Infamy Balance Discussion

Home Forums Mystera Discussion Infamy Balance Discussion

Viewing 7 posts - 16 through 22 (of 22 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #3777


    Goblin
    Posts: 95

    How about a /pardon command. Maybe you kill someone by accident, or you had to kill them for some reason, maybe they were stuck. The player you killed could then do /pardon and your infamy you gained from that player would be erased.

    Also, the pardon could be applied as a voting system. Let’s say there is a low level player, abusing infamy to raid or cause grief. A high level veteran comes over and kills the miscreant. He does gain infamy, but if enough people did /pardon for him, his infamy could be forgiven because others know his actions were just.
    Of course, this could be difficult to code and hard to balance, since it could be abused.

    And thank you for being active on this topic, Kay! We appreciate it.

    #3779


    Polar Bear
    Posts: 34

    I think one of the major problems with infamy is that as a punishment it doesn’t just discourage PvP – it discourages playing the game at all. Players with infamy won’t go to the Underworld because they don’t want to be at a disadvantage that would increase their chance of death. For some people, that breaks their entire playstyle. As such the majority of people are forced to spend hours training dummies before risking any PvE activity. This is not fun nor engaging gameplay and it’s extremely offputting.

    The goal of infamy should not be to detract from the gameplay of players who choose to PvP, but to reduce the frequency of consecutive PvP-related activities to prevent those players from detracting from the gameplay of other players. As this is currently not the case, I suggest the following as a solution: the parts of the infamy debuff that affect combat stats only apply during PvP fights. This should include movement speed – getting the first hit on another player is usually not difficult regardless of their speed and this would activate the movement speed debuff so that the infamous player is easier to catch up to or run away from for let’s say, 2-3 minutes after the first combat action. As mentioned in some of the previous suggestions, infamous players should drop more items on death, but only PvP or tower related deaths.

    This means that PvP-focused players are still able to enjoy the game after a kill but are disadvantaged in their next fight if they choose to PvP again without taking a break. This also allows more room for harsher scaling debuffs to combat stats if necessary without impacting on overall gameplay experience, which would be much easier to balance. Admin towers should still attack infamous players, fountains disabled, safe zones made unsafe and tower damage increased, but combined with a clear indicator for infamous players (perhaps a white skull which has a red tint that gets darker as infamy increases) I think this would work well as a solution for the majority of complaints.

    #3783
    Kaios

    Lvl 233 USTexas
    Skeleton
    Posts: 173

    @admin I posted this in the other thread but I guess I need to bring it up again here. Regarding walls, I think 5 minutes is too short before they gain full strength. It might be better if walls built increased to their full HP (as in the HP determined by the crafter) over a longer duration of time. How long that should be exactly I’m not sure but I am sure that 5 minutes is not enough.

    • This reply was modified 6 years, 4 months ago by  Kaios.
    #3785
    Seryn

    Lvl 300 USEast2
    Skeleton
    Posts: 166

    May I ask a question? I notice a lot of posts are being purged here so I’m not sure what I can ask and what I can’t. But it seems like there are two issues being rolled up into one ball here and efforts to solve one have been exacerbating the other.

    1. On one hand we have new players being trounced as they’re learning the game and unable to adequately defend themselves. They don’t yet have the stats, resources, game knowledge, or social connections.
    2. On the other hand we have griefers who are using low level alts to wreak havoc. They block roads, raid bases, troll players, leverage infamy against others due to their low level, etc.

    The common problem here isn’t low levels or high levels, but griefers who will gravitate to whichever level affords them an advantage in their griefing. But isn’t there a straightforward solution that dissolves both these problems?

    It will take some background work, but the logic is simple.

    This time when players leave the tutorial they are teleported to the center of a new 500×500 map. This map is PvE, and doesn’t allow construction/destruction. It also features a prominent, prebuild town with free claimable housing (expiring after, for example, two weeks of inactivity). The entire game can be played from this map, with the exception of construction/destruction and PvP. You would risk PvP by going to the UW.

    No PvP means no griefing, no construction/destruction means no griefing.
    Everyone’s happy yes?

    Now, players can also choose to play on the current, PvP map. This map is the “wild west”. There are no protections, you play here at your own risk. The benefits are you can engage in construction/destruction, and PvP. It’s a much more interesting social environment but one geared towards people familiar with the game. They embrace the higher risk for this more interesting gameplay at their own discretion. Other perks can be debated.

    Importantly, the PvE and PvP map can be linked in one of four ways (that I can think of).

    1. First is a one-way trip. If you go PvP you can’t go back, your character becomes “hardcore”. This would be to stop griefers or thieves from being able to “escape” to the PvE map to escape reciprocity for their actions in the PvP map. Frankly, a return of permalogin would also be ideal, as would increased death penalties. This philosophy is active, retributive, punitive social order. AKA how ML used to be, this would make the PvP map a decidedly “hardcore” map you cannot leave.
    2. Second is the same as above, except the focus is on defense rather than offense. The idea is to be able to adequately defend yourself from the possibility of griefing preemptively, therefore not necessitating reciprocity. Larger areas can be build in and enclosed, excluding strangers (including ropers). Walled towns can be adequately built and maintained keeping out troublemakers. This may require some changes to the verticality properties of the present game (ropes, stairs). This would be necessary to make a defensive philosophy tenable.
    3. Third is two-way transportation, but you have to earn it. This is troublesome because people can run away to the PvE map for safety with their ill-gotten gains, but ideally by having a high requirement to enter the PvP map mindless griefing should be minimalized. In this example you would have to reach a certain level, such as 50, before you can enter the PvP map. Ideally the investment would deter most griefers. But it would still allow determined ones, which is a flaw.
    4. Fourth is that by entering the PvP map (after knowingly choosing to do so), you become flagged for PvP, even on the PvE map. This means you can be killed in the PvE map, and your home can be raided in the PvE map. Alternatively this could utilize an “Infamy-like” system to flag you for PvP in the PvE map if you engage in PvP-like behavior, but with no other penalties (no slows, debuffs, etc.). This way raiders and thieves can still be pursued after they’ve engaged in villainous behavior.

    I’m most keen on the first or second option, and also the defensive PvP properties of the second option would also be good for the third and fourth options regardless. And heck, the first as well. The third and fourth options both run the risk of having a “safe” “unflagged” “bank” alt in the PvE map which stolen items can be stashed on. But this is already possible anyway. The fundamental key here is to create a safe map that negates griefing, and a dangerous map where griefing can be dealt with. This resolves both the problems of high level griefers, and low level griefers, without adding mechanics (Infamy) that can simply be further griefed.

    At this moment the problems the players of ML are facing are systemic, and really do have to be resolved—we know this. Infamy doesn’t dissolve these problems, but builds on them in ways that, by definition, can only simply be further exploited. This is why I firmly believe it is the wrong choice for an open construction sandbox such as ML, and that development time should be invested in resolutions that dissolve current problems, rather than piling more problems on top in a mechanical balancing act which I am convinced can only be futile.

    Please do not nuke this post, it is my sincere feedback on the infamy system.

    Sincerely,

    Seryn

    #3787


    Polar Bear
    Posts: 49

    Krill: As such the majority of people are forced to spend hours training dummies before risking any PvE activity.

    Only if “the majority of people” murders too many players of much lower level. Such behavior is exactly what the system is trying to punish.

    #3788


    Polar Bear
    Posts: 34

    tirloll: Only if “the majority of people” murders too many players of much lower level. Such behavior is exactly what the system is trying to punish.

    By “majority of people” I meant anyone who does PvP of any kind. If infamy was truly reliable enough that it only punished players who repeatedly killed low-levels, then maybe that argument would stand. The fact that this is not the case is the very reason this debate is ongoing in the first place.

    #3791
    Kaylovespie

    Lvl 2 London
    Skeleton
    Posts: 173

    Thanks guys for your well thought out suggestions!

    I wont have as much time today to keep this thread organized and on track for JVH so I’m going to close it down for now. We have lots of new ideas to bounce around for a while, on top of the original ideas I’ve collected from the old threads ^_^

    Keep testing out the latest patch and if you want to add new suggestions regarding infamy go ahead and submit it through the contact form to reach the dev more directly. This will help me keep the forums less spammy on this topic during testing. Thanks!

Viewing 7 posts - 16 through 22 (of 22 total)

The topic ‘Infamy Balance Discussion’ is closed to new replies.