Encourage PvP: Remove LP

[Chakravanti]

I did my goddamnest to edit, proofread, sectionalize, and generally make my post more readable and condensed. I swear, I sacrificed several paragraphs of content that were redundant, irrelevant, or off topic. You have, quite well (if abrasively) Critiqued many of my previous posts and I appreciate it!

[DeadlyPencil]

I wasn't talking about your suggestion, i was talking about my suggestion because i didn't like all of your stuff. then you respond as if iam talking about your suggestion... that reply was painful to read. you were rebutting as if i was talking about your stuff. i was replying to warri who was replying to my post. not yours... so unless your warri as well and forgot to log out....

[Chakravanti]

Then gtfo out of my thread and go post your own, jackass.

[DeadlyPencil]

what so someone can tell me i duped another topic instead of posting in it.

[Alamarian]

The sandbox issue seems to come down to whether you consider a sandbox game one where you could do anything versus one where you can do anything. Most PK anywhere games I've played tend to actively discourage non-PvP roles. Further, where the investment needed to grief people is small, it's very common. When I played Shadowbane, I found that to be the case, though not for reasons applicable to H&H right now. (Ganking was so common on the server I played that you couldn't leave town to grind without at least two level 60 players tagging along to babysit, part of the reason I stopped playing.)

The big problem for crafting type characters is that defending them is almost always harder than attacking them. Even if you have a pimp daddy with a big sword, even if hefty resources are needed to breach defenses, the initiative will always be with the attacker. Action is faster than reaction. Also, griefing doesn't usually offer the same return as the investment but it's the intangibles that make it worth a griefer's while. With fewer investments required to make a combat worthy character, I worry that griefing would be very common. The reason why myg0t players, for example, choose FPS games is the investment is minimal. Log on, make people angry. The current system of scents make it much easier to police the game world. It's so effective because of the perma-death system and heavy investments. Combine lower investments with the reincarnation system, though... that might be a bad recipe. You always have to keep in mind that an anonymous environment plus a lack of serious consequences produces dick behavior.

So, I don't really have a problem with the changes in and of themselves. There need to be enough tweaks to discourage griefing though.

[Jackard]

I did my goddamnest to edit, proofread, sectionalize, and generally make my post more readable and condensed. I swear, I sacrificed several paragraphs of content that were redundant, irrelevant, or off topic. You have, quite well (if abrasively) Critiqued many of my previous posts and I appreciate it!

well i commend you for trying at least

[Chakravanti]

The sandbox issue seems to come down to whether you consider a sandbox game one where you could do anything versus one where you can do anything. Most PK anywhere games I've played tend to actively discourage non-PvP roles.

This is all too true. It is one of the things that sets H&H far and apart.

Further, where the investment needed to grief people is small, it's very common. When I played Shadowbane, I found that to be the case, though not for reasons applicable to H&H right now. (Ganking was so common on the server I played that you couldn't leave town to grind without at least two level 60 players tagging along to babysit, part of the reason I stopped playing.)

This is very true. Having to not be in combat stance to be evaced is one of lamest (Right up there with spires dwarf nerfs) 'fixes' the dev team implemented after SB went free simply because there wasn't a monetary investment to stimulate a corporate development. It's being hotly debated on the SBE forums already. Keep tabs, it among other things will be actively tested on the test server over the next year to find a balanced fix.

However, I must say that 'getting rolled' while you're out farming/grinding is part of the game. What you are doing is preparing characters for war. I've found it was essential to just have those high level characters for carrying loot and AoE farming XP for our training toons. Farm long enough and you can guarantee someone is gonna spot and roll you. Even if they don't actually roll you, they will interrupt your grinding which is part and parcel of warfare. Same goes for raiding villages in H&H. It's not just griefing. It's a tactical strike on the enemy soldier's supply lines. Your job is to:

A) Do the same to them first so they cannot afford to do it to you
B) Defend from the strike and cause them the most attrition possible
C) Make a Retaliatory strike so that the battle attrition you cause them in your defense becomes difficult for the to recoup from.
D) Don't Have a significant amount of accumulated resources stockpiled. (I learned that lesson the hard way).

The difference between what I propose and what currently exists is that it's actually feasible to cause WV attrition. Where we are a pure skill town when Barbie raided us he detroyed %90 of the achievements of our gameplay. When Cutlass raided them she also took out their production lines. Thus, she hurt their newbies more than their developed characters. DOing this would mean that battle attrition would be evenly distributed.

The concept behind high investments into character development is the theory that people who have developed asininely high level characters will have more respect for fear of losing their development. Unfortunately, this system does not evoke this in practice.

The big problem for crafting type characters is that defending them is almost always harder than attacking them. Even if you have a pimp daddy with a big sword, even if hefty resources are needed to breach defenses, the initiative will always be with the attacker. Action is faster than reaction.

This is also a common classic failure. It doesn't necessarily have to be this way though. Making peasants a credo of their own would give us the ability to simply swap chars at the warning flares triggered by an invader setting off traps. Village Authority being able to eradicate scents within their influence is another thing I proposed that would add to defensive advantage. You could kill invaders on your home turf and not risk your character to do so. These, among other mechanics could significantly add to a defenders ability to gain an advantage.

Also, griefing doesn't usually offer the same return as the investment but it's the intangibles that make it worth a griefer's while. With fewer investments required to make a combat worthy character, I worry that griefing would be very common. The reason why myg0t players, for example, choose FPS games is the investment is minimal. Log on, make people angry.

It probably will. Otoh, it already is. I am not proposing that alts become cheap. I am however suggesting that retaliatory capable characters be viable to produce. and that their be a reasonable softcap for development.

The current system of scents make it much easier to police the game world. It's so effective because of the perma-death system and heavy investments.

There are currently far too many exploits for this to actually be true at the moment.

Combine lower investments with the reincarnation system, though... that might be a bad recipe. You always have to keep in mind that an anonymous environment plus a lack of serious consequences produces dick behavior.

You do forget the double softcap, providing diminishing returns, means that ancestors would be summarily nerfed. They would of course, be of benefit undoubtedly, but they would also not be the excessively ridiculous margin they currently bestow.

So, I don't really have a problem with the changes in and of themselves. There need to be enough tweaks to discourage griefing though.

I am not the developer and the idea is complex in and of itself there are certainly many details I skipped over as well as contingent developments in other areas. (Credos, diversified combat, village management & Claim disputation, etc.) What you say is certainly true. It would be no small change and balance would require fine details to strike as any MMO.

well i commend you for trying at least

Proposing something that is extraordinarily different from what people are accustomed to is not an easy thing to convey. IF you have trouble understanding something I've written feel free to ask me to clarify.

[Alamarian]

I haven't followed Shadowbane since it went free. Coming out of combat stance to recall (or whatever it was called)? Brilliant decision making there...

It's not just griefing. It's a tactical strike on the enemy soldier's supply lines.

Trust me, it was just griefing. Being attacked by rival factions is something I expected but it didn't actually happen very often while grinding. Even in the middle of an active war, everyone mostly focused on destroying towns over raiding the usual camping spots. The players in question were a loose coalition of griefers. They had no town to destroy, no kingdom to bring down. They just griefed. It was so bad that several kingdoms attempted to band together against them. Didn't work very well. That's what I don't want to happen. You can make it so costly, or yourself seem so weak, that "normal" players won't be interested. Not so with some people.

[Chakravanti]

That won't happen in this system. Such players would be killed and without a base of operations to produce from they would not be able to rebuild their characters.

I fear we won't see this or any character investment reduction. The trend of the developers is to add to difficulty of progression. It's sad really because this game has the potentially to be something really amazing.

[Alamarian]

That won't happen in this system. Such players would be killed and without a base of operations to produce from they would not be able to rebuild their characters.

Unless they have an alt with resources. Now, if alts were automatically tied together, that could be solved.