In our project we are possibly looking at three main constant monitors player’s will need to watch out for.
Hunger and Thirst will pretty much work the same way as in DayZ (For those that have played it), failing keep those monitors up, and you will notice the effects being hungry or thirsty can make (i.e. degrading your skillset until replenished).
Tyranny on the other hand is a new feature we would like to add (Unsure if this has been added by other projects). This hoping to end the Kill on Sight of other players. This would increase the more you kill players for an unlawful reason.
This is a Medieval MMO we are working on as per my blog post in the signature. Would Fantasy MMO players like to see this in game? Or is it yet another monitor they have to look at.
That differs from player to player -> e.g I personally like the hunger/thirst system in Day Z. For me it’s even too easy and they should make it more difficult so that the player has to watch/plan more carefully
Those systems are near impossible to construct correctly (players won’t care no matter how much you de-incentivize as long as they can still do it) and if the intention is to eliminate PvP, turn it off and allow players to duel.
Ah … the age old system to try and prevent PvP. There is no system, no matter how complicated that will ever allow you to control or prevent PvP. You have a choice … allow it and let it run the way DayZ or RUST does … or prevent it only in certain situations.
Warhammer Online had a concept where you set yourself to be PvP or not … by default it was off.
I am yet to see a system that could deal with it … good luck with your system.
That’s a good point -> this is one of the main problems of Day Z + also one of the things that make the game so awesome!
When you somehow solve this “problem” a lot of fun will go lost, because in my opinion the most interesting thing in such games is that you never know what will happen. So you somehow have to get in contact with the other player to see if you will have to fight, or if they are friendly. Exactly this leads into situations with a lot of fun/adrenaline (Day Z players will know what I’m talking about :p)
In my opinion those unlawful kills will increase -> in Day Z I got robbed several times just because I had a backpack with some food and medical stuff. Some of them left me alive (pretty rare) and they just took the food + ammo
Instead of killing me they could have asked me if I could give them a little bit of my stuff…
Okay - you are right. It would be interesting if there is a system which makes robbing more interesting then just killing somebody. It should be also harder to get deadly weapons.
One way you could approach this is to use a similar system to Warhammer Online. Allow a player to set themselves to be PvP or not.
If they are set to PvP then game is on with any other PvP players.
If they are set to off and they get killed (the killer gets a Tyranny) or if they kill someone (who is PvP or not) they get Tyranny.
If they are not PvP and they get killed … they will die and respawn somewhere but will not have lost any of their equipment. No equipment is dropped only a corpse that says innocent civilian killed by X. This could help make the Tyranny system believable.
Same thing applies if a non PvP kills a PvP or other non-PvP player. As soon as a non PvP player kills someone, they can automatically be set to PvP and maybe have to stay like that for x-amount of game hours. Further punishment.
You can try to indicate PvP and Non-PvP players by maybe an indicator on the display … like a soft green for PvP and a soft red for non-PvP when they are nearby. This will also make Snipers think twice about just picking people off at a distance.
Whether this will work or not is unknown … I actually might mock this system up just for kicks. 8-}
That’s an interesting approach. If you kill somebody who is not in pvp mode, the guards (if there are guards) will punish you next time you will visit a village and additionally you are “outlawed” for some minutes (or hours) so everybody is allowed to kill you without a punishment.
Ah … the age old system to try and prevent PvP. There is no system, no matter how complicated that will ever allow you to control or prevent PvP. You have a choice … allow it and let it run the way DayZ or RUST does … or prevent it only in certain situations.
Warhammer Online had a concept where you set yourself to be PvP or not … by default it was off.
I am yet to see a system that could deal with it … good luck with your system.
[/QUOTE]
This isn’t necessarily true. I’ve seen in some older text-based MUDs that I’ve played, using systems that promoted “intelligent” PvP instead of “let’s just slaughter everyone”. Jail Time, Social Scrutiny, Economic Debuffs, etc. all played major rolls in these. Then again, text-based MUDs are kind of like The Simpsons - if you think you’ve thought of a new, cool idea for a game - it’s most likely had it’s origin in a text-based MUD.
Seems like was a huge DayZ player, and had a great time. I think the idea suggested about having PvP on and off seems good, and the player who kills a PvP off player receives a point to their Tyranny, and those that kill whilst in PvP off get the same.
Only problem I found with a similar process in WoW, is that the majority of players would have PvP off until the last second when they know they can possibly take you out without much of a fight. Maybe having a time limit for the on and off could help this.
In terms of Tyranny, the higher the tyranny the more it will effect say your judgement, skill set and fighting ability. Thats the idea anyway
Ah … the age old system to try and prevent PvP. There is no system, no matter how complicated that will ever allow you to control or prevent PvP. You have a choice … allow it and let it run the way DayZ or RUST does … or prevent it only in certain situations.
Warhammer Online had a concept where you set yourself to be PvP or not … by default it was off.
I am yet to see a system that could deal with it … good luck with your system.
[/QUOTE]
I really like EVE Onlines implementation. Basically, you can PvP anywhere, but certain areas are designated “high security” area’s. Meaning that if you decided to attack other players ships in these areas, the security NPCs (basically the police) will come and destroy you. So there is some incentive there, to not lose your ****.
I like the idea of ‘safe areas’. As mine is medieval themed we were looking into making any murder except on kings orders with the castle/city limits is illegal and that NPCs or playable characters would try and capture the murderer so to speak.
On the road however will be harder to implement. And think the PvP on and off idea is good to implement without having to configure an unknown code that judges killing lawfully or not.
I’m not sure I understand correctly, but I’d personally never consider playing a game where killing other players made me weaker.
I always thought getting a bounty on your head would be cool, the more players you kill the higher the bounty.
The killer might also be able to be looted upon death if you really wanted to raise the stakes.
Or just an EVE like system.
Xerithas, If the player was in PvP mode then killing them would not cause weakness to the killer. This is only when the player is out of PvP mode. - Something we are still looking as a possibility, to stop Kills on Sight like DayZ.
My project will include assassins, raisers etc so killing a player in PvP will not be scrutinised.
I also dont want to play a game where a kill makes me permanent weaker. But to kill somebody should be risky. It would be interesting if you need to do it on a clever way, so that the chance to get a disadvantage is higher.
We shouldn’t forget that OPs plan is to build a medieval game. With swords and bows its more difficult to kill somebody than in games like DayZ, where you can silent-snipe somebody from several hundred meters.
SchnitzelDude, I suppose that is very true. Maybe having a program put in place that if you attack in a castle/city the household guard (Lets say) look to pursue you. Anywhere outside is free game?
You are right with Bows and swords compared with rifles. Someone could simply run away from the battle with it was a sword fight lets say.
Game design to me is about solving problems. The first step is to correctly label something as a problem. Is “killing on sight” a problem in Battlefield? No. Why not? Maybe because you only lose your position and objectives, but can respawn quickly and be back at the same level playing field. Is kos a problem in DayZ? I’d say no again. Because if you take that away and lessen the effect of being killed, it becomes a poor version of a tactical shooter. The attraction of DayZ are the higher stakes. It’s the Vegas equivalent of playing video poker or roulette. Want huge swings of luck and risk? Roulette. Want to either win or lose through attrition and lower risk? Video poker.
Either way isn’t better or worse but you need to know what you are going to be before defining things as problems. I would also say as a rule giving players the tools to punish themselves with a murky rule set is a recipe for disaster.
