Developer Thoughts on PvP

[jorb]

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.

[Norsu]

I think we can draw a pretty clear distinction between 'actions that directly undo the benefit that anothers actions bring them' and 'actions that directly bring benefit to oneself'. It seems to me fairly apparent that most of the 'offensive actions' people talk about are referring to the first kind of action.

You can't fault someone for breathing, you can fault them for strangling another. Both actions deny another breath. One directly, the other indirectly, although I probably need to define 'directly/indirectly' more clearly too. One also has an external focus, while the other has a personal focus, which is likely where the real differentiation is being made.

All in all, I doubt I have a broad enough vocabulary to argue the point, but no amount of semantics can turn breathing into murder, or vice versa It's not simply a matter of cost/benefit ratios for each involved party, but one of intent, and of passive versus active roles.

Standing in line denies the person behind you your position. If he pushes you out of the way, he is denying you your position instead. Only one of those can get you arrested.

In the context of the thread this was originally posted in I can definitely see your point however.

[Jackard]

Some context here: that post was written in reply to people requesting various methods of removing PvP.

Whether adding a pvp toggle, or a immunity timer for new players, or an entirely separate server for PvP; in the end they are all the same thing. A bad idea.

[Norsu]

Yeah after reading through a little of the thread it was originally posted in I very much agree. I was misreading the entire post basically. Blocking someones gate because they left their cornerposts unsealed is a blatant example of a 'nonaggressive' action that can be abused. I can see where there is an argument for a more moderate death penalty (which I realise will never happen, nor do I suggest that it should), but artificial barriers to player actions are indeed a terrible idea.

[greaterwolf]

The current PvP system works very well, like other aspects of the game we have the freedom to do as we choose. It may not be right or fair but you can punch the first person you see in the face, as far as H&H goes with being a simulator, can't think of a way to improve the system myself. Removing the ability to be attacked would remove any need for caution, all of us at some point have chosen to avoid a group of people at night, or walk the long way home rather than go down a dodgy looking street (exceptions to the younger members of the forum). Why should Haven be any different?

[iflamberg]

The game becomes more popular and more and more people come to play. It simulates humanity pretty nice and this makes it so attractive. But, from other side, in real world you don't need to spend 140 000 lp (two weeks of new comer playing or more, as he need his palisade and claim) to kill some one. You just make a decision, than take rock and break some skull. No one will survive rain of arrows in real world(except for Jet Li ^_^). New comers start to play and realize that they have no chances to beat those who started to play earlier and has better stats and skills. Even more, those who start playing earlier can kill them in one strike no matter what, making revenge impossible. That makes them sad and they go whining on a forum.

It should be changed.

I would suppose unarmed, melee, strength caps, so there would be not that big difference between 100 unarmed fighter and 200 unarmed fighter. Or 200 unarmed fighter and 400 unarmed. But you will say that this would make villains (including me, I suppose) even more effective. May be you're right. But may be those who whine would instead find their way to fight back? They won't need infinite grinding any more, just 100 unarmed and some spare practice, which is easy to achieve.
Again, all quality grinding is tied to clay. No clay = loser. All high quality clay spots in a month get claimed and new comers just have nothing to do with that. Again they go and whine. If developers would limit clay quality to, say 50, there would be enough good spots for everyone. Or at least some mechanism to get high quality clay or substitute it. I dunno, pray for clay? =D That would be nice, but I’m sure it would be exploited.

[Gorbane]

Selfish capitalist pigs. . . Trying to attain resources for personal gain?
They then go on to complain that they are being "mistreated" in their wimpy nature.

[greaterwolf]

I would suppose unarmed, melee, strength caps, so there would be not that big difference between 100 unarmed fighter and 200 unarmed fighter. Or 200 unarmed fighter and 400 unarmed. But you will say that this would make villains (including me, I suppose) even more effective. May be you're right. But may be those who whine would instead find their way to fight back? They won't need infinite grinding any more, just 100 unarmed and some spare practice, which is easy to achieve.

I have had that discussion before, although it would make the game a bit more boring towards the end for those that have been there from the start I would believe it more practical. Running around punching down brick walls is taking it too far to me.

Again, all quality grinding is tied to clay. No clay = loser. All high quality clay spots in a month get claimed and new comers just have nothing to do with that. Again they go and whine. If developers would limit clay quality to, say 50, there would be enough good spots for everyone. Or at least some mechanism to get high quality clay or substitute it. I dunno, pray for clay? =D That would be nice, but I’m sure it would be exploited.

Trade for it. I started world 3 quite late with no access to metal or good clay. didn't stop me getting it though. Good quality milk was a nice trade then, easy to get if you put a bit of time into your farming. Bricks shouldn't be underestimated either, brick walls take a lot to build and the quality doesn't mean jack, anyone get get a q10-20 clay spot and make bricks.

World expansion was also a big one, I hope it happens here in W5 as well. As the game went on, new supergrids were added populated with new resources. At that point it was easier for a new player to go and grab a high Q clay spot, being far less attached to the current area they are in, even now in W5 I would rather stay in my spot and trade than move to high Q clay.

Scarcity is the drive for a good deal of player interaction in the game, if it was taken away from us the game would lose a lot of appeal to many of its players. Many of those I have met in game and established good relations with has been due to the need for resources, without that I may as well be playing a single player game.

[burgingham]

I would suppose unarmed, melee, strength caps, so there would be not that big difference between 100 unarmed fighter and 200 unarmed fighter.

This. Little off topic, but it has been proposed to Jorb and Loftar again and again lately to introduce a cap for uac and melee depending on equipment quality. Works the same for marksman and basically every crafting skill is hardcapped by ressource q now as well. So why not the other combat skills? They are the only reason left that people feel the need to grind ridiculous amounts of LP and thus writing bots to do it for them or try to find other exploits.

[sabinati]

i still haven't seen a good solution for unarmed though.