer to have his fun and ruin somebody's day is for him to have a buddy and to pick on soloers, that's a problem. A first-order solution might be to attempt to implement the "law of the inverse ninja." That is, the more there are on one side, the less threatening they really are.

Still speaking first-order solutions (so obviously, refinement and careful examination on multiple levels will be needed), what if this was achieved by some sort of level-capping system? Consider, for example, if a PvPer lauches an attack at a lower-level character, that PvPer suddenly is level-capped down to his target's level. If multiple people target the same character, they all get capped to have the sum of their levels equal the solo PC's level. (The actual numbers can, of course, be tweaked to handle non-linear growth in power based on level.) A lower-level guy targetting higher-level people will not be capped, unless he's in a mob so big that the sum of levels starts exceeding the targets' sum of levels.

There are logistical issues here: judging who's on a "team" for purposes of a fight, people joining and leaving fights, and the fact that this could invite gaming the system by having people willfully leave a fight in order to bolster the power of their allies. Not to mention more malicious activities like trying to include your real-life ally on your "targetted" team in order to pump up your level cap, while your in-name-only target simply stands by and lets you pummel the person you've named your "ally." Still, conceptually, implementing inverse-ninja law such that the smaller team still has a fighting chance, and the size of your team becomes more about tactics chosen than about each body being a significant advantage... Thoughts?

I agree, though, that what probably bothers most people is the consequences. If you're constantly being jumped and sent to the hospital, it can feel like you can't go anywhere and do anything. If you're also racking up massive debt/losing tons of IGC/losing levels to EXP drain/whatever the death-consequences are, it only gets worse. If the consequences were mostly negligible, though. Or, perhaps, they diminished with rapid repetition.

One thing I've been rattling around my head for the last few days on this topic is the concept of the "retreat" button. This is a supers game, inspired by comics. Most of the time, the actual named supervillain and/or the hero aren't K.O.'d in a random clash; they're driven to the point they must retreat. Sometimes, the villain retreats not because he's lost, but because he's achieved his goal and he doesn't need to stick around. Others, he's driven off without completing his goal. Sometimes, the heroes are just forced to stay away by the intensity of the villains' aggression.

What if PvP in the "overworld" were established by declaring, not your PC target, but a goal that is in conflict with the enemy PCs'?

For example, one of the scenarios that I regularly envision in this game if there's a way to say, "I am immune to PvP," is a villain waltzing up to civilian NPCs in broad daylight and accosting them, street-sweeping style. He does this in front of heroes, and the heroic PCs literally can do nothing about it. If the villain player is your typical griefer, he'll deliberately target NPCs which might inconvenience the heroic PCs, and he'll probably taunt them mercilessly about how powerless they are to stop him.

What if picking on NPCs could make them put out a call for help, which becomes a quest that other PCs may accept? This triggers PvP, but the victory condition is protecting the NPCs, not necessarily beating up the other PC. Certainly, beating up the other PC is a way to achieve it! But the "retreat" button gives another option. If the villain is losing and doesn't want to suffer the consequences of "death," he can push the "retreat' button, which removes him from combat and makes him unable to keep beating up the civilians in question. The hero wins the PvP match. (If the villain has already beaten up the NPCs and won this match's victory condition, he, too, could press "retreat" and still have won.)

Conversely, if the hero just can't stop the villain, and the villain almost seems more eager to pick on the hero than the victory-condition NPC(s), the hero can (doubtless with great IC regret) push the "retreat" button to get away, leaving the villain to finish his mini-mission.

This would play somewhat in line with the notion that heroes and villains rarely just start beating each other up in the middle of the street just because they're there. There's usually a PURPOSE behind it.

It should be noted that "retreat" generally still counts as a loss, unless you've already achieved a victory condition. It just isn't a "death." It probably will have to abscond you to a "safe distance," as well, so you can't just pop it as an "invincibility button" to stand around.

Business Manager

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
I like the Retreat button.

I like the Retreat button.
It reflects the genre better than what we've been doing.
and it solves he problem of getting no reward when the opponent gets away.

I also liked the "law of the inverse ninja."
If it can be implemented well it would end most of the problems I had.

As for people joining the opposite team to weaken them.
Honestly I don't think that's a problem as long as the leader can kick traitors once he realizes what's going on
or the rest of the team can quit if the leader is the traitor.
It allows a level of intrigue in the game that's been used in the comics and with NPCs
but that couldn't be done among players.

Of course betraying your team should have a serious effect on alignment.
Will the game be able to tell who's quitting or kicking and why?
And it does create the problem with alignment being displayed.
It's going to be hard to pull the trick off if you're clearly labeled as "not to be trusted".
Maybe villains will have to do some good guy work in order to maintain their cover
and vice versa.
Undercover work can be a real pain.

Foradain
Foradain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 21:06
Segev wrote:
Segev wrote:

One thing I've been rattling around my head for the last few days on this topic is the concept of the "retreat" button. This is a supers game, inspired by comics. Most of the time, the actual named supervillain and/or the hero aren't K.O.'d in a random clash; they're driven to the point they must retreat. Sometimes, the villain retreats not because he's lost, but because he's achieved his goal and he doesn't need to stick around. Others, he's driven off without completing his goal. Sometimes, the heroes are just forced to stay away by the intensity of the villains' aggression.
What if PvP in the "overworld" were established by declaring, not your PC target, but a goal that is in conflict with the enemy PCs'?
For example, one of the scenarios that I regularly envision in this game if there's a way to say, "I am immune to PvP," is a villain waltzing up to civilian NPCs in broad daylight and accosting them, street-sweeping style. He does this in front of heroes, and the heroic PCs literally can do nothing about it. If the villain player is your typical griefer, he'll deliberately target NPCs which might inconvenience the heroic PCs, and he'll probably taunt them mercilessly about how powerless they are to stop him.
What if picking on NPCs could make them put out a call for help, which becomes a quest that other PCs may accept? This triggers PvP, but the victory condition is protecting the NPCs, not necessarily beating up the other PC. Certainly, beating up the other PC is a way to achieve it! But the "retreat" button gives another option. If the villain is losing and doesn't want to suffer the consequences of "death," he can push the "retreat' button, which removes him from combat and makes him unable to keep beating up the civilians in question. The hero wins the PvP match. (If the villain has already beaten up the NPCs and won this match's victory condition, he, too, could press "retreat" and still have won.)
Conversely, if the hero just can't stop the villain, and the villain almost seems more eager to pick on the hero than the victory-condition NPC(s), the hero can (doubtless with great IC regret) push the "retreat" button to get away, leaving the villain to finish his mini-mission.
This would play somewhat in line with the notion that heroes and villains rarely just start beating each other up in the middle of the street just because they're there. There's usually a PURPOSE behind it.
It should be noted that "retreat" generally still counts as a loss, unless you've already achieved a victory condition. It just isn't a "death." It probably will have to abscond you to a "safe distance," as well, so you can't just pop it as an "invincibility button" to stand around.

I like this idea. It can also apply the other way, any NPC bad guys who have a faction to ask for help from, could, when attacked by heroes, put out a call... and their faction puts out a request for assistance from any (presumably villainous) PCs who want their favor.

One point though, if a PC has a street-sweeping style mission, it might be a good idea to make those happen in instances without other PCs (except teammates), so that "flagging yourself for PvP" is not required to complete it.

Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
Foradain's Character Conclave
.
Avatar courtesy of Satellite9 Irezoomie

Greyhawk
Greyhawk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/03/2015 - 19:17
Segev wrote:
Segev wrote:

Okay, so it seems that, at the least, if an NPC behaves like a griefer, it doesn't matter that it's an NPC and not a PC in terms of how irritating it is. Therefore, it's not inherently a matter of PCs being more annoying as aggressors just for being PCs.
Let's say the devs apologized, but they just couldn't fix this glitchy NPC. Something really weird is going on. What steps could they take to make the consequences of this NPC's behavior less bothersome to the players? What about the NPC's actions is irritating? Is it that he's there, doing what he's doing, or is it the consequences of the losses he tends to inflict? If the latter, what, in particular, makes them "game quitting" worthy?

When I first became aware of the stalker NPC I'd file a detailed bug report.
If for some bizarre reason it could not be fixed I would play a different game.

At this point in time it is impossible for an NPC character to behave this way unless it does so by design. NPCs are not autonomous, self-aware creatures capable of anger, lust, vindictiveness, jealousy, etc. They just run program and their AI cannot mimic consciousness well enough to develop an attachment to a particular player character. What you're proposing is pure science fiction.

It can't happen. Period.

Random attacks by NPC enemies when moving through a zone are expected. They are part of what makes gameplay interesting. My personal assumption is that a PC is either an ally or a neutral party, regardless of any faction alignment. Therefore, if another PC interferes with my gameplay in a destructive fashion my assumption is sadistic intent by the PC.

A person has intent. An NPC does not. That is reality. That is the difference.

Any attempt to assign intent to NPCs as an excuse for PvP is nothing more than an irrational attempt to justify sadistic behavior.

Such thinking is, quite frankly, delusional.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My author page at Amazon: https://amzn.to/2MPvkRX
My novelty shirts: https://amzn.to/31Sld32

Lin Chiao Feng
Lin Chiao Feng's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 12 hours ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/02/2013 - 09:27
It would be trivial to spawn

It would be trivial to spawn an NPC with a preset aggro on a particular player. CoH did it all the time; ambush spawns in instance missions would by default target the weakest player. This was most obvious when the players were all in different locations (cave maps were great for this), and you'd see the horde head for one player long before they were in visual, much less aggro, range.

In this discussion, the facts that an NPC does something by design and a PC does things by intent are equivalent for game mechanics and balance purposes. You're gonna get pwned, and you're going to ragequit.

Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...

Pages