Steinhauer's Opinion: The PvP Debate, Part 3

Jonathan Steinhauer's bi-weekly editorial series resumes with the third part in a three part look at player vs. player combat in MMOGs. This week, his article looks at the idea of a system he thinks can work.

For the whole series, first check out part one and part two.

The reputation system needs to be built on four parts: account treatment, its basic structure, player reaction, and NPC reaction. The first part is the simplest. Basically, reputation must be account based, not player character based. This will ensure that a heavy PKer can't hide by jumping to another more "innocent" character. Nor will he be able to use an "innocent" character to gain access to resources not available to his characters with diminished reputations. Some people argue that there should be only one character on an account and, while this would successful solve the same problem, there are many gamers (myself included) who enjoy playing more than one class, race, etc.

Read more after the leap.

Permalink

A few points I would address...

If your reputation is solely affected by PvP encounters, yet your reputation affects NPC encounters, that is an inbalance. As you say, the NPC's will have heard of your nefarious acts of heinous disregard for the law, yet for some reason they did not hear of the WHOLE VILLAGE YOU SAVED FROM A DRAGON in that quest... now THAT makes sense... ok.

Secondly, The idea of reputation is to hold players accountable for their actions in the world around them, not just the player interaction aspect of it. If this is to be measured, perhaps it should be on a racial reputation level that you should see their 'colored' name. For instance, if I were race a, and you were race b, and I have killed alot of race b, then you may have heard of my by name. However, just because some NPC in some po-dunk lil mine that I wailed on one day, with no survivers to speak about it says I killed him, now you think you have heard of dread lord xsnakex (or whatever person X's name may be) so you can kill me? ok.... sure. hope your carebearing antiPK rep goes WAY up on that one... real fair.

The reason there is no balance in these systems is that no system is impervious to the players' ingenuity. I bring to mind the 'flavor of the week' template concept. Every time the slightest thing changes, somebody will find a way to exploit it, and somebody else will complain because they are the victim of it.

BOTTOM LINE:

You want a way to put reputation into a game realistically?
A PLAYER REPUTATION SYSTEM WHEREBY PLAYERS CAN GUAGE THEIR ASSAILANTS INTENTIONS WITHOUT EVER HAVING SEEN THAT PLAYER BEFORE IS A LIMITATION OF PLAYER INTERACTION.

Simply put, player reputation should be based on word of mouth from player to player if it is to be PvP based (because that is based on PLAYER CHOICES). If it is to be world based, then quests MUST affect it.

In the system you describe, the AntiPKs rule the world, with no cost for repairs or materials compared to the PKs, and free reign to do as they like, and with reputation affecting guilds based on PVP alone, the PK will die out, and guilds made early on to destroy any PK effort, before the PKs figure it out, will get a massive rep bonus. These guilds would later grow to massive AntiPK swarms, dithering out into massive guilds who are antiPK in name and rep only, but have fantastic NPC reputation cost bonus. In other words, the PK becomes a thing of the past because of massive roving bands of antis looking for cheaper vendor prices. There is only one fix to this situation, a reputation patch that changes how rep works. In short, you are saying to build a broken system for antiPKs to farm that later has to be revamped.

Heres an exploit concept for what you just proposed. off the top of my head.

Guilds have 2 players go and PK alot at a less known area, ruining 2 guild members rep, take those 2 people to town, kick them from guild, and farm rep off of them by repeatedly killing them. Rinse and repeat. The whole guild gains massive amounts of rep. Way to think my way thru that in 5 mins.

HOWEVER

All that being said, I do agree that if there are multiple characters, they should share one reputation, just as a family name gets a reputation. And if there must be a reputation system of some sort, as Im sure there must by most players standards, perhaps a 'family name' should be instituted at the creation of your first character (as is seen most recently by Tabula Rasa, thank you Richard Garriott/Lord Brittish).

In conclusion, my point is this:
If there is a system that limits player interaction, it will either be too strict, or it will be exploited. If there is none, it will be complained about by carebears. So as I implied in my reply to Part #1, there is no happy medium for the different viewpoints. The rules are there before you roll a toon, deal with them, or don't.

~Manaburn

I'm waiting to see how the PvE aspect of Darkfall will affect reputation. It is logical to conclude that quest completion will add something to reputation with a certain faction to raise your alignment with that faction (or lower it with another).
Now if there is a dynamic quest-generating system within DF- say an infestation of goblins is terrorizing a nearby friendly village, a quest is generated that assigns you to drive off those goblins- that could provide an infinite pool of potential reputation gains to counter any reputation losses due to PvP.
If Aventurine could balance this I don't see it as a problem having PvP affect your reputation with NPCs, provided there are 'hooks' to allow you to raise that lost reputation somehow once all PvE content has been completed.

I don't mind if anti-PKs have a place to hide and regroup but there should be no expectation PvE-only types can acquire the high-end gear or whatever. I don't mind giving new players and other protected classes support and perhaps something to do in the PvP- parts of the world but there should be reasons for every player to often venture into the PvP+ part of the lands knowing full well the risks but also the vast rewards. I say give the goodies nice (non-combat) bonuses in fact for risking their items in PvP land.

The point of the PvP vs PvE debate is long tired and boring for one simple reason: No MMORPG developer since Ultima Online has attempted to play to both demographics in one game. Why? Well PvE is a cash cow; PvEers, once hooked, will walk the treadmill until they burn out. PvPers are more fickle and possible less numerous. A modern creative team will find success encompassing both PvP+ and PvP- demographics, especially since WoW has long decimated the PvE market. However, WoW is a good thing in my opinion for the PvP world. First time mmorpg players, now level 70 experts, who have never played a true PvP-enabled game may soon be looking to turn the AI skill setting up a notch. It doesn't get any higher than human vs human.

Let's take this back to square one and try looking at it from another angle. What PK options are out there now? 1) Non-persistent, mission based combat games; 2) RvR MMOs which limit PvP to only against other realms; 3) Universal MMOs like old UO and AC's Darktide that turn the server into a slaughterfest. Essentially, the only one of these systems which even allows for a "PK" and "Anti" distinction is the third. In response to my first article, Manaburn said, "The moment you add a non PvP realm, is the moment the PvP realm will have no victims for the PKs, and the PKs will get bored and leave."
Exactly! You end up with a dead game. PKers drive away the Antis, then descend to chaos themselves, get bored, and quit. The question, therefore becomes how do you get the 'victims,' (Antis) to stick around? For starters, no one likes being prey. It's not any fun. If it's no fun, they'll find a game that is. In order for Antis to stay playing a game, they have to have a means by which to combat the PKers so they don't feel like prey.
Now let's step back again and look at what a persistent world MMO fundamentally has that no other game does: society. Society being the interaction of players in a world that doesn't cease when they log off. A society will have its heroes, its villains, its political and social structures, and so on. But fundamentally, in order for a society to exist, it must have stability and order. But a game that is ruled by PKs is inherently unstable. There is no law and order, society breaks down and Antis go find carebear servers where they can play.
In order to provide a game that will give PKers the pool of Anti victims they need to 'sustain their lifestyle', you must have a game that gives the Antis sufficient recourses against PKers for them to stick around. To achieve that, the balance of power MUST be pro-Anti. Antis are the foundation of any non-artificially created (ie. RvR) MMO society. I cite both Darktide and early UO as proofs that PKs are incapable of forming a society larger than what sociologists would probably refer to as "tribal" in a universal PvP game.
PKing in a persistent world MMO should be a challenge, both in the hunt itself and in what happens after. Those PKers who don't want repercussions would be better off playing more limited games such as the non-persistent combat games and the limited RvRs mentioned above. But if you are looking for the classic (and realistic) PK v. Anti challenge, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

To speak in more specific terms. As I admitted above, this is an incomplete recommendation. It is a skeleton form of what would be a much more complex design and is suggested in the absence of a particular game world or game mechanics system. I'd be surprised if you didn't find loopholes! It's not even in a game design phase, let alone through alpha or beta testing.
Here are two solutions to some of the loopholes mentioned. 1) When a guild allows someone of low reputation to join and then expels them, the guild's rating recovers partially, but not up to the level it was before. The guild "sullied" itself and that part isn't recovered. It's not a zero sum game. 2) It would be logical to institute a concept of diminished returns, whereby an Anti who repeatedly killed the same PKer would get less and less of a rating shift for each subsequent instance.
The reason PvP rankings should only be based on PvP actions is to avoid another type of work-around. If a PKer running quests and killing monsters could dramatically enhance his PvP rating that would leave him invulnerable to repercussion and break the whole system. A game which had highly limited non-PvP actions might be acceptable, but they would have to be excessively difficult and time consuming such as hunting and killing 500 orcs or whatnot. The analogy about the village and the dragon is inaccurate. A warrior who saved a village from a dragon and then came back and slaughtered 12 villagers out of hand would not be considered a hero. He merely replaced one kind of tyrant (the dragon) with another (himself).
The degree of access PKers would have to NPC markets based on their reputation is definitely open to debate and I wouldn't suggest it should be anything extreme. But it does allow for an interesting black market, and PKers would have their own exclusive access in bandit camps aligned with their more "chaotic" personalities.
Concerning word-of-mouth. This might have been a realistic concept in a medieval era village where each peasant knew a total of 200 other people their entire lives. But in an MMO we are dealing with thousands upon thousands of players and word-of-mouth is completely insufficient in keeping up with that sheer volume of gamers. I would suggest looking at the PvP rating tag system another way. Consider it a variant on heraldry. In the Middle Ages, a knight was known by his coat of arms. Those who followed such things (the knightly class) would be able to recognize someone by reputation based purely by their heraldry. A PvP rating tag, while less cool looking than a coat of arms, essentially serves the same purpose. I walk into town, look at another other player's heraldry, and instantly know if they are an Anti, a Neutral, or a PK and to what degree, much like two knights encountering each other in a town would know each other by reputation.
I agree for the most part with Stretchwc's conclusion. A good universal PK system is possible, but the economics of online game design encourages companies to stick with their predominantly carebear methodologies with only a minor hat-tip to the PKer through such limited PvP concepts as PK-lite, PK zones, etc. The odds of a major change to this are low, but we may get there gradually.

Finally, now we are getting somewhere in a legitimate world concept.

I am posing these issues mainly as a devils advocate, I am not much for flaming, let alone frums, but this is an issue with which I have invested coutless hours of thought, as I am a game dev in training (future hopeful of digipen). In ultima online, to work off murder counts players had to spend 40 hours online to get rid of one kill count. At 5 counts, you wnet red (I remember the exact moment I went red, and will never forget it). Getting rid of your bad reputation should absolutely take more time than getting it.

Your mention of the dragon vs the bandit is a valid arguement, but I pose this before you. Howm many dragon slayers are there, compared to how many bandits there are. For this, you must assume 2 things, firstly, are the 2 infact the same person? for instance, was louis Armstrong the same man as King louis III? peasants are likely to seperate the rumors as having different sources. The dragonslayer is a rare thing, and the deeds will spread MUCH further, than yet another local villain slaying a few adventurers, unless of course, those adventurers have themselves got a great reputation. I pose that the reputation loss should be relative to the victims reputation. If this person is of little reputation, who is going to care?

Your point on heraldry is relevent absolutely, I would agree in those situations that you should know somebody by their mark. However, that being said, a hedgeknight from the east coast is hardly going to have heard of a hedgeknight from the west coast. So perhaps only the extremes of reputation should be visable to them. Perhaps somebody who has killed more than 10 blues (NPC OR PLAYER) should be known as a murderer, then again, perhaps being known should be a set number thing, only the top 500 PK killcounts in the game get to be Known by reputation (Red name, and kills go away over time as people forget). I pose, a kill count stays on you for a month, as a counter, and no matter what, it goes away after a month. Those PK with a rep, would thereby have to continue their villainous activities to be known, and it would take a RL month to clean your name up. and the same goes with positive rep, but at a slower degree of 2 months.

You bring up an interesting counterpoint about keeping carebears around, by giving them the advantage. I do agree to some advantage, but not a major one that almost guarantees it to be foolish to be a PK. For instance, Being a PK, your victims dont always drop gold, they are harder to kill, and are likely to kill you as you cannot guage them by their species. So making money is actually EASIER for an anti, hitting PKs in the wallet is the most unfair way of handluing PKs. This almost guarantees a necessity of a good reputation alt to farm money to pay for materials and repairs. I suggest if there is going to be an alignment setup like having bandit camps and rogues dens, hard to aquire items be available there, and not anywhere else. These items could be of exhorbitant rates, but upping NPC costs in the darker circles is just cruel.

So basically, what we all need, is a game that is pro-anti (but not too much) persistent world, w/o player interaction limitations (players can attack when and where they deem fit), with a reputation system based on a balance of PvP AND PvE with diminishing returns for PvP. We need enough of a treadmill for blues to run, and enough reward in PK to make sure not everybody stays blue, and we need enough dynamic content to keep up with a demand relative to players needs (If I have to grind one more god damned primal Im gonna kill somebody).