On consensual / one-sided PvP

[wolf1000wolf]

While discussing things in the New World announcement thread, had this idea:

--
Remember how Runescape does that Wilderness PvP thing? Where only players within a certain range of lvls can attack each other?

What if when on non-owned (Kingdom, Village, Personal) territory, you could only initiate an attack on another character if their "Combat Score" is at least within X of yours? (Combat Score being some combination of your UU,MM, Melee, Per,Str,Con,Agi).

Would that be a mechanic that could work in alleviating the whole one-sided PvP issue?

Sure, PvPers could make lower statted characters to go grief casual hermits but those hermits would stand a much better chance?
In a fight, those casuals would still likely lose if they don't know the combat system but it'd be more interesting?

This idea is pretty rough as it needs to allow for Siege and other things, but what do you guys think of the general idea?
--

As Avu added later, maybe in Kingdoms FFA PvP would be the same as now.

[sMartins]

It cannot work...everything that "limit" freedom could be used in a bad way, easy ex : noobs alts griefing outside your base and you cannot kill them.

[wolf1000wolf]

It cannot work...everything that "limit" freedom could be used in a bad way, easy ex : noobs alts griefing outside your base and you cannot kill them.

If they're griefing "outside your base", then the solution is to simply expand your claim no?

Dedicated trolls will always find a way. My suggestion would be simply to discourage scenarios where a high-end player goes around killing noobs for kicks. Nothing more really.

[Granger]

Give the option to 'Shoo' other characters (especially idling ones) to get rid of alt-blocking.

Scaling the scents (and nidbanes) for the attacking party according to the combat delta would make people think twice about initating combat.

And before the usual 'but then they would dress up alts to exploit this' come in:
Yes, it would be a change of the no-words-attack-and-kill-everything-that-moves-on-sight approach of some players toward something more like this - but that wouldn't be a bad thing for the game world.

[sMartins]

You have always to think contrariwise also...if you are removing priviliges from someone you are giving them to someone else, and this open multiple bad scenarios where those privileges will be always exploited from the same bad persons. Permadeath and freedom are the best things of this game, removing them will result in killing the game.
Survival of the fittest, it's harsh but fair for everyone. ( then we can discuss more and more about PVP and how combat works,etc...but for sure removing freedom from the game is not a good thing, in my opinion).

P.S. Moreover...why in RL we don't kill each other on sight? Cause we have law and punishments for that....with enough players we need to aim to that to simulate a realistic enviroment....maybe devs shuold give us more tools to combat crimes but not removing the possibility to commit crime. Lets say, if i want to play as a bad person i should be able to walk outside and kill everyone i want....then you and others people can counter that, this is the game. Otherwise no more game, only an happy farmiville, but remember without bad things, also good things cannot exist.

[Beezer12Washingbeard]

In a world like H&H that tries to be open with a sense of real consequences, I can't see any system that artificially restricts PvP through zoning or anything that's strictly a game mechanic. I don't want to see things like only allowing PvP within a certain level/stat range--that works for other games and what other games are trying to be, but not H&H. To effectively manage a balance between maintaining the true open-endedness of any interaction, and people being jerks, I think the question we should be asking is: what kinds of risks and rewards do we want to attach to PvP actions?

To know where we want to go, it's useful to examine how things currently are. The current system is appropriately focused this way: the reward system has good ideas like the implementation of skulls. And if the LP reward was the only motivation for PvP, nobody would murder newbies because their skulls wouldn't have enough LP to matter.

The risk side has some good ideas too, with scents and the Outlaw debuff. I actually really like this and Nidbanes especially, because it means there are consequences to your actions and you have to weigh it out, if even for a moment, before choosing committing a crime. Even if you use an alt, it still raises the uncertainty and minimum level of effort to choose to PvP someone. On the other hand, it's on the other person's initiative (or their friends') to either track the other player and get their revenge or summon a Nidbane. But they might not. It's a calculated risk.

With that in mind, I defer back to y'all who have been playing for longer and know the game and other players better. What kinds of risks/rewards would make a good balance of fair rewards for a fair kill while putting enough weight on the decision so as to discourage most casual killings?

[Adder1234]

Not sure if this idea even belongs here, and it may do more harm than good, but I still want peoples opinions on it.

This is an idea I had a while ago that would make players want to live in kingdoms more; essentially, if a player initiates combat inside of a kingdom and murders the person that they're fighting, they will be unable to leave the kingdom until the murder scents wear off. Also, lawspeakers for the kingdom are alerted to the murder and can track down the killer without scents. This will give players an incentive to live in kingdoms where the lawspeakers care about their people. Still, this doesn't solve any problems with people killing people on unclaimed land, but that's not the point, this is mostly a method of making living in kingdoms more important, but it can make people think twice before killing people for kicks.

[Beezer12Washingbeard]

Not sure if this idea even belongs here, and it may do more harm than good, but I still want peoples opinions on it.

This is an idea I had a while ago that would make players want to live in kingdoms more; essentially, if a player initiates combat inside of a kingdom and murders the person that they're fighting, they will be unable to leave the kingdom until the murder scents wear off. Also, lawspeakers for the kingdom are alerted to the murder and can track down the killer without scents. This will give players an incentive to live in kingdoms where the lawspeakers care about their people. Still, this doesn't solve any problems with people killing people on unclaimed land, but that's not the point, this is mostly a method of making living in kingdoms more important, but it can make people think twice before killing people for kicks.

I like this a lot because it also provides more incentive for living in a kingdom, another underutilized mechanic with a lot of potential imo

[Onep]

This is absolutely dreadful.
It should not be implemented.
It's quite demented.
Of your ability, I'm doubtful.

[Granger]

This is absolutely dreadful.
It should not be implemented.
It's quite demented.
Of your ability, I'm doubtful.

Sounds like words from someone who sees his business model being threatened.