Wandering guards for the criminals

Oh yeah, and then there are the RP-PvPers, which I try to adhere to. If all the PvPing could be done within the extent of RP, then we should be good! (Good as in great, or well done or acceptable or... ah, you get the idea.)

 

Yeah i guess but i sure hope that such a feature dont remove the funny PK chases im looking forward too.

 

I think if guards can't teleport, and are kept in cities, and allow for clever criminals to circumvent or outmanuver them while still making it challenging for a criminal to move around in a city then we will still have funny PK chases... and even funny scenes watching the NPC guards chase PK's around a city trying to ditch them.. or escape far enough away where the guards will stop following... or being chased with PC PvPers joining in to help the guards.

 

Sincerely, what I would prefer is for the Virtues system, perhaps also with a renown system, to be used to determine which human NPCs attack each player.

As a very simple example, with both NPC bandits and bounty hunters roaming the countryside, the bandits might attack good players and the bounty hunters might attack the evil players. This can be made more complex, of course; for example, specific bandit groups might have a different reaction (and, specifically, hunt any player that has in turn attacked them in the past, regardless of his virtues), bounty hunters might be hired by evil groups to hunt good players, there might be some kind of corsair (a pirate "hired" by one government to attack subjects of another country), etc.

In other words, I want NPCs that provide depth to the scenario and add some challenge for both good and evil players. And, if NPCs work like that, I sincerely don't want to see them restricted to only cities. Guards patrolling supposedly safe places and roads, mercenary NPCs going after their targets, bandits roaming the unsafe places, etc, would make for a more interesting game IMHO.

 

There's this dude named Tracy Hickman. I'm not sure if you've ever heard of him.




He's involved with this game.

Fixed.



Instakill guards are lame. There should be interaction. It should have flavor.

 

How did we get to the assumption that guards would be teleporting insta killing invincible supermen? Last I read the proposal was that there would be guards. I was thinking just a mob with variable aggro based on PvP activity. The guards wouldn't necessarily even be very challenging, but if you were trying to PK me near a town, and I retreated past two guards, that aggro'd on you, then the three on one odds would make it much more likely that I would win, IF you just mindlessly pressed your attack. That's a VERY specific cirumstance, it wouldn't do anything to change dueling or open world PvP.

 

Never read his books. is he any good?

huh?

 

Good enough to get into the New York Times best seller books list, multiple times, with books that serve as the back history of RPG scenarios is good enough for you?

Not to mention that the Dragon Lance scenario, which he has created together with Margaret Weis, is often regarded as the single best AD&D/D&D scenario by players that prefer a less fantastic, more down to earth approach.

 

We're pretty sure there will be guards in towns, but we don't know what form they will take. In UO, Lord British had the teleporting insta-kill guards, because he REALLY wanted to make sure crime was punished severely in town, and for murderers, it was very effective. For thieves, not so much, since the naked town thieves were ubiquitous. A murderer needed gear to kill someone, but thieves didn't need anything. So there is a trade off. Do you want towns to be absolutely safe, which we have been assured they will be? If so, then then you probably need to go with teleporting guards and one shot kills. Each step you back off from that standard reduces town safety.

The OP goes far beyond the simple town guards, however, and proposes instead terminator guards that roam the countryside, tracking criminals no matter where they go. That, I think, is excessive.

 

I for one wish to have instakilling guards. Instakill guards were the only thing from allowing me to wreck havoc on all of Britannia in UO, the players were sure no match for my macro micro. If I had the full run of town and access to all the NPC perks within, it would have been too easy and I may have lost interest.

The simple fact of me being banned from towns made me work that much harder to punish the people leaving them

 

Yes. You're missing out.

Go check my quoted part from you again?

also: Dang, that dragonlance picture stopped appearing.

 

The picture still shows up for me.

 

True, and I agree that just like UO there will be 'some' consequences of 'criminal' behavior and that is fine. Few if any of the true pvp'ers have offered that they want the game to have zero consequences, they just have offered that there should be a place in this game for them to enjoy their playstyle as well, and thankfully Richard agrees.

Well, the market is littered with games that have no PvP in them, and while a pve'er may 'never ever ever see' a primarily pvp player, they certainly do notice the lagging subscription numbers, the lack of money for quality development, etc. What you would end up with is just another flashy game that lacks inclusion of the broad spectrum of gamers and while competing with so many other titles, can't support itself for long on it's narrow customer base once everyone gets over the 'wow' factor.

Fortunately Richard can see the bigger picture and has'made it clear' that this game will indeed cater to pvp'ers and pve'ers and that's great for the game's longevity. The only people who are complaining about sharing this game are the pve crowd, some of who have been 'very' hateful, narrowminded, and discriminatory. So if you want a game that does not have 'annoying jerks' in it, even if you 'never ever ever' see them, then this might not be the game for you.

 

I'd much rather see players hire other players to accomplish player accountability. They're more of a challenge, they're better for RP reasons, and they give PVP focused players something productive to do.

I can still see reasons why NPC's would be used as well. But I can't see why other players wouldn't be use, there are far too many advantages than their are disadvantages, imo.

 

But, it is. Single Player!



The PVP crowd has had their fair share of strange arguments and viewpoints as well, including things that boil down to "I want realism and risk vs. reward as long as it doesn't penalize me!"

 

Because not everything that requires doing is fun?

You can easily have NPCs doing boring patrols 24/7/365 and making the city feels like it's properly policed. Good luck trying to convince enough players to patrol the "safe" cities to have even a thin illusion of half proper policing.

 

Actually most of the pvp crowd has had to fight just for the right to be included in this game in the eyes of other players. The 'strange' arguments have mostly been used to illustrate how discriminatory a lot of the pve'ers have been. We want risk vs reward yes, never said there should be 'no penalties' , what we have been arguing is that the 'penalties' should be fair and not just tactics implemented to make the rogue play style unplayable. A whole lot of the pve'ers argument has been to exclude the pvp'ers completely, or to make the game punish them at every turn. If that is the way it is going to be (which it isn't) then why even have pvp in the game at all?

Pve'ers have the option to pve without ever having to pvp if they want to, so which side is being unreasonable here?

 

Alot of the suggested "penalties" are pretty reasonable but get misinterpretted and blown out of proportion because they're seen as harsh punishments / deterrents as opposed to "it comes with the territory".

 

A lot of the suggested 'penalties' are pretty unreasonable too. Banned from your bank, or house, Killer NPC Guards hunting you, banned from towns, character killed and deleted, and on and on.
The whole point is . . . . constant attacks on rogues, when no one has to play with them if they don't want too. I don't see 'penalties' for any other character types. In UO there were penalties for being a criminal and that was fine, what is different here is the fact that we will only have one character per account (supposedly), so when you set out to destroy that play style in the game because 'you' don't want it in the game, 'even though' you don't have to be exposed to it, that pretty much excludes those gamers from the game. If that's the route that you want this game to go, then you are not very inclusive of the gaming community. Every player in the game will have the option to 'opt out' of pvp, but that isn't good enough for the pve'ers, they don't want to share. But like I said before, that says a whole lot more about them than it does about me.

 

This one is unreasonable because like I said, it was misunderstood and blown out of proportion. There's a difference between having Terminator Guards as one person put it, and having guards that periodically try to apprehend you based off your crimes, and will most likely not succeed unless you have really bad luck, aren't paying attention, or really bad timing.

It's like, a flavorful monster random encounter that only criminals get to have, and it MAY come at a poor time for you (when you're in the middle of robbing someone).



It was MY suggestion in the first place, and I still think it's a neat one. Especially considering I've played reds/criminals in UO before. I was in PVP guilds that were both RP and non RP. Who's to say I wouldn't be a criminal that gets to deal with it to? It wouldn't bother me.