Supported other than Death that is.
One thing irritates me more than anything in game development, and in my opinion breaks "Worlds" is artificial barriers put in place by the developers to stop/limit griefing. Specifically for this post I'm talking about making it imposable to attack an NPC. I literally hate this worse then I hate the griefing. It's So immersion breaking, So taking the "world" out of the game. So phony. Even your own Trainer, if you choose to smack him one then you should be able (though unadvised)
People killing quest givers, merchants, trainers ect. is a problem, agreed,
A good example is the EQ Wizard epic1 quest mob Chalice, the only faction hit was True Spirit that's needed only by a few (Wizards and Shaman I believe) once the expansion dropped some of the big guilds on the server planted a Rogue there to kill her on her cycle, stopping anyone else from doing the turn in so they could block others from getting in the way of them doing the epics saving the more contested mobs for themselves.
The easy way to "solve" this problem is of course make it so she couldn't be attacked.
Every NPC in a game is a Record in a Database, this Record has an Experience Field, This Experience field has a value, be it Zero, a hard value, a percentage, or a formula. that the the player receives if it kills the NPC.
We have all seen negative faction when killing a NPC, I have never seen Negative Experience outside of Death. Why couldn't a negative Experience value be supported to help reduce Griefing by killing needed NPC's? All quest givers, merchants, trainers would not GIVE experience but TAKE it, yes you can kill it but you may regret it.
And on another note, the usefulness of this would be negated if player wasn't able to loose levels, with de-leveling they could make killing one of these NPC's cost you half a level... 3-4 kills you wouldn't be able to kill it anymore and have some grinding to do. In the example I gave the rogue kept Chalice locked down for the entire Kunark expansion on a TLP server. I managed to get in and get it just by checking everytime I ran by, but only seconds before he killed here again.
Love to hear Kyle's thought's on this if the Experience Field would/could accept a negative value.
Counterfleche said: The history of gaming has taught that it is almost impossible to develop a consequence harsh enough to allow a negative mechanic that sufficiently deters griefers. Negative experience sounds like it would be used intentionally for respeccing a level or two.
I bet your right it would if respeccing is allowed by deleveling.
Zorkon said:Counterfleche said: The history of gaming has taught that it is almost impossible to develop a consequence harsh enough to allow a negative mechanic that sufficiently deters griefers. Negative experience sounds like it would be used intentionally for respeccing a level or two.I bet your right it would be, if respecing is allowed by deleveling.
Opps, quoted the wrong post
For the record I'm against respecing for any reason, decisions are supposed to matter.
I generally support realism in the game and I can't disagree with your basic premise that it is realistic, although perhaps unwise, to be able to attack NPCs.
But from a gameplay perspective it would be endlessly frustrating to be unable to get quests, cash in quests, train, buy things and the like because some griefers killed the needed NPCs. Especially since I couldn't quick travel to other places with the same amenities.
NPCs could be made attackable but so powerful that killing them would not realistically happen. This too - of course - would be highly unrealistic.
NPCs could respawn almost instantly. But a griefer could keep kiling them over and over making it difficult to do anything that took more than a few seconds.
Killing NPCs could be defined as griefing - something normally done to hurt other players rather than for any other reason. With suspensions for doing it intentionally leading to outright bans for repeated and obviously intentional griefing. I doubt if the GMs and customer service need this burden.
This story of a guild blocking access to the NPC, could fall under the behavior classification of gameplay criminal activity. Thus punishment.
If I was judging the accused guild i would fine them. Each and any members would have their gold taken and/or property.
But overall I agree that to make a game change to limit the available actions of all players is to limit the liberty of the individual members of the world. It's more work to punish the offending group or individual but the results are better on the long run.
First, personally, I don't think it immersion breaking to have non attackable npcs. So what?
If you make all npcs attackable then you cannot complain if someone decides to camp one. It doesn't matter if it stops other players or not. A camp is a camp and if you allow camps and all npcs are attackable, then you will see this type of behaviour. Whether it is fair game play or not. If you allow camps, you cannot ban a player for camping. If you allow an npc to be killed, you cannot ban someone from doing so, no matter how many times they do it.
I'm not saying this type of action is desirable and stopping others from getting a kill whatever the circumstances should not be the norm. However, if you allow a mob to be killed repeatedly, you can't complain if it is then camped. Npc or not. So there must be a mechanic that stops this in some manner. My personal take is that important npcs, once killed, cannot be seen by that character again.
I think that solution is immersive and realistic and doesn't penalise other players. If you choose to kill an npc then you need to accept it is a one time deal.
The default position for any NPC should be that it can be attacked. Granted, someone killling a quest NPC is a nuisance, but just give that particular NPC the combat prowess to insta-kill any attacker.
I like killing any and all NPCs I can find. I do stay away from quest NPCs and, for the most part, merchants, but I still want the option to do it if I so choose. This is especially true for any and all guards in/around the player cities.
If most every vendor and banker (excluding traveling and shady merchants) shared one base faction that represented their vocation/class, that could serve as a deterrent. Kill one too many vendors and suddenly none of them will trust you enough buy from or sell to you...and if they do, expect to be lowballed and price gouged. Perhaps the merchant/banker faction hit wouldn't be worldwide, but instead regional, applied to cities that are allied or at least not in direct conflict.
IMO:
Solved problem. If the game designers want critical/quest NPCs attackable, they're attackable. If they don't, they're not.
Personally, I would like to see the ability for XP to be a cost (in any/many/all/some loops) just like time, resources, and currencies are a cost, but that's just me.
I don't want quest NPC's to be locked down, but I also see what the OP is saying. I knew a troll that would hang out under a bridge and kill elven NPC guards for exp, and freak out the newbies. He was a Troll SK I was a good mage, he had a racial exp penalty, because we were good and evil grouping I had an exp penalty for that so it balanced- heh, this accidental, sandbox Roleplay opportunity I used any chance it came around.
The only compromise I can think of is: 1 char per life, bound to IP, or set number of chars per IP (for alt-oholics) each char can kill a quest NPC once. Once a particular quest NPC is killed, that char cannot kill it again. Killing a quest NPC comes with a ridiculous faction hit, like, a rage-quitting amount of faction, a non-stop-killing-this-specific-grey-con-for-5-years-if-my-math-is-right to repair and suprise, this NPC has a faction branch into an area you also just happen to need/use. Oh well, you have to pay the piper.
But, the quest NPC will also have a interesting loot table that only the quest NPC will have that will be desirable by the class that needs the NPC and useless to any other class and is lore, no drop, non tradeable. So if you are another class and you must kill that quest npc? fine. but then you will be compelled to call to someone of that class, to get the nice loot and God forbid that class is grouped with you when you kill it, for they will also get the same faction hits- that they will desperately need for their epic quest or whatever.
On the flip side you will have a notch that you made the kill, perhaps a secret tally somewhere that unlocks a perception ping to a quest, "Keys to the Arena" where you have an AE ability to create a small PvP arena wherever you are and people have to accept to be invited in, like /duel but multi, up to 6 players tops. recast delay 48 hours. Useable only outdoors, not in dungeons or in cities. and/or unique taxidermy skill so you can stuff heads and mount them for dislplay.
People need to be actually punished in game for things like this. I find it hard to imagine VR actually doing factions that deep though. Almost every game willing to do something like this will give the banned players a new criminal city of their own to protect them or give them a slap on the wrist for a faction hit. Better not kill him 50 more times or I will have to deal with a faction problem. Realism goes beyond killing bakers and quest NPCs alike.
Freedom to be evil needs the world, the factions, to punish the evil or it just doesn't make any sense. Eve did this fairly well. Criminals are KOS to all the guards in the core area. Players are then also unable to use stations and the like of the factions that hate them anywhere in the game. If someone wants to go around killing NPCs, they need to quickly become KOS to all the factions involved.
Also, what's to say quest NPCs won't have an entourage in tow, ready to defend them? Or that the merchant on the outskirts of town won't have high resists and the alarmist disposition? Aggroed, the merchant simply calls for the guards and runs into their shop, locking the door behind them. The assailant could then try to pick that lock before the authorities arrive, but then they hear more than a few guard dogs growling inside the store. Players would still make attempts on NPC lives though, despite the risks, as it is a form of discovery. It goes hand in hand with "if you can see it, you can climb it"...if you can hail it, you can kill and loot it.
Another concern that is loosely tied to this: Now that zonelines are going to be few and far between, what will prevent players from pulling a merchant or banker across the world to the exact camp they intend to farm? Two monks aggro a vendor, run him/her to a remote location with mats/drops that are as heavy as they are valuable. One of the monks continuosly to flops merchant aggro on/off while the other pulls, kills, and loots the mobs...sells heavy drops, buys back precious gems. Rinse, repeat. Perhaps if merchants rarely ever attack, but instead flee and alert those who are better equipped, that would create a more realistic scene if nothing else. Unless we're talking about a pawn shop in the rough part of town, then the NPC behind the counter would have a crossbow ready and impeccable aim.
As Counterfleche already stated, there's no consequence harsh enough to stop griefing of this nature, especially when a group of people can band together to coordinate their tomfoolery.
Instead, all you would be doing is punishing those who simply did not know the NPC was a quest NPC/merchant w/e. Or who did know but thought it wouldn't be a big deal to see if they dropped anything cool. This would lead to strongly discouraging them from taking on any named NPC they see without first checking the wiki to see if they will get punished for it.
NPCs in town don't have to be super strong, but they could call guards to them and run away really fast when they receive hostile action. NPCs in the world could call upon all sorts of tricks to get away from you and then "disappear" (despawn) for a while until it's safe to come back. And then the occasional one could simply kick your teeth in.
Why make lame punishments (that usually don't even work) when you have so many other options at your disposal?
I always considered killing guards or certain NPCs emergent gameplay when they weren't intended as standard, campable mobs. They should most likely come with a faction hit for killing them. Of course there have been times that I wanted to do a quest turn in but the NPC was being camped by someone (either for exp or faction or loot or whatever). This type of scenario requires player interaction and I consider that to be positive.
Most of us have likely asked someone killing an NPC if we can do a turn in when it spawns next before they kill it again. Community matters, reputation matters, all that. I don't see it as a negative situation if players are required to communicate and interact with each other. It's a similar situation as far as doing camp checks and interacting with other players in many aspects of an open world game. Players are going to want different things and be required to share a space in an open world game. There will be disagreements at times. I embrace the open world gameplay that presents these situations.
philo said:I always considered killing guards or certain NPCs emergent gameplay when they weren't intended as standard, campable mobs. They should most likely come with a faction hit for killing them. Of course there have been times that I wanted to do a quest turn in but the NPC was being camped by someone (either for exp or faction or loot or whatever). This type of scenario requires player interaction and I consider that to be positive.
Most of us have likely asked someone killing an NPC if we can do a turn in when it spawns next before they kill it again. Community matters, reputation matters, all that. I don't see it as a negative situation if players are required to communicate and interact with each other. It's a similar situation as far as doing camp checks and interacting with other players in many aspects of an open world game. Players are going to want different things and be required to share a space in an open world game. There will be disagreements at times. I embrace the open world gameplay that presents these situations.
I agree as far a guards, they should be a FFA if one don't mind the faction hit. In my example with Chlaice the sole purpose of this player was to block other guilds from doing the turn in, she was a timmed spawn, he would log in just before she spawned, kill her, and log out. He wouldn't respond to any /tells or other chat. His sole purpose was to block any other guild to getting to the point of needing the REAL contested mob, the Broken Golum in Fear.
@zork
Dealing with other players in a shared space will present difficulties at times. IMO there are enough positives to games being open world to justify the negatives. That is an extreme example you use where someone is blocking a spawn on purpose to hinder others. That sucks. They will definitely have a bad reputation in a game where "reputation matters" ;)
On the bright side, we know non-raid targets will be "most dmg dealt" in Pantheon so you can just come in with a few friends and out damage that guy if it's a mob you need to kill...or just charm it to do turn ins or whatever. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
The other thing to think about is that a race/faction that is opposed to a given PC faction should be encouraging you to kill their guards. There should be quests/tasks that are part of a longer quest line which would further the 'fight' one one faction against another.