[MUD-Dev] A Question on PvP and PK

[Paul Schwanz]

From:  Ron Gabbard <rgabbard at swbell.net>
> From: "Eli Stevens"
>> Ron Gabbard wrote:

>>> Why is it that 5% of the EQ players (slightly more for AC) want
>>> to participate in PvP combat while 95% of the DAoC players want
>>> to participate in PvP combat when the games are pretty similar
>>> with similar customer bases?

>> Your question is somewhat loaded however, because of the
>> implication that the two PK systems are the same.

> Of course it's somewhat loaded, there are a bazillion 'right'
> answers to this question but each answer will be framed by each
> individual's personal experience.  System design is probably 95%
> of the answer... but what is it about the systems?

> Would the number of people involved in PvP in EQ and AC be
> different if PvP+ was the default and players had to convert to
> PvP-?

Of the bazillion right answers, I think I tend to agree with Eli's
suggestion that it is basically about control or being able to
manage risk.  I think that this is probably a bigger part of the
discrepency than is the default PvP setting, although I don't doubt
that the default setting also has a large effect on the culture of
the game.  I think that Eli asked a very good question toward the
end of his post, and I thought I might as well give my own ideas
regarding player control and PvP here.

DAoC uses the concept of territory to help players manage PvP risk.
Your level of safety is very dependant upon your location.  In DAoC,
this is a binary thing.  On one side of a hard-coded, immutable
border, you are completely invulnerable, while on the other side,
you are not.  As for the level of danger once you are in the combat
zone, I didn't stick with DAoC long enough to find out how this
works.  Are there differences in the level of danger inside the zone
or are you pretty much in just as much danger in one spot as
another?  My impression was that the latter was a more accurate
description, but I don't know.

I can imagine other possible implementations that are a bit more
dynamic but which still allow the player to manage risks based on
territory or location.  Safety might be made dependant upon the
ability to exert control over an area based on military forces or
facilities in that area instead of being dependant upon hard-coded
boundaries.  I believe that the amount of risk could be made more
continuous instead of being discrete as it is in DAoC.  Also, safety
that is dependant upon community actions to some extent (such as the
building, defending, etc. of military installations) brings an
interesting incentive to gameplay that a hard-coded boundary does
not.

The other thing that I think would help tremendously in managing
risks would be a distinction between combatants and non-combatants
in a war.  The guy who opens a little mercantile in town may indeed
be interested in the pastoral theme or in becoming an entrepreneur,
as Damion suggested in another thread.  In some ways, he is playing
an entirely different game than the one being played by the militia
stationed in the same town.  When he thinks about PvP competition
and conflict, he may think about undercutting a competitor's prices
and driving him out of town, but the idea of doing physical harm to
another character just doesn't appeal to him.  By choosing a
non-combatant profession, his risks of getting killed should go way
down, in my opinion.  When another town declares war on this one,
the battles should be between militias, since by choosing that
profession, the players have declared themselves as being interested
in that sort of gameplay.

When you look at real life and the rules that the international
community has put into place to help determine what forms of
military intervention are legitimate and which are crimes against
the international community, I think you can find things that help
determine the same for an MMORPG.  Soldiers wear uniforms that
identify them as soldiers as well as identifying to which side of
the conflict they are allied.  This uniform basically serves as a
type of protection when performing their soldierly duties in that,
when captured, they are treated as prisoners of war instead of as
murderers, spies, traitors, partisans, etc.  This all serves to help
determine who is a combatant and who is not.  Non-combatants (in the
'perfect' war anyway, and I really am trying to stay away from a
political discussion on this) are not valid military targets.  If
they are not wearing a uniform and you kill them, then you've
committed a war crime.  If you are not wearing a uniform and you
kill someone, then you are acting as a spy, traitor, or murderer and
not as a soldier.

So, basically, in an MMORPG, I think that professional militia
should be easily identified as such and will always be considered
combatants.  Additionally, before a battle, perhaps even the
merchant will decide to take up arms to defend his home town.  If
so, then he must also be easily identified as a combatant for the
duration of the battle.  If the merchant remains a non-combatant but
is providing some sort of support for the battle, then there needs
to be non-lethal methods available to the enemy to intervene and
restrain the support.  The same would need to hold true for the
healer, else the healer would need to be considered a combatant
before being allowed to heal any combatant.

I think I'm starting to ramble a bit, so I'll shut up for now.
Basically, I think that the concepts of territory and location;
profession and combatant status; as well as some sort of justice
system that punishes or prevents war crimes can all work together
toward a more manageable PvP environment.

--Phinehas

_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev