Due to the fact that the community isn't able to follow simple spam killing rules I've been thinking over some possible anti-spam killing measures.

Ideas:

Remove the ability to attack other players when siege mode is not active.

or

Make it so when a player dies (x) number of times to player characters within (x) amount of time they are not able to be attacked by player characters for (x) amount of time. This would be ignored during siege mode.



ALSO, open to other suggestions if anyone can think of something good. Post ideas and criticism here.


_________________________________________

WyrmDean wrote:

Make it so when a player dies (x) number of times to player characters within (x) amount of time they are not able to be attacked by player characters for (x) amount of time. This would be ignored during siege mode.

This sounds good but there are some questions.

Would it be nullified, if he/she performs a hostile action? (I hope so)If so, how would Life work in this situation?

What about turf fires, splash damage, etc?

Would this be only for FFO, Terulia, or both?

Is Gaku okay with this? I mean, I've always wanted some sort of mechanic to stop spam killing, but does he consider it worth his time?

_________________________________________

Haze wrote:

WyrmDean wrote:

Make it so when a player dies (x) number of times to player characters within (x) amount of time they are not able to be attacked by player characters for (x) amount of time. This would be ignored during siege mode.

This sounds good but there are some questions.

Would it be nullified, if he/she performs a hostile action? (I hope so)If so, how would Life work in this situation?

What about turf fires, splash damage, etc?

Would this be only for FFO, Terulia, or both?

Is Gaku okay with this? I mean, I've always wanted some sort of mechanic to stop spam killing, but does he consider it worth his time?

Not applicable for Terulia as it's not needed.
Splash would count.
Since turf fires have owners they would count.
Protection would be canceled if you attacked someone else.
Casting life could be made to cancel protection as well.

Not sure how Gaku feels about it but I'm still going to suggest it since I feel it is a beneficial suggestion.


_________________________________________

The number of timers needed to keep track of this make it impractical.

_________________________________________

nevermind I was beat before the rejection took place

_________________________________________

What about disabling PVP when not in siege mode?

_________________________________________

WyrmDean wrote:

Remove the ability to attack other players when siege mode is not active.

I would also suggest making players nondense toward one another when seige mode is inactive, in order to prevent the eventual playerbase griefing of blocking people into shops and whatnot.

It's a pity such a thing needs to be posted, but I figure a pre-emptive coding strike against such idiocy will better serve FFO/Terulia than a period of time where players are able to grief one another as they always do, but with no possible reprecussions.

_________________________________________

Disabling PvP outside of siege mode will cause a lot of problems. Luring swarms, going around robbing people's chests, killing weaker people's monsters.. people will always find a way to cause grief if they want to.

_________________________________________

People can already do those right now if they want to, but that's still better than outright spam killing.

_________________________________________

reply to Haze:

This community really sucks, then.

_________________________________________

I wrote more down but the post didn't go through.

We all know that PvP is a major part of FFO. I just wanted to point out that there are people in the community who play for the PvE aspects, city building, and loot grinding.

What if there was another option besides banning? What is that you ask? I'm talking about a PvP toggle. Let's use an example.

Player A kills player B 4 times. Instead of banning player A. An admin could force disable Player A's ability to kill player B more. If you made the offender non dense against PC's they cam still play the game and not get banned. This should also take spells like life and cure into consideration.

When it's siege mode all forced non PvP would be removed while it's up.





_________________________________________

Haze wrote:

Disabling PvP outside of siege mode will cause a lot of problems. Luring swarms, going around robbing people's chests, killing weaker people's monsters.. people will always find a way to cause grief if they want to.

I don't see a problem with luring monsters when guards/army can't die unless it is siege mode.

_________________________________________

reply to JebusLuvsEverone:

I'd much rather have a mechanic then a thing admins can toggle. Think about it. If players complain now when they get banned, do you think its really going to be any better when their ability to pvp is turned off? They'll still feel wronged and complain about it. Also, this doesn't at all take groups vs single player situations into account, unless you're going to disable all of them. In that case, hold on while I kill someone three times, then let a friend do it, then let another friend do it, and so on.

Sadly, the best option is to restrict pvp to only during the siege time. Yes, its going to drastically change FFO for all but two hours of the day, but considering how we can't seem to handle ourselves otherwise, it seems like a good idea. As for all the non-pvp griefing, as was pointed out earlier, that will still happen. Loot/mob stealing is a problem in most MMOs anyway, but I'm sure it will generate a lot less complaining than leaving things as is, and we might actually get some use out of areas players never seem to want to train in, like the plains north of Diadel.

It is probably the easiest solution as well, since it seems like it wouldn't be that hard to code.

_________________________________________

Very true indeed. It was just a thought.

There is also the idea of having "Peace Mode" at certain times.

1:00am-9:00pm. No PvP.

9:00am-12:00pm. PvP.

12:00pm-3:00pm. No PvP.

3:00pm-6:00pm. PvP.

6:00pm-8:00pm. No PvP.

8:00pm-10:00pm. Seige Mode.

10:00pm-1:00am. PvP.

Just an exmample.....

EDIT: If players want to PvP durring a no PvP time, they could have a PvP toggle. So if both players want to engage in fighting they can do so if both parties have it enabled.

EDIT EDIT My Reasoning: PvP is what some people consider the meat of the game. I'll disagree and say that domain/kingdom warfare is the meat of the game. This would still let people enjoy all the aspects of the game and to balance out ruined gameplay experiences. This will also cater to the players who don't care for endless PvPing.



_________________________________________

I want to kill everyone everywhere all the time though. :(

_________________________________________

reply to JebusLuvsEverone:

This is nice and all, but seems needlessly complicated, and siege is already bad enough for players with busy schedules.

_________________________________________

It's not that complicated.

This would help players who don't care for PvP to enjoy FFO without having to worry about getting ganked.

Also you have to remember it's not the PvP system that has a problem but the way people obtain power in this game/social system.




_________________________________________

Another option would be to disallow pvp in certain areas during non-siege time.

No pvp in towns + (x) radius around towns and possibly docks.

@Jeebs

It actually is the pvp system that is the problem. You can't leave the burden of responsibility on the players. That idealistic thought train that doesn't work.

_________________________________________

I agree with you Dean that if it's within the confines of the game to do something then the players will do what they will with what they are given.

"Also you have to remember it's not the PvP system that has a problem but the way people obtain power in this game/social system."

When I said this I was mentioning how there is social gap between players. If you already have a reputation in FFO, know the mechanics, and have FFO Basically you're on your first steps to getting more in-game power than the rest of the community. This is why I believe the transition from FFO to Terulia will be better in the long run. Then the game could then be advertised without fear of copyright infringement. Then it would be possible to have real new players and positive growth. It's what Desh said in another topic and what oldbies of the game have grown to fear. "Tired of seeing the same old asses".


Let's look into the future. Let's imagine another server where people start from scratch and you didn't have the three things I've stated above. This server would have a different outcome. Sure that's just speculation but it's just my opinion as a player who has seen people come in and out of FFO for many years.


This is why I am so optimistic about Terulia. New start, no advantages for anyone in this community.



_________________________________________

You guys are over-reacting a ton. There's no spam killing going on....4 times in an hour? Thats nothing. That's less that nothing. That's an interesting day for me on FFO. That used to be my average day. Never cried about it, and nobody deserved a ban for it. What happened to letto, that's spam killing. What's happened to Talon, that's griefing. The stuff I've been seeing people banned for lately doesn't even deserve a boot.

I think the term you guys are looking for is "hunting". If people keep returning to where their attackers are, I don't see why the attackers shouldn't be allowed to keep killing. I'm VERY sure the rule was put in place to stop people from just wrecking death sick, underleveled, undermanned players in argo.

If a person keeps taking a boat to say.....vorg to try and get a death chest from people that killed their friend. And that person doesn't intend to have to defend themselves. Why shouldn't they be killed?

As long as a party of players aren't just going after and hunting someone where ever for hours on end; scrying them as they're trying to train, or quest, or hang out in NB. There is really no problem. Don't make rules and measures so people can be brain-dead in a pvp based game. The reason I play this is for the pvp.

Let's not treat everybody like the NFL treats Tom Brady here guys. Taking out pvp, or limiting it as hugely as your all suggesting would mean restricting people to do nothing but train on the same monsters that have been in this game for years, or farming super easy Ember Wyrms. And grinding gets old fast, especially with the diminishing spawn rates.

_________________________________________