Developer Thoughts on PvP

[Jackard]

I don't think you understand sarcasm.

Don't expect forumers to assume you are being sarcastic when we regularly see foolish or inappropriate suggestions from newbies

Tone doesn't carry well over text; that's what emoticons are for.

[Fetdaniel]

crossposted from viewtopic.php?p=55705#p55705 - Jackard

Extended Treatise on That Which Really Should Be Bloody Obvious to Anyone Above A Grade School Level of Mental Development

There exists a popular misconception that actions in the H&H game world can be neatly classified as being either "offensive" -- in the sense of doing harm to other players -- or "peaceful" -- in the sense of not doing harm to other players. On the basis of this misconception some people have suggested that players who exclusively perform actions pertaining to the latter category should be kept safe from actions sorting under the former. While this conclusion -- that peaceful players should not be subject to PvP -- does indeed follows from the premises -- and in this sense isn't a logical fallacy per se -- it nevertheless remains the case that one of the premises necessary to arrive at this conclusion is deeply and fundamentally flawed. Namely, as pointed out above, the false belief that there exists a clear and formalized divide between offensive and peaceful actions, so formalized and neat, in fact, that it can be reduced to computer code and determined mechanically. As an afterthought, the careful scribe is want to ask himself: Do these suggesters -- in their postings so full of self-righteous ire -- also propose do replace our real life court systems with punch-cards and calculators?

The H&H game world attempts -- to no small an extent -- to simulate events and processes of the real world in a digitalized form. In so doing, it would be an object of abject failure if, along with the beauties and wonders of real life, not also some of the difficulties associated with it were to be emulated. Some difficulties are, indeed, impossible to abstract away, simply because they follow from the very essence of that which we, admittedly, are trying to simulate. One such difficulty is crime.

Players in the H&H game world share the same "physical" space, and, also, the same theoretical potentials for affecting it. Some actions performed in order to affect the game world are, however, mutually exclusive with other such actions. For example: If I claim a piece of land, you can not also claim it. If I wish to see a tile plowed, it can not also, at the same time, per your wish, be planted with grass. Players in H&H have certain means at their disposal to deny other players the execution of certain actions. Such means include walls, claims, physical occupation, consuming, destruction, etc, but these actions in fact only compound to make the point infinitely more true: The land which I have claimed, you cannot claim. The basket that I am carrying, you can not carry. The apple that I have eaten, you can not eat.

To further develop on this point, let us make it painfully clear that this relation is so integrated in the very essence of H&H that it is impossible to even play the game without performing an action which is mutually exclusive, at least in time and place, with another action. If you are standing on the tile which I wish to plow, I cannot plow it. This means that the nub who has just created his first character and logged in, by the mere act of existing, is denying other players certain courses of action -- the most obvious one being interaction with that particular tile, but, as said nub starts to play, more and more actions will be denied other players by his act of simply playing. There is no shame in this, the number of potential actions is so great so as to approach the infinite, but, nevertheless: by acting in the H&H game world you are denying other players options that they would have had, had you not been playing the game.

When one adopts and understands this perspective, it becomes clear as sparkling morning dew on a well mowed lawn that there does not exist a clear divide between offensive and peaceful actions. Every action you do denies another player some potential action. In speaking with von Clausewitz, we can observe that combat, thus, is only the continuation of action denying by other means. If you stand on the tile I wish to plow, I can hurt you to make you go away. If, on the other hand, I can't attack you, then you have the means to permanently and irrevocably deny me particular courses of action for as long as you and your whims see fit. And, in this sense, every potential action is always offensive or, every potential action is always peaceful or the distinction is meaningless, whichever one you prefer.

As a child I often enjoyed and participated in a fun little game called "The Air is Free". Perhaps it was due to some particular gift in my childhood self, but I remember observing already at that young age that there was something very fishy about the often repeated commandment of the grown-ups that I must never hit another child. The game -- which is more an act of playful fucktardieness than an actual game -- consists of doing every annoying thing in your power without actually touching the other child. You can invade his personal space, you can wave your hands back and forth around his face, but you aren't actually touching him, and, since the air is free, you can always maintain that you did nothing wrong. Only a very stupid child buys this, of course. A smart child hits you in the face, as he should, and, indeed, that is how the game usually ends.

I now ask you to conjure up the vilest demons of your most cruel, childish imaginations. If the air was, indeed, free. What is the worst you could do?

New players, I would also like to add, should be, and are, particularly easy to target. The amount of investment needed to create one is so small that affording them any means of special security is inviting for them to be used as grief-machines and if they die, not much has been lost. Imagine, if you will, what you could do if new players were untouchable for the first 12 hours of game time. Jeez-louise, that would not be a pretty sight.

Enjoy.

I liked the analogy of the "air is free" game, I saw your point previously too, and I think that a developer can choose how to make his/her game as she fits. I don't think pvp should be restricted btw.

I also think that there is a bit too much focus on righteously defending your actions, with arguments that are not totally sound even when viewed at a glance. It's possible to take away most possibility to grief, and still have a measure of finite resources and effects of colonisation/consumtion. The solution just happens to be a color neither black nor white, and in that sense your point that is valid. But it's possible to attack this from gray, so you should just say that this isn't your intent, not that it's impossible.

My biggest complaint is however that you quite frankly draw analogy from the civil law system to "similar" difficulties in haven. In the real world information is not available as readily, nor any perception/analytical process that could crunch the available data nearly as efficiently as a computer handling its own designed simulated world. And the simulation, by mere definition of how haven is built, is very much abstract and able to be hammered to fit any mold of formalisation. Thus that argument is quite irrelevant. If you wanted "crime free" haven you could make it, the interesting question is why you wouldn't want to make it crime free. And you're avoiding it slightly by saying it's impossible, you shouldn't do that.

Haven is haven by design and you should focus more on showing that your intent is to simulate finite resources and freedom, and why this is important. If you want to make people understand that right and wrong is more complex than the [CHOOSE ANY]cultural system's interpretative logic, have fun. It's a losing battle, it's almost like. Haven.

Another criticism is that peaceful and offensive are both associated with motive rather than effect, and thus you should just recognise this and say that it's out of your intended reach to choose the players motives. They are thus not bad definitions, they are just not fitting to describe consequence regarding, for example, mutally exclusive actions.

The combination of sarcarsm and righteoussness is indeed a social marker for bitterness, and it doesn't match the frolic abundance of cock that you're associated with in your art. Or perhaps i'm too naive in my interpretation.(?)

[jorb]

Let me rephrase it, then. Open PvP is a very elegant design solution which -- in theory if not in the concrete implementational details -- solves the very real design problem of conflict resolution between players with overlapping and competing demands on finite resources.

[Elaes]

Let me rephrase it, then. Open PvP is a very elegant design solution which -- in theory of not in the concrete implementational details -- solves the very real design problem of conflict resolution between players with overlapping and competing demands on finite resources.

all true, but there is a fact to state, in the game currently the pvp way is the easiest way to obtain something. Encouraging the killing spree of newbie or weakest people since there is not really a risk to fight against weaker. You was in the kindergarden and the fatty kiddo see you with an apple for breakfast and beat you, kicking your ass to have it, not since he want it but simply to take it away from you, and the only case the fatty kiddo leaves u be is if you get more food the day after, you see ? your screwed, sure you can try to fight the fatty kiddo (that most probably have played more time then you at "steal the apple from the nub" and will most probably kick your ass) or simply accept that your fastest solution will be kick some other weaker then you for his meal (or stealing it).

All this could be actually changed by adding a "moral" bar, more black action performing in a short amount of time and more hard are the skill to increase (or simplier under a "total of karma" lost you get back of 1 tradition point since your more fucking primitive that remind more as your ancestor and not as an evolutive beeing with the choise to just perform black actions, by beeing a personal belief is indeed changeable in time (if you didnt kept the behavior of a typical gypsy with a knife). This will make "main combat characters" more likelly to be in a full tradition state much of the time ? maybe and can be even good since would mean less increase of madness rates of 400 ua and 400 mc after a month unless your actually part of a town (or alt but still to forage hard as a main character with curiosity whole time) trying to work more on get high quality item instead just slaughter the guy on the way to get his stuff.

So a raider would still exist like now but simply would be more probable that the raider (even if veteran/hardcore/blablabla player) will be with a lp reduction that will give him a gap that will prolly let him think to "yes let's kill this guy because it's important get rid of him for my village/group/heremitting plans" but not "yay let's rape those 2 nab fishing for their delicious perchs"

And not really inclined to pvp would actually have a reason to play and not just few choosen pacifist in major settlement as farmers under some major raid village

[MagicManICT]

all true, but there is a fact to state, in the game currently the pvp way is the easiest way to obtain something. Encouraging the killing spree of newbie or weakest people since there is not really a risk to fight against weaker.

Have you played around with the combat system in depth yet? Only a few people are going to survive an N v 1 situation for various reasons (usually just because they're that damn good at it). I'm a complete noob when it comes to PvP combat, but I can read the forums and know that even the best killers can't stand up to high enough odds.

This game should have a maxim: Bring your friends, lots of friends.

You was in the kindergarden and the fatty kiddo see you with an apple for breakfast and beat you, kicking your ass to have it,

It's called standing up for yourself. As a young child, this meant going to your parents or a teacher or other adult with authority. Later in life (preadolescence), this meant learning to fight for yourself as the "bigger kids" wouldn't be intimidated by authority figures. I myself never had this problem early on (helped by the size of an eight/nine-year-old at six), but certainly had to deal with it in my teen years. All it took was a couple of fights, though, and people quit fucking with me, either because they didn't want to get their ass kicked (even though I might have been in just as bad of shape) or didn't want the trouble for getting in a fight.

One of the reasons I'm still with this game is because there aren't any cops around other than what we, as players, do to police our own community. The world now is significantly different than the world I joined, though. During world three, people rarely left summonable scents laying around willy-nilly unless they were able to show a big enough force to defend against a large raid. Someone would come along and collect them and hunt down the perp because it was easy LP. Now, it's not only NOT easy to kill someone properly protected, it's also usually not worth it (when just figuring in the LP received). Although you get to steal what the person was studying, if the killer (thief, home wrecker) was watching the walls for a ram, they could easily just not use any curios for a day or two until they could get to another vault safely. Again, I point you to the maxim above.

I've been very successful as a hermit in this game. I have only been raided once (and I realize the mistakes I made in that, the biggest one being I didn't put a brick wall up despite having ready access to the metal... steel is such a huge PITA, though) and have only been killed in PvP combat once in the nearly 18 months I have played.

All this could be actually changed by adding a "moral" bar,...

I believe it's been suggested before in various ways. I'm not sure how keen anyone really is to it. I didn't play UO much, but I believe they were somewhat successful with something like this, however, alts were limited by the number of characters per account and accounts a player could afford to keep running at once. Here, there's nothing against making an army of alts.

[Elaes]

Have you played around with the combat system in depth yet? Only a few people are going to survive an N v 1 situation for various reasons (usually just because they're that damn good at it). I'm a complete noob when it comes to PvP combat, but I can read the forums and know that even the best killers can't stand up to high enough odds.

This game should have a maxim: Bring your friends, lots of friends.

It's called standing up for yourself. As a young child, this meant going to your parents or a teacher or other adult with authority. Later in life (preadolescence), this meant learning to fight for yourself as the "bigger kids" wouldn't be intimidated by authority figures. I myself never had this problem early on (helped by the size of an eight/nine-year-old at six), but certainly had to deal with it in my teen years. All it took was a couple of fights, though, and people quit fucking with me, either because they didn't want to get their ass kicked (even though I might have been in just as bad of shape) or didn't want the trouble for getting in a fight.

One of the reasons I'm still with this game is because there aren't any cops around other than what we, as players, do to police our own community. The world now is significantly different than the world I joined, though. During world three, people rarely left summonable scents laying around willy-nilly unless they were able to show a big enough force to defend against a large raid. Someone would come along and collect them and hunt down the perp because it was easy LP. Now, it's not only NOT easy to kill someone properly protected, it's also usually not worth it (when just figuring in the LP received). Although you get to steal what the person was studying, if the killer (thief, home wrecker) was watching the walls for a ram, they could easily just not use any curios for a day or two until they could get to another vault safely. Again, I point you to the maxim above.

I've been very successful as a hermit in this game. I have only been raided once (and I realize the mistakes I made in that, the biggest one being I didn't put a brick wall up despite having ready access to the metal... steel is such a huge PITA, though) and have only been killed in PvP combat once in the nearly 18 months I have played.

talking about "weaker" target i even consider number on the table of course, with all those vaults / exploiting of any kind stuff, is not the "veteran player" that suffer but most of the time the casual or the weaker one, or simply people without pvp attitude. Even going to a higher authority would work in a real situation but not in a game where you reincarnate with basically 10% of your chara (ok 25% of old stats but on lp side is different) and i agree that is the game and there should be a penalty after a perma death mechanics, but in the current situation the game itself dont discourage you to kill anyone less pvp prepared/inclined then you.

so let's guess we start a world 7, by the look of w6 where all major faction are raiders not even touching each other, you see how there is a increasing number of people going to get the "easy kill" way instead think to the "discovery or increasing quality way", aside for a side effect (which can be, make higher q sword to rape you faster or armor/jewelry to handle more people at once.)

as you confirm a well prepared place to live is really hard to raid (aside for insider helping you/bug abusing), but still no matter this, when you are out there foraging your still a yummi delicious target for anyone roaming in group with the idea to just kill without even a reason simply because the game dont (once again) discourage that while instead actually push you to take this way to get faster benefit .

I believe it's been suggested before in various ways. I'm not sure how keen anyone really is to it. I didn't play UO much, but I believe they were somewhat successful with something like this, however, alts were limited by the number of characters per account and accounts a player could afford to keep running at once. Here, there's nothing against making an army of alts.

alts would actually affect nothing (more then now) in a moral system, even by having more then one toon pvp orientated you will still have the main one not able to progress on the same speed of the rest of the server due to the continuity of black actions, and you will have to feed both them with curiosity whole time (the suggestion of the karma/moral made before was btw made with the purpose of get your character "darker" and not as an act to discourage meaningless killing rampage in game http://www.havenandhearth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=20057&hilit=karma )

btw i want place an added consideration to this :

During world three, people rarely left summonable scents laying around willy-nilly unless they were able to show a big enough force to defend against a large raid. Someone would come along and collect them and hunt down the perp because it was easy LP. Now, it's not only NOT easy to kill someone properly protected, it's also usually not worth it (when just figuring in the LP received).

world 3 was way bigger then worlds after, there was 2 major faction acting as "cops" of their zones, now both in w5 and w6 you actually see major faction raider themself (in fact there was a point in w5 where almost all people was going to seek refuge in pande, but let me not say this in the thread because people need only that name to start to offtopic for 16 pages ), if they track you is just to have a easier way to know where you are and kill you after, you can call it evolution or now people have a different view of the game fact is that now if your not in a major faction you end up killed EVEN if your really not worth it, and major factions (aside those that have "not aggression rule between them") think 2 or 3 times if really piss off another major faction because is JUST EASIER go to eat the small one, and as said, all now are mainly raiders.

[Westr7]

If bears, boars, ants, and raiders are the checks and balances to Hermits and noobs, then what are the checks and balances for villagers? Villagers have domesticated animals, wells in villages, and rats all about, shouldn't they have plague and dysentery? They all go hand and hoof so to speak. A few random deaths in villages on an on-going basis would make it interesting.

[TeckXKnight]

If bears, boars, ants, and raiders are the checks and balances to Hermits and noobs, then what are the checks and balances for villagers? Villagers have domesticated animals, wells in villages, and rats all about, shouldn't they have plague and dysentery? They all go hand and hoof so to speak. A few random deaths in villages on an on-going basis would make it interesting.

This has absolutely no relevancy to the game I'm afraid.

[Jackard]

If bears, boars, ants, and raiders are the checks and balances to Hermits and noobs

citation needed

[Sylwira]

I think there's no end to this discussion between PvP and peace lovers. I understand that devs are PvPers and they prefer H&H being this way, I respect this decision, but why not make a tiny, little space for this second group to enjoy this game?
Creating good, effective penalty system seems very hard. This days children prefer to play merciless criminals than righteous rangers to protect week. That's why I have a simpler idea. I know there were many suggestions about newbie protection, PvP toggle and so on, so mine won't be very unique. But still I'll try because it won't affect PvPing so much:
When you create a character you can choose if you want to PvP or not. If you choose "not" you don't have access to any criminal skills, but in exchange you can't be killed by a player. You can be attacked, knocked out and robbed, the only difference is that you wake up in the same body (maybe after some time) at your hearth fire. You can still die in other ways, though.
This way PvPers won't even notice much difference - they can still kill all those newbies without problems and they won't even know if the character that reappears it his hearth fire is a new one or not, unless they memorize that person. But do killers memorize every person they kill? (I know there are people that will kill over and over again, just for fun... I'll never understand what is so fun in it )
On the other hand, peace loving hermits like me would be able continue playing without that much loss, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have to protect themselves. And newbie players wouldn't be discouraged so much.
You can call it 'Gods protection' - if you are nice then gods will save you - simple.

Once I met a Russian, when he learned that I'm Polish he said something like 'oh, angry pole' because there's an opinion that Poles are aggressive, but I've heard opinion that Russians are aggressive... He was surprised of my peaceful behavior.
Lately I met another guy that said, that he has never met such a nice person in this game...
Probably it's because all nice people are killed right away. I understand that you want to create a fairly realistic world, but this way your world is made only of aggressive people. It's a sad world, don't you think?
I guess I'll be flamed right away, but I don't like giving up without even trying.