The Laws of Online Gaming Revisited...

[Sky]

OSI didn't trust us with the limited powers and small teams we had, let alone with teams of the proper size, and appropriate powers.

Yeah, I know. I was very active in the rp community, and this was the main complaint I heard from Seers. The main few who worked with us one our stuff were members of our player quest group beforehand. I glossed over a lot of the particulars, mostly because time has misted that portion of my brain, as it is wont to do. Don't do drugs, kids. ;)

But I didn't even touch on the official OSI events, that was a mess.

If each shard could have grown it's own communities, if resources had been spent to allow such a thing, in a way that didn't break the code (so each shard could be unique but still patched as one codebase), that would have been incredible. Each shard being a different and unique world, instead of cookie cutter copies with maybe some different housing here and there.

I guess SWG has some of this thanks to more options for towns and whatnot. Now if it could only drop the crappy HAM combat idea entirely and put in something fun ;)

[Raph]

Urgh. My problem with the guard zones was that reds walking NEAR a house might get instakilled without warning, and there was no way to tell given UO's interface, screen display, etc. In 3d, for example, there would have been no issue.

You may say "who cares? Instakill 'em" but frankly, you could have just as well have occasional lightning bolts from the blue that zapped reds and had the same gameplay experience--we would have gotten the same complaints. Perception of how it feels as a player matters a lot.

[HaemishM]

Not having played UO past 5 minutes in beta, was a "Red" player considered a Murderer? A social outcast and someone who goes distinctly against the very virtues that are the basis for morality in Brittania?

Lightning bolts from the sky at random, or instant death when coming near a house?

I'm not sure I see the problem. You had to CHOOSE to be Red, right?

Actions = consequences.

And this is coming from someone who LOVES PVP. Consensual PVP that is.

[daveNYC]

Anything that involves an instakill will be grabbed by the griefing community as a tool.  I'm not sure how'd they do it, but they would turn it around on people, probably within an hour of going live.

[Rasix]

Not having played UO past 5 minutes in beta, was a "Red" player considered a Murderer? A social outcast and someone who goes distinctly against the very virtues that are the basis for morality in Brittania?

You could go red without even killing a single player early on.  Early UO's rep system wasn't very effective for pinpointing the bad guys.  I went red serveral times as an anti.

Plus at the time there were no provisions for guild warfare.  So, fighting your enemies often meant getting tagged as a evil doer.

It just wasn't a very robust system and treating all reds as scum would have been a mistake at that time.

[Zaphkiel]

Urgh. My problem with the guard zones was that reds walking NEAR a house might get instakilled without warning, and there was no way to tell given UO's interface, screen display, etc. In 3d, for example, there would have been no issue.

You may say "who cares? Instakill 'em" but frankly, you could have just as well have occasional lightning bolts from the blue that zapped reds and had the same gameplay experience--we would have gotten the same complaints. Perception of how it feels as a player matters a lot.

    The same gameplay experience  FOR THEM.  The gameplay experience for everyone else would have been vastly improved.  Perception of how it feels for the PKs, very important.  Perception of how everyone else would like it, don't give a shit.  Thanks for proving my point.

[ori0nnebula]

I played UO for quite some time, and never really enjoyed the PK aspect of the game.  Despite the fustration of being murdered while trying to mine, hunt monsters, or just minding my own business it did add a certain edge to the game which is missing from other games.  

Lets assume for the sake of argument that PKing has a valid place in a game (which it obviously did for a long time in UO).

Zaphkiel I think the point your missing is that if there is going to be a system which allows players to murder others, there also needs to be a system where players can enact justice.  Having arbitrary lightning bolts fall from the sky isn't a very good solution (unless your intent is to stop people from killing other players).  If that is the case then why allow it at all?

What the developers needed to do was give players real tools to police themselves with.  The biggest problem with PK's was that they would kill you, then recall back to their house drop their loot and log off.  So even if then you got some friends together to go hunt them down and bring them to justice they weren't even online anymore.

I had high hopes for the bounty system, but it did nothing to help.  All it did was identify names of murdering characters.  One possible way it could have been implimented was if your name made the bounty list players could get an item which would allow them to locate them.  PK's always knew where miners were because there were only so many good places to mine.  If there had been some way to track down murderers and thieves it would have gone a long way to making the system more fair.

The bottom line is yes the developers failed to give the players the tools they needed to police themselves, as well as creating constructively.  UO gave players a lot more tools then most of the MMOG's out there but it still wasn't enough.  That doesn't mean that the developers were biased, from everything I've ever read Raph say he doesn't strike me as the type to glorify any one playstyle.

[Sky]

Actually, I lobbied to remove part of the karma/rep changeover. I played a thief pretty much from the release (after playing a paladin type in the beta) onward. In the first live version, you could sink to the first layer of red (Dark Lord/Lady) from stealing, so you had to be very careful who you stole from. This actually led to my love of stealing from pk guilds.

With the rampant griefing, and general assholish behaviour from many 'blue' avatars, I'm saddened that folks think red=bad or pk or whatever. It simply wasn't the case. My guy in the Militia (Sky, oddly enough) was always working down murder counts from griefers.

That was the biggest flaw of the system, and a flaw of most coded systems, griefers will always find a way to mess with people. Hell, most "antis" were knowingly or unknowingly "notopks", they see red and attack without thinking about who they are attacking or why.

[Zaphkiel]

I  That doesn't mean that the developers were biased, from everything I've ever read Raph say he doesn't strike me as the type to glorify any one playstyle.

      " My experience is exactly the opposite. They will band together, be
 better at the game than anyone else, and rack up WAY more kills
  than deaths. WAY WAY more. They will, after all, be the best players
  in the game (playerkillers tend to be). "    --Raph Koster,
      From the developers digest, on a discussion on perm death.

    I don't know, sounds to me like he likes them.

[Dark Vengeance]

I don't know, sounds to me like he likes them.

Who are typically the most effective PvPers in a given game? That's right...the PKs are.

If you put permadeath in place, you don't even slow PKs down. Even for mere statloss, the travelled in packs, and used more efficient and effective group tactics to minimize any potential risk to themselves. Imagine how much worse they'd be if they were in danger of losing the character completely.

You also have the "zerg" factor....PKs in groups don't have to be maxxed to ruin your day. They could trot around with newbie characters or partially developed and still be quite effective.....then simply re-roll upon death. Much like your issue with thieves, PKs don't have to be fully developed to be effective....so the disposable PK becomes a very viable option.

Plus, consider that whatever punishment you intend for the griefers will eventually be manipulated to affect a good-natured player. Goading someone into attacking your blue character, spying, looting, noto-killing, KSing, and general asshattery often push a good natured player over the line. If you're going to make it so doing so means risking permadeath, you may as well pull PvP completely....otherwise, you're just severely restricting the blues from enacting player justice, while the reds would continue running wild.

I agree with Raph regarding just randomly killing reds with unavoidable lightning bolts from the sky. Pks aren't some automatic unavoidable, infallible means of randomly killing players.....you have a chance to survive, and you are aware when there is potential for danger. You can prepare, and even fight back. OTOH, people can't do anything about the random lighting bolt....and there would be no way to tell which houses you can walk near, and which ones you cannot.

Plus, if you allowed the house as a guard zone as a toggle on every house, everyone who wasn't red would turn it on. At which point, you've basically put guard zones in place for 80% of the map. At which point, you may as well go Trammel in the overworld, because the Pks are going to be virtually unable to hang out on any subserver other than the dungeons. *Step, step, random instakill lightningbolt, reroll*

Sounds to me like someone just needs to STFU and stick with non-PvP games, and leave online worlds to those of us that can accept some level of risk.

Bring the noise.
Cheers...............

[daveNYC]

Sounds to me like someone just needs to STFU and stick with non-PvP games, and leave online worlds to those of us that can accept some level of risk.

Bring the noise.
Cheers...............

It was sounding good until you put in that 'people who are into PvP are manlier than those who aren't' shit.

I mean, what the hell is that?

[Dark Vengeance]

It was sounding good until you put in that 'people who are into PvP are manlier than those who aren't' shit.

I mean, what the hell is that?

The point being that there are plenty of options for the folks who want no part of PvP.

It's not a personal jab, or dick-waving measure. Just a bit of irritation that people want to insist on every world being non-PvP, instead of just going to a game that has the ruleset they want.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[HaemishM]

I accept the level of risk of PVP. I enjoy it.

But, and it's been said over and over again, that PK bring griefers. Of course, so does any other sort of gameplay involving interaction with other players.

My point was that the UO system always tried and tried to enforce or at least enact some form of punishment on those who it deemed to be anti-social to the world of Brittania, but never went far enough to make sure those social mores were followed. Maybe it was too easy to become red, and I'm not going to argue that because I'd be arguing from ignorance of the system. My point was that if there was a crime or series of crimes that people could perpetrate in UO that was bad enough to get them labelled as a red, as someone who is an undesirable to that society, why bother pussyfooting around?

Haemish's Immutable Law of Justice Part 1

If there is a rule you do not want someone to follow in an online game, the only way to ensure that said rule will not be broken is to enact swift and divine justice upon the rule breaker in as harsh a manner as possible. Since hammer blows to the testicles are right out, random lightning bolts from on high are just as good. Banning works too.

Haemish Immutable Law of Justice Part 2

No matter how effective the tools for policiing your community are, policing the community of an MMOG is not a task for the players to control. Justice becomes tyranny in the hands of online players, in the same manner that power corrupts. The only truly effective method of policing an online community is by an arbitrary body that is selected, administered and paid by the company who developed the game world in the first place.

Haemish's Immutable Law of Surprises

Players prefer to act on the world as opposed to reacting to another's actions upon them. Policing the community, defending their town or keep, or having their actions disturbed by another player, NPC, or the world will only be (barely) acceptable if the player is informed ahead of time that such an action could happen. Even when he is informed of the risks, players will still whine.

Which finally leads to,

Haemish's Immutable Law of the Whine

Players are whiny bitches who will spout the most inane babble imaginable since the Tower of Babel no matter how much you try to accomodate them, warn them of the risks, or target their desires. Accomodating the whine is less important than appearing to listen.

[Zaphkiel]

OTOH, people can't do anything about the random lighting bolt....and there would be no way to tell which houses you can walk near, and which ones you cannot.

Sounds to me like someone just needs to STFU and stick with non-PvP games, and leave online worlds to those of us that can accept some level of risk.

Bring the noise.
Cheers...............

    Sounds to me that someone still feels the shame of having his playstyle defeated by carebears.  We won, you lost, deal with it.  PKs could have just stayed out of civilized areas.  How many times did they say "If you don't want to die, stay in town"?  Well, if they don't want to die, stay away from houses.  The lightning bolts would only drop if you come near a civilized area.  That's NOT random.  However, trying to claim it is, in order to defeat the idea is just the kind of lying bullshit I expect.

[Zaphkiel]

Sounds to me like someone just needs to STFU and stick with non-PvP games, and leave online worlds to those of us that can accept some level of risk.

Bring the noise.
Cheers...............

It was sounding good until you put in that 'people who are into PvP are manlier than those who aren't' shit.

I mean, what the hell is that?

    Ubiquitous?  Sometimes one keeps a belief only because it's opponents never cease to be assinine.

[Dark Vengeance]

Haemish's Immutable Law of Justice Part 1

If you're going to ban or otherwise severely punish players for PKing, why not just hard code it out of the game? Why allow it at all? Seriously, why include PvP if taking part in it means you get instakilled, permakilled, and/or banned?

Haemish Immutable Law of Justice Part 2

If we had ever been given the proper tools for policing the community in UO, I think this law may have been disproven. A big part of the issue is that players viewed antis with as much disdain as PKs. They didn't respect or appreciate the measures others took to try and protect them....they simply bitched that the danger shouldn't exist.

Far too many loopholes existed in UO's player justice system to consider it anywhere near effective. SB strikes me as a poor example due to it's design flaws, and marketing as the "r0x0r1nG" MMOG.

Haemish's Immutable Law of Surprises

Players want full control over what happens to them. If they die to a mob because they didn't heal, so be it.....but if they happen to get ganked because they decide to stop and discuss a casserole recipe at the Xroads, they get pissed. It's all about control....many players want a predictable experience, so they can be prepared at all times. When you catch them with their pants down, they cry foul.

So, in short, I suppose I agree.

Haemish's Immutable Law of the Whine

I dunno on this one. I think the whine is simply a manifestation of players being driven by self-interest. A substantial portion aren't satisfied just to know that you're listening....they have an agenda, and they want results. Acknowledging the concern is just a signal for them to turn up the volume on the whining if they want something done about it.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

[Dark Vengeance]

Sounds to me that someone still feels the shame of having his playstyle defeated by carebears.  We won, you lost, deal with it.  PKs could have just stayed out of civilized areas.  How many times did they say "If you don't want to die, stay in town"?  Well, if they don't want to die, stay away from houses.  The lightning bolts would only drop if you come near a civilized area.  That's NOT random.  However, trying to claim it is, in order to defeat the idea is just the kind of lying bullshit I expect.

That's amazing...because I spent the pre-UO:R era playing as an ANTI. I busted my ass for years trying to keep non-PvPers safe. I'm just annoyed that despite the emergence of alternative non-PvP games, UO whiners insisted on turning UO into a watered down version of Diablo. And they did it because they couldn't be bothered to support or help the ANTIs.

Players housing != civilized areas. Yknow why? BECAUSE YOU CAN PUT THEM DAMN NEAR EVERYWHERE. You can sail close to houses, you can easily come upon them while walking through the wilderness. It's not as if UO had zoned housing developments or anything....you could put them anywhere they'd fit.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

[Sky]

Who are typically the most effective PvPers in a given game? That's right...the PKs are.

I disagree. They are the least ethical PvPers. Not the best.

My personal experience as both a PK and later an Anti (until most antis became mindless noto-killers) shows me that 'most' pks were not all that good at pvp, since they went after easy targets or exploits/3rd party hacks. Basically the grief form of pvp is pk.

[Sky]

A big part of the issue is that players viewed antis with as much disdain as PKs.

If there weren't so many noto-killers parading around as antis, it may have been different.

[HaemishM]

Haemish's Immutable Law of Justice Part 1

If you're going to ban or otherwise severely punish players for PKing, why not just hard code it out of the game? Why allow it at all? Seriously, why include PvP if taking part in it means you get instakilled, permakilled, and/or banned?

That law is for the people who insist on mixing PVE and PVP in their games, and yet do not make the simple step of watching how other games fucked it up completely (hello WOW and COH... possibly).

All that law is saying is that if murdering someone when they aren't ready or expecting an attack is wrong in the context of the game world, don't expect the players to punish the wrongdoers, because they can't, or won't. You make the point yourself... if only the PVE'ers had supported the Anti's, UO could have still have PVP and not turned into whack-a-mole.

But they didn't, and they WON'T. EVER. Because that involves REACTING and players hate reacting. They want to be proactive. They don't want to deal with the whining victims (as your post castigating the PVEer's proves), and they'd rather just be hunting the PVP'ers instead of waiting for the PVPers to act.

Here's where I agree with you. If you are going to outright punish PVP in a game, either take it completely the fuck out and tell the PVPers to go fuck themselves (or fuck the PVPers up with insta-kill lightning), OR make it so that in order to PVP, you have to agree to it, either by going to an area flagged for PVP or entering a mission or quest that is PVP, a la DAoC or City of Villains. The days of unrestricted PVP anywhere in the world are OVER for anything above a population of 200.

[Rasix]

A big part of the issue is that players viewed antis with as much disdain as PKs.

If there weren't so many noto-killers parading around as antis, it may have been different.

Heh, from personal experience, most anti's were nearly as bad as pks.  We just did everything under the guise of helping out the community.  We still pretty much killed anyone we want, all that was needed was some sort of flimsy reason.  Anti's still carried out extensive guild wars that often meant killing your enemy and anyone with them at the moment, it's not like there were actual guild tags early on.  Basically the only thing anti's didn't do was kill miners and noobs.  My guild wanted nothing more than to just kill everyone, but we had already cornered ourselves into the role of protectors, so we moved servers and let loose some slaughter.

The thing is, everyone we were protecting would have liked it better if there was no need to be protected at all.  I don't remember many thanks from clearing out a group of PKs at the Britain mines. Mainly because the victims were either getting ressed in town, still ghosting about or logged out in disgust.  Given the choice between player justice and not getting ganked by bored ex Quake players, a majority would likely choose #2.

[Dark Vengeance]

OR make it so that in order to PVP, you have to agree to it, either by going to an area flagged for PVP or entering a mission or quest that is PVP, a la DAoC or City of Villains. The days of unrestricted PVP anywhere in the world are OVER for anything above a population of 200.

In this day and age, with so many non-PvP games around, is there REALLY such a thing as non-consentual PvP?? If I login to Shadowbane, I am accepting the risks associated with playing in that game world, and under that ruleset.

Unless they just join up, completely oblivious to any information surrounding the game, they know going in that PvP is allowed. If they go into tha game completely oblivious to that fact, who is at fault there? I'd say the numbnuts who joined the game without learning anything about it in advance. I mean, shit....do we need warning labels for PvP+ games now?

I know, I know....even in PvP+ games, people don't necessarily want to PvP all the time. It's not a quake server. But I think it's silly to suggest that every game has to fit into the pigeonholes of SB, EQ, DAOC, and UO. Players join IPY, or Siege Perilous, and they know what they are getting....it's certainly much more niche, but I believe online worlds are much more niche than most care to admit.

When you join a "game", you accept the rules and expect things to be fair....when you join a "world", you accept the conditions of that world. If one of those conditions is "things aren't always going to be fair", those that accept that premise are going to have a much easier time adjusting to Pks, thieves, and other negative elements of your world. It's all about managing expectations.

As to the re-active/pro-active thing, I think you're getting back into Baron's law. Other players are what makes multiplayer gaming a good thing, they are also what makes multiplayer gaming suck. People want to act on the gameworld, act upon others in a positive/negative way, or have others act upon them in a positive way. Not surprisingly, players bitch when others act upon them in a negative way.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[Sky]

Given the choice between player justice and not getting ganked by bored ex Quake players, a majority would likely choose #2.

And there it is, from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Bored ex-quake players victimizing others because they are bored, not because they liked the game or virtual world that was being nourished by folks like Raph.

Bored ex-quakers who destroyed what could have been a fruitful and rich genre, and instead is crappy EQ clones and halfassed solutions to problems nobody has the balls to fix.

[HaemishM]

OR make it so that in order to PVP, you have to agree to it, either by going to an area flagged for PVP or entering a mission or quest that is PVP, a la DAoC or City of Villains. The days of unrestricted PVP anywhere in the world are OVER for anything above a population of 200.

In this day and age, with so many non-PvP games around, is there REALLY such a thing as non-consentual PvP?? If I login to Shadowbane, I am accepting the risks associated with playing in that game world, and under that ruleset.

You are, because you are an informed user. But other players who are not as informed may not know. And yes, I do think PVP games SHOULD have a warning label on them that says something to the effect that:

"You may be attacked, denigrated and irritated by any random jackass that you see. Enjoy!"

I know, I know....even in PvP+ games, people don't necessarily want to PvP all the time. It's not a quake server. But I think it's silly to suggest that every game has to fit into the pigeonholes of SB, EQ, DAOC, and UO. Players join IPY, or Siege Perilous, and they know what they are getting....it's certainly much more niche, but I believe online worlds are much more niche than most care to admit.

I'm not trying to pigeonhole the games. I'm trying to make developers commit to the style of gameplay and type of community they want to see in their game. If you don't want it (PKing), don't fucking allow it, or make it so hard it isn't worth it. If you do, inform the customers what could happen.

When you join a "game", you accept the rules and expect things to be fair....when you join a "world", you accept the conditions of that world. If one of those conditions is "things aren't always going to be fair", those that accept that premise are going to have a much easier time adjusting to Pks, thieves, and other negative elements of your world. It's all about managing expectations.

Actually, the majority of players, i.e. the NON-informed, non-hardcore who are not those of us on this board, they are buying a GAME, whether it's a world or not. Their expectations are of a game, something fun.

Hell, that's MY expectation of a game I buy. You live in a world, you play in a game. This whole business of calling MMOG's virtual worlds I think clouds the issue that they are being sold, marketed and PLAYED as games first, worlds a distant 365th.

[Zaphkiel]

The thing is, everyone we were protecting would have liked it better if there was no need to be protected at all.  I don't remember many thanks from clearing out a group of PKs at the Britain mines. Mainly because the victims were either getting ressed in town, still ghosting about or logged out in disgust.  Given the choice between player justice and not getting ganked by bored ex Quake players, a majority would likely choose #2.

   If they were dead, you didn't protect them.  You avenged them.  Vengeance is just as fun for you, not the same thing at all to a miner.  Most anti's were far more interested in the action, than the protecting part.  Protecting is boring.  That's why they weren't respected.  You were just using the miners as an excuse to go PK someone, and not feel guilty about it.  PKs wanted to gank miners.  You needed miners getting ganked so you could gank, too.   It's the same playstyle.

[Sky]

As an aside, it was funny watching some kid review Lineage 2 on the Screen Savers last night. He was trying to show off the game and some guy attacked him ;)

[Rasix]

The thing is, everyone we were protecting would have liked it better if there was no need to be protected at all.  I don't remember many thanks from clearing out a group of PKs at the Britain mines. Mainly because the victims were either getting ressed in town, still ghosting about or logged out in disgust.  Given the choice between player justice and not getting ganked by bored ex Quake players, a majority would likely choose #2.

   If they were dead, you didn't protect them.  You avenged them.  Vengeance is just as fun for you, not the same thing at all to a miner.  Most anti's were far more interested in the action, than the protecting part.  Protecting is boring.  That's why they weren't respected.  You were just using the miners as an excuse to go PK someone, and not feel guilty about it.  PKs wanted to gank miners.  You needed miners getting ganked so you could gank, too.   It's the same playstyle.

Well, that was just an example.  Sometimes we'd get news of PKs in the area and go sniff it out.  Or wait around for the action. But yes, we weren't interested in protecting, we were interested in killing the pkers.  

But see, being an anti was mostly a reactionary duty.  Once you got wind of pkers in an area it was often too late.  They were either in mop up mode, long gone, or waiting for a retalitory strike.  If we had some sort of extra sensory way of knowing where they would attack, sure, we'd be there ready to protect.  But in a world as big as Britannia and with the relative easy of transport, it was simply too hard to cover all the people that needed it.

Mostly the PK v. anti thing was just a moral dividing line between two sets of pvpers at the time.  One group advocating killing everyone; one opposed this philosophy and used this as an opportunity have a justfied war against the eeeevil pkers.

If we had been a little more like security guards and a little less like the police, then perhaps it could have worked for the innocent miners, crafters and pve players.  But I doubt they would have still liked their position as disposable innocents in a conflict they wanted no part in.

[Dark Vengeance]

I'm not trying to pigeonhole the games. I'm trying to make developers commit to the style of gameplay and type of community they want to see in their game. If you don't want it (PKing), don't fucking allow it, or make it so hard it isn't worth it. If you do, inform the customers what could happen.

Wait a second....you're saying that being aware of whether or not a MMOG is PvP+ or not makes me an informed user. Then you ask for the devs to inform the players about what could happen in the PvP+ games.

If a random player isn't even bothered to find out if it is PvP+ or not, how are the devs supposed to make them aware (before they buy the game) of various other issues they may encounter?

I think the consumer has to bear some responsibility there.

Actually, the majority of players, i.e. the NON-informed, non-hardcore who are not those of us on this board, they are buying a GAME, whether it's a world or not. Their expectations are of a game, something fun.

I suppose the "world vs game" classification needs refinement. Of course, they're all games.....MMOGs to be specific. But there is a huge difference in the two TYPES of MMOG, just as there is a difference between the Sports and Puzzle genres.

But the totally non-informed player is NEVER going to make any attempt to know or understand that. Pretty hard to manage expectations of a group that does everything possible to form their own expectations, and avoid any warnings you give them to the contrary.

To a certain extent, you almost have to let them come into the game and be disappointed. When they object to elements they don't like, you have to stick to your guns, and say "sorry, this isn't for everyone".

Which of course, is a bad move....because many of those players don't leave. They become jaded and disruptive and bitter, and then proceed to try and break your game. I guess it ultimately means you cannot idiot-proof your game.

Hell, that's MY expectation of a game I buy. You live in a world, you play in a game. This whole business of calling MMOG's virtual worlds I think clouds the issue that they are being sold, marketed and PLAYED as games first, worlds a distant 365th.

There is a distinction to be made, though. Folks buying MMOGs expecting every one to be Monopoly or a multiplayer FF7 are going to be disappointed most of the time.

If we assume the players to be totally uninformed, it isn't possible to manage expectations.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[HaemishM]

I'm not trying to pigeonhole the games. I'm trying to make developers commit to the style of gameplay and type of community they want to see in their game. If you don't want it (PKing), don't fucking allow it, or make it so hard it isn't worth it. If you do, inform the customers what could happen.

Wait a second....you're saying that being aware of whether or not a MMOG is PvP+ or not makes me an informed user. Then you ask for the devs to inform the players about what could happen in the PvP+ games.

If a random player isn't even bothered to find out if it is PvP+ or not, how are the devs supposed to make them aware (before they buy the game) of various other issues they may encounter?

I think the consumer has to bear some responsibility there.

Big bold fucking letters saying "YOU WILL FIGHT OTHER PLAYERS AND SOMETIMES YOU WILL WIN, SOMETIMES YOU WILL LOSE."

On the box, on the opening screens, in the manual and anywhere else you can think to put it to warn the wise. It'll be a foolish waste of time, but in the same manner of CYA as "Don't drink the gasoline that you put in your car." You can't completely stupid proof your MMOG, but you can do more than has been done.

There is a distinction to be made, though. Folks buying MMOGs expecting every one to be Monopoly or a multiplayer FF7 are going to be disappointed most of the time.

People aren't buying MMOG's expecting Monopoly or a board game. They are buying them with the expectation of a fun game as opposed to a time sink. They are buying them with the expectation that the games will be as fun as the single-player games they HAVE played, just with, you know, other people.

[ori0nnebula]

It is somewhat ironic that we are making up 'laws' about MMOGs in a comment thread for an article 'debunking' a set of the very same.  I don't totaly disagree with HaemishM, but I don't agree with all his points either.  I just think it is funny.

The problem is that even purely consentual PVP where both parties are ready, informed, and willing is never going to be fair.  In an evenly matched fight the winner will be the person who is willing to exploit any advantage to its maximum potential.  Many fights are evenly matched so that the more powerful character, or more skilled player wins.  In UO PK's biggest advantage was suprise.  You would be focused on doing something, mining, hunting, talking, afk.  They appear out of no where and strike as quickly and lethally as possible.  If they couldn't kill you immediately they would recall/run away/dissapear.  Once they looted a corpse on they went and chances are you would never see them again (or at least for a long time).  Guildwars and Factions in UO (both consensual PVP in a mixed system) were a lot of fun but always resorted to gankfests.  It is really the same in most other games.  

Maybe someone can eventually come up with a better system, there is always low hanging fruit which developers can take advantage of to improve but radical improvement is always going to be exceedingly difficult.  

Siege Perilous was a PVP+ server which although it was always a niche was arguably the best experience UO ever offered.  

Just an aside, any game which allows players to pk other characters should NEVER allow multiple characters per account.  That was a huge problem with what little justice system UO had.

[Sky]

Well, that's because the most ruthless players always win. That's why in real sports they have rules of conduct that are followed, you can't kick the QB in the nuts and eye gouge him, for example, though you'd probably hurt the opponent's scoring percentages.

Too many players treat pvp as a 'war', but it's a 'sport'. Nobody is going to invade your homeland and rape your children, nobody is going to physically harm you, so the rules of war are not applicable.

It's a game, with lots of people being real dickheads about how they play, and not much respect for other folks being shown. That's a pretty major reason I don't like mmogs, the almost complete lack of respect many players exhibit, pvp or not. If you try to 'teach' them respect via pvp, well, then you'r playing their game and they win. Instead, I just shake my head slowly and move on to something else, where people can act like mature adults.

[kidder]

There are no -legal- eye gouges in football.  There are rules.  The PvP in these games needs to have rules in place that either prohibit the eye gouging or penalize you for doing the eye gouging.

I don't think that there shouldn't be *some areas of these games where there is a no-holds-barred ruleset where anything goes, but there should be areas with more structured rules for PvP.  Dungeons, or instanced areas...things like that.

[Roac]

Devs have TRIED over and over to put a "main plot" in an MMOG. One reason and one reason only that this doesn't succed.

THERE ARE TOO MANY FUCKING PLAYERS.

No, that's not why it didn't work.  It didn't work because devs don't know how to handle that many players, and haven't changed the model of storytelling to accomidate a change in the number of actors. You don't write a monologue for 50 people.

So what SHOULD they do?  Not expect players to... I hate to say it... have an impact.  People don't want to be a cog, but they are a cog in a MMOG, and that's not ever going to change.  If you want to be the ultrasuperhero, play a single player.  If you log into a server that has a pop count of over a thousand, meaning probably 20 thousand accounts (not to mention x5 for the number of characters), you aren't all that important.  That doesn't mean that players can't change the world, but it does mean that the player most likely cannot.  MMOGs have populations of small cities; how well known are you in your home town?  

To account for this, devs need to sit down and meditate on what a metaplot is, and how to use it.  They haven't yet, and as a result they're pretty fucking sorry storytellers.  That means recognizing that people will be far less in status than Pippen.  There are only a few Pippens - they will be the GLs of larger guilds.  Their most senior officer might count for one of the half head shots you see in the background on about ten or twenty frames of film.  And that's it; if you're telling stories, that's how it goes.  

At the same time, you don't tell them that they're not big boys.  People want status, and they can still have it, just not on a global scale.  They can find their status within their guild, and within the smaller group of allies/enemies they form, and in terms of personal goals they set for themselves.  From a dev pov, they need to think about what the metaplot is (which is largely out of player control), and the things that players might do within that plot - and design quests, areas, etc accordingly.  

Pick something simple, say some sort of Elf vs Orc dispute.  You have a mountain range with your standard Orc groups, and a nearby forest with some Elves, who are pissed off at each other.  You can look at the situation in two ways, both of which valid; there can be a singular triggering event, such as a megaquest that is omgwtfimpossible to do, and wait for it to finally get finished.  Or (and possibly and) you can have the conflict weighted by how each side is doing.  Each side will be "spawning" a certain number over time of forces.  They don't have to have a game artifact (mob) - it can be just a number in memory.  Each time an orc is killed, their value slides back a notch; each time an elf is killed, their number slides back as well.  If the number increases faster than people are killing them (say, they're off in other zones), then that side will "press forward".  Say the elves are being farmed by a nearby player city, and the orcs are largely ignored; the orcs will appear to push into elven territory.  Next server up, what were a couple of elven houses on the edge of the forest will be burned and overrun by orcs.  In the case of a triggering event, this back-and-forth will not begin until something occurs, such as a quest.

This is fairly simple, and could be expanded a great deal.  How quickly each side increases in number could be a result of other factors; there could be supply lines from other zones.  Players may not initially even realize what they are, other than a group of orcs, unless they paid attention to where they were going, or what they were carrying.  The more these groups are killed off, the less the orc outpost is reinforced.  Whatever quest system that exists could tie into this as well; missions to protect elf convoys, or assault orc convoys could show up on mission terminals/NPCs/whatever when the value on either side gets too high or too low.  

The final link in storytelling within the metaplot would be to have a way to record past events in a general sense - reputation, for both yourself and your guild/city.  Kill orcs, and elf rep goes up while orc rep goes down.  Have that affect mission types, but also your city's standing; if I run out and constantly kill elves, the elves should take a negative look on our city.  They are, afterall harboring a mass murderer.  If the game includes a resource system, the elves should be a resource - one that can be farmed (killed for loot), or protected.  Obviously, the two are in conflict, and farming them will spoil them as a potential trade partner.  

What you have is a game which includes storytelling as a programmable dynamic.  True, the storytelling is not nearly so personalized or impressive as being a member of the Fellowship, but at the same time, it isn't possible for you to be a member.  They included nine people out of a population of millions, and that's precisely why it was such a fantastic story.  By its nature, it is out of reach of MMOG players, and as a result the type of storytelling that occurs needs to change.

[Calandryll]

Pick something simple, say some sort of Elf vs Orc dispute.  You have a mountain range with your standard Orc groups, and a nearby forest with some Elves, who are pissed off at each other.  You can look at the situation in two ways, both of which valid; there can be a singular triggering event, such as a megaquest that is omgwtfimpossible to do, and wait for it to finally get finished.  Or (and possibly and) you can have the conflict weighted by how each side is doing.  Each side will be "spawning" a certain number over time of forces.  They don't have to have a game artifact (mob) - it can be just a number in memory.  Each time an orc is killed, their value slides back a notch; each time an elf is killed, their number slides back as well.  If the number increases faster than people are killing them (say, they're off in other zones), then that side will "press forward".  Say the elves are being farmed by a nearby player city, and the orcs are largely ignored; the orcs will appear to push into elven territory.  Next server up, what were a couple of elven houses on the edge of the forest will be burned and overrun by orcs.  In the case of a triggering event, this back-and-forth will not begin until something occurs, such as a quest.

Actually, this is exactly the kind of story telling we did with the scenarios in UO a few years back. In the Savage Empire scenario, the orcs and savages were fighting for control of certain areas of Britannia. The number of orcs or savages in the area depended on how many of these creatures the players killed. We even provided tools for players to take a side (orc masks and war paint). In the end, the side that was killed more often lost control of the area and the winning side became permanent residents. The main problem we had with this was while the scenario lasted nine weeks, the finale was over far too quickly. Something we solved in the next scenario.

The second scenario was even more complex, involving players looking for and disabling a series of magical constructs (which had a puzzle-like minigame) and finding the necessary components to build a magical structure that would help free an enslaved city. This scenario lasted six weeks with the finale lasting almost a week – giving just about everyone a chance to participate in some aspect of the “final battle”. Once the players’ succeeded, a quest opened up, allowing them to destroy the oppressor and the Gargoyle city changed from a monster infested dungeon to a real city with shops, banks, NPCs, etc.

The scenarios were designed with exactly what you are talking about…allow hundreds of players to participate in a meaningful way and clearly show the result of their actions.

The scenarios weren't perfect (they initially took too long to make) but they were a step in the direction you are talking about. They were also a great way to add new content to the game. It’s too bad the scenarios were stopped just as they started gaining popularity.

The main complaint we got from players about the scenarios though (aside from the delay in getting new ones out) was that they didn't feel "involved" enough. Fact is, players WANT to be the main hero. We can tell them that MMOGs don't support that, but it won't change the fact that they want it.

[Raph]

" My experience is exactly the opposite. They will band together, be
better at the game than anyone else, and rack up WAY more kills
than deaths. WAY WAY more. They will, after all, be the best players
in the game (playerkillers tend to be). " --Raph Koster,
From the developers digest, on a discussion on perm death.

I don't know, sounds to me like he likes them.

An assessment of ability is not an endorsement. :P If anything, this speaks to how corrupting power can be (expert players deciding they can lord it over everyone), how humiliating loss can be (inexpert players getting out of the competition), and how a marginal advantage can result in very long winning streaks. It has nothing at all to do with whether I like the PKers or not.

For the record (again), I don't.