| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
| Should players be in charge of making each other answerable for their actions in MMORPGs? |
| Yes |
|
50% |
[ 5 ] |
| No |
|
50% |
[ 5 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 10 |
vaticide
Put food in here
Joined: 21 Feb 2002
Posts: 1122
Location: One step behind a toddler bent on destruction. |
For some reason this strikes me as akin to letting the greiving family punish a murderer. I think an impartial person is liable to make a much more fair sentence.
Every MMORPG I have played so far has a system to petition to complain about people who are exploiting or greifing to the 'powers-that-be' (GM or other authority figure). With these professional arbitrators available I don't see the need to have players be able to dole out punishments, lest we have players needing punishment for punishing wrongly. (Gee, I had hoped to fit the word punish in that sentence more than 3 times... drat) Note also that some games appoint players to a status that can deal with some of these issues, such as EQ with counselors and UO with seers (IIRC). These players could act as mini-GMs to help mediate minor problems.
Here is why I sought clarification earlier: your example of someone killing another person 20 levels lower than them. Is this greifing or exploitation? Probably neither. This is more like plain PvP done by some sort of bully rather than a honorable killer (oxymoron?). This kind of thing can already be taken care of in a PvP system by the method I mentioned before of some sort of self-appointed player taskforce.
Lets say this person not only killed the lower level player, but followed him to his respawn point (shrine, whatever) and killed him every time he showed up again. At this point it has become greifing and needs to be dealt with- by a game official, not by the troubled player or any other normal players.
-vaticide |
Tue Sep 23, 2003 7:58 pm |
|
|
hollaholla
Guards Lieutenant
Joined: 19 Aug 2003
Posts: 161
Location: at my computer desk!~ |
I posted yes..and totally agree with what someone else said..that i don't know how much a player can actually be held accountable for that...although i do think it should be in every effort for them to put forwards an attempt to do so. that said, there obviously needs to be additional efforts maintained in the game through other non player capabilites.
_________________
**I just chose a new avatar because I just saw the characters for the new Final Fantasy and got ....excited!!! |
|
Tue Sep 23, 2003 8:55 pm |
|
|
Ekim
Eagle's Shadow
Joined: 27 May 2002
Posts: 2365
Location: Montreal, Canada |
quote:
Originally posted by vaticide
Here is why I sought clarification earlier: your example of someone killing another person 20 levels lower than them. Is this greifing or exploitation? Probably neither. This is more like plain PvP done by some sort of bully rather than a honorable killer (oxymoron?). This kind of thing can already be taken care of in a PvP system by the method I mentioned before of some sort of self-appointed player taskforce.
My question is just that: a question  I didn't want to imply any kind of validity to either answer (yes or no), my goal here is simply to see the statistical data, and hear what others think before starting to write about it. And my question was purposely open for debate. I know that my example was very questionable, because it could be griefing, yet it could also be normal PvP... But still many people out there would ask to be able to take action without worrying about weighing the validity of griefing.
See, it's my experience that a lot of people WITHIN an MMORPG game will probably say that they are for such a feature, without thinking of all the consequences that it might have (as you guys are clearly doing for the most part). How many times have you been witness to an in-game situation where one player mentioned that if only he could put the other guy on some black list he would make him regret the day he ever step foot in the game...
Also, I'm kinda looking into the various systems that are supposedly trying to address this. Dragon Empire, for instance, will have such a system where an enemy of the city might be hunted down by the "policing" class, or even dragons... (I may be a little off track here since I'm going from memory, but I remember DE having a similar system as the one I described). Is that such a good idea? How will the system be implemented so that it doesn't encourage griefing?
Or look right now at SWG. SWG was suppoed to have player bounties for Bounty hunters from the start. Not only did this feature not make it to release, but it's not even mentioned anymore, as if the developers want the players to forget about it. Is it so hard to believe that they have a real hard time finding ways to implement this without affecting players that don't want to participate in PvP?... It's a very hard act to juggle. Yet a feature like this is among the most sought-after, not only in SWG, but in most games that have a PvP system.
Anyway, I'm just in the thinking process right now, but I just wanted to see how this community (which in general is much MUCH MUCH more mature than what you typically find inside any MMORPG I have ever been given to play in) thinks about the possibility of players handling their own...
_________________
=Proud Father of a new gamer GIRL!=
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Worshiper of the Written Word= |
|
Tue Sep 23, 2003 8:56 pm |
|
|
Ammon777
Warrior for Heaven
Joined: 20 Apr 2002
Posts: 2011
Location: United States |
Close, Ekim, but i think i will explain that system so you know whats up. In DE (Dragon Empires) you have enemies of your kingdom as Outlaws, and the people who are friends of your kingdom as Bountyhunters who hunt the Outlaws -- thats the core of the game design. You also have the Traders who transport stuff between cities and who are open to attack (and vice versa) by Outlaws. And then you have the people belonging to a Clan (town) defending it at a predetermined time against another Clan. You also have the Default people who are NOT open to any form of PvP. All of these Roles in DE constitute core gameplay features. Its not gonna be like SWG where half the stuff isnt in the game, because DE is a more focused game that isnt trying to be the SWG that is trying to please everyone at the same time. Anyway, the player can switch between any of those roles at any time within the confines of waiting a time period. My character Ammon could be a Bountyhunter near my Clan's town, guarding the border, and at the same i could cross the border and be an Outlaw in the neighboring kingdom. That system has good mechanisms and that is what i am talking about when i say that player-justice should be confined by gameplay mechanisms that are not determined by players, but by the impartial designers. DE is a perfect example of what i am meaning to convey. The system is made to accomodate player-justice, but at the same time it severely funnels its activities into interactive Roles. Anybody can track down anybody else, but they cant touch them (affect their gameplay) unless they are in a corresponding predetermined Role in the first place. Bountyhunters against Outlaws. Traders against Outlaws. Clan against Clan. Neutrals remain unmolested. Like a BF1942 session, its based on total consent between players. |
|
Wed Sep 24, 2003 1:36 am |
|
|
MoonDragon
High Emperor
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 1254
Location: Waterloo, Canada |
I think this question runs much deeper than it seems at first. It is a question of morality and conformance in a society.
Let me ask you this, if you know of a 'loophole' in the tax law, do you take advantage of it and end up not paying any taxes, or do you pay anyway like a good boy that you should be?
I think that is what it ultimately comes down to with the games. The underlying problem is not players that want to get ahead, but rather the approach of keeping the playing field 'fair.' Game developers put in rules upon rules upon rules of what is allowed and what is not. Think of that as tax laws. Then, when someone finds a 'loophole' in those rules... well, that is the question. If they use the loophole and get ahead, should they be punished or not? The problem with this is the premise of rules. Because people are explicitly told what they are not allowed to do, they believe that if there is no explicit rule for something, than that means they are allowed to do it.
The only game I know that actually does not (or at least did not back in the early days) explicitly (or implicitly in general) forbid players from doing stuff they shouldn't is ATITD. In fact, that game is in a nutshell an experiment on what happens when you don't forbid people to do things, but leave it to players to govern themselves.
Then the question becomes, what would happen if you could kill people in a game like ATITD? I don't honestly have an answer to that. The problem is, how do you punish someone playing a computer game? You cannot flog them. You cannot imprison them. You cannot really do much of anything to them. In other words, any psychopath can go on a rampage of abandoned self gratification without much concern for the consequences.
Perhaps in the future, there will be games that will have financial ramifications for their players. I.e. if a person is griefed, then some in-game court can actually punish the griefer by subtracting real money from their credit card and giving it to the victim. Unfortunately that has too many legal implications and strings attached that nobody will touch it with a 10' pole for a long time.
_________________
(@) |
|
Wed Sep 24, 2003 2:22 am |
|
|
Kiff
Protector of the Realm
Joined: 27 Oct 2002
Posts: 257
Location: Indiana |
quote:
Originally posted by Ekim
Or look right now at SWG. SWG was suppoed to have player bounties for Bounty hunters from the start. Not only did this feature not make it to release, but it's not even mentioned anymore, as if the developers want the players to forget about it. Is it so hard to believe that they have a real hard time finding ways to implement this without affecting players that don't want to participate in PvP?... It's a very hard act to juggle. Yet a feature like this is among the most sought-after, not only in SWG, but in most games that have a PvP system.
I didn't know that was even supposed to happen. I do remember UO had a bounty system in it though. I don't know, however, if it ever really did any good? I saw names on the boards for a few million gold peices, but then I heard the people they played with, or even themselves collected those bounties by having two accounts. There are just too many ways for ppl to get around the rules that it is almost too much work for a developer to look at, thats why alot of games don't have open PvP systems, which is a shame. It would be nice if we could flog the perps, like MoonDragon, states but that ain't gonna happen. Punishment and policing...tough subject. |
|
Thu Sep 25, 2003 1:10 pm |
|
|
MoonDragon
High Emperor
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 1254
Location: Waterloo, Canada |
Eekim, I don't know if you're aware of it, but EVE has player bounties implemented. You can put a bounty on anybody you want, any time, any place. EVE is also unlimited PvP, but has a reputation system and has super strong NPCs patroling the inner (safer) systems.
Personally, I think that ToA guys are onto something though. With perma death, but only on Xth in-game death, people are not too harmed when griefed, but griefers can be stopped by a determined bounty hunter/police force. They also intend to have player settlements and intend to have NPC guards that can be given instructions, like who is not allowed in town, who's KoS, etc.
_________________
(@) |
|
Thu Sep 25, 2003 2:59 pm |
|
|
Ekim
Eagle's Shadow
Joined: 27 May 2002
Posts: 2365
Location: Montreal, Canada |
quote:
Originally posted by MoonDragon
Eekim, I don't know if you're aware of it, but EVE has player bounties implemented. You can put a bounty on anybody you want, any time, any place. EVE is also unlimited PvP, but has a reputation system and has super strong NPCs patroling the inner (safer) systems.
No, I wasn't aware of that, thanks for the heads up! I knew it was unlimited PvP, but the BH thing is new to me. Is it limited to a certain type of players, or is it open to anyone? You also seem to imply that any player can put a price on anyone else's head... Am I reading right? Is it still "in control", or has it all become a joke? Just curious 
_________________
=Proud Father of a new gamer GIRL!=
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Worshiper of the Written Word= |
|
Thu Sep 25, 2003 4:22 pm |
|
|
MoonDragon
High Emperor
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 1254
Location: Waterloo, Canada |
quote:
Originally posted by Ekim
Is it limited to a certain type of players, or is it open to anyone? You also seem to imply that any player can put a price on anyone else's head... Am I reading right? Is it still "in control", or has it all become a joke?
My information is from the end of beta, so things could've changed. As far as I recall, as long as you know someone's name and have some cash, you can put a bounty on their head.
There were plenty of bounties out there back then, but as far as I know they were meaningless. Why you may ask? Well, because you would generally want to put a bounty against someone who is stronger than you (otherwise you'd kick their butt yourself). But, what generally makes you stronger, is the amount of cash you have. I.e. if you have a lot of cash, you can afford a big ship with bad mofo weapons. Also, to upkeep such a ship requires a lot of cash as well. Now, if you did have a bad mofo ship with bad mofo weapons, some of which cost 20k just to fire once, do you think you'd be taking bounties posted by newbies on griefers' heads? Especially since thouse bounties pay like 10k? That wouldn't even cover the cost of a single missle of yours, let alone pay for the repairs on your banged up ship, once you're done with this griefer. After all, griefers dont' fly around in newbie ships. Yet, 10k is a HUGE chunk of cash for a newbie. So basically, the whole bounty system is somewhat useless, except as a role playing device. And even then it fails to a large degree. Anybody who would generally want to put a bounty on someone's head cannot possibly afford such a bounty and anybody who could cash in on the bounty would find their time better spent on something else.
_________________
(@) |
|
Fri Sep 26, 2003 7:00 am |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2
All times are GMT. The time now is Mon Apr 08, 2019 9:39 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
