The PVP MegaThread

[ImpalerWrG]

Another way to punish someone might be BRANDING. Branding was done to signify that someone was a past offender and was deserving of extra punishment. Brands would last for a long time if not being entirely permanent (or a super ***** to remove) and might stack several times with higher crimes being worth more stacks, the more brands on a person the higher level of punishment they can get for a given crime without the punishing party incurring excessive penalties/scents.

Thus you can both be merciful and brand someone to discourage them from committing more crimes, or if someone went on a big crime spree of low level crimes and you have all the scents you can just apply a Brand for each one and then inflict a high punishment on them. A person can only be branded for each crime once, but they can still be summoned and punished as normal with that crimes evidence so their is no exploit in which Branding is used to immunize the criminal.

[DarkNacht]

You should remove the summon system and let the fight be in real PvP only, making players raid each other until they finally met in a "final battle" or until one get K.O on claim.

The summoning system will be removed when your character can no longer log out of the world to hide.

[KruskDaMangled]

We had a pretty sophisticated system hashed out of "Cripple". The premise was that less crimes would allow you to provide a good-ol-fashion beat'down on their sleeping character in the leanto. This would leave them 'crippled' causing issues depending on which body part was crippled.

Opposition to this was primarily driven by the revenge motive of "If he stole my golden goose then I deserve to kill him for good". Or 'If I went through the entire hassle of a cannon to get in here, I deserve the kill'. Etc. etc.

This is what put us back to the summon-kill only system. But doesn't mean I'm still not open to the idea of lesser punishments.

I can agree with "if you can get in you deserve to cause trouble" but is there any compelling reason in your mind to cater to the more vindictive players who feel entitled to use anything and everything as an excuse to kill people or just generally be spiteful?

If it's about some notion of parity losing a character is more harmful than losing even a highly valuable item, and the guy who dies over stealing something, is getting the short end.

[jesi]

We had a pretty sophisticated system hashed out of "Cripple". . . .

Opposition to this was primarily driven by the revenge motive of "If he stole my golden goose then I deserve to kill him for good". Or 'If I went through the entire hassle of a cannon to get in here, I deserve the kill'. Etc. etc.

I can agree with "if you can get in you deserve to cause trouble" but is there any compelling reason in your mind to cater to the more vindictive players who feel entitled to use anything and everything as an excuse to kill people or just generally be spiteful? . .. .

The people who want to just kill and be generally spiteful are the largest generators of tears. Balancing the lust for tears with a mechanism that encourages the non-tear mongers to keep on playing is going to be hard. But if the end result is a system that says I can kill non-scented characters - who are adequately defended - only if I make a heavy investiment AND take an extreme risk to my uber character, then it might work.

[lachlaan]

Will summon-killing a person that wronged you leave a murder scent? That's the main issue I have with the system right now, you're putting yourself in a position of weakness for simply returning the favor, and that just degenerates into what was mentioned before, tit-for-tat murder sprees.

[Feone]

Will summon-killing a person that wronged you leave a murder scent? That's the main issue I have with the system right now, you're putting yourself in a position of weakness for simply returning the favor, and that just degenerates into what was mentioned before, tit-for-tat murder sprees.

I have a similar concern with base defense.

An attacker can trespass, steal, vandalize and attack you and you'd still leave a scent if you fight back. Which the attacker can then use to screw you over.
This system completely punishes any attempt at defense by making the attack easier. Currently due to allowing summon kills on an "innocent" victim, in your proposed system presumably by making entry easier as well.

I think there should be some removal of scents from crimes committed in defense of the claim.
Perhaps on-claim crimes by the defenders could be forgiven during the siege.

Going after the attackers base is another matter though, at that point you're at revenge, not defense. Which should defninitely be a crime.

[JohnCarver]

The idea that somebody who murders a man, for whatever reason he thinks is just, is not still murder is a bit silly to me.

Players who advocate such a thing are really advocating for the ability to murder a player without having to be held accountable for said action.

If you do not want to be 'retaliated' on for murdering a player, then dont' kill him.

[Procne]

The idea that somebody who murders a man, for whatever reason he thinks is just, is not still murder is a bit silly to me.

Players who advocate such a thing are really advocating for the ability to murder a player without having to be held accountable for said action.

If you do not want to be 'retaliated' on for murdering a player, then dont' kill him.

What about incapacitating (KO) and disarming (looting) the attacker?

[Feone]

The idea that somebody who murders a man, for whatever reason he thinks is just, is not still murder is a bit silly to me.

Players who advocate such a thing are really advocating for the ability to murder a player without having to be held accountable for said action.

If you do not want to be 'retaliated' on for murdering a player, then dont' kill him.

I did not say murder anywhere, though.
I suppose it's part of crimes but I mean more along the lines of fighting, KOing and/or disarming attackers.

Edit-

What about possibly new non-lethal options to keep a raider away for a few days? Assuming you get them to the point where you can chose to murder them, if you wished to do so. (KO on the floor, essentially)

[lachlaan]

The idea that somebody who murders a man, for whatever reason he thinks is just, is not still murder is a bit silly to me.

Players who advocate such a thing are really advocating for the ability to murder a player without having to be held accountable for said action.

If you do not want to be 'retaliated' on for murdering a player, then dont' kill him.

Okay, I guess murdering someone for revenge should have a cost attached to it, will have to be a young vigilante's duty. Heroes always die young :\

But then there leaves the issues presented by Procne and Feone. You can't even fight back without facilitating your own demise. Should you be capable of ending the fight temporarily by KOing your attacker to get away, you've pretty much sealed your fate already. Stealing your own goods back from the thief that stole them in the first place will, by the sound of it, also allow for your summon killing.

I seriously hope the new gluttony and purity systems allow for a very quick recovery when losing a main, since it sounds like there'll be a lot of that going on. And with emphasis being put on proficiencies for crafting, and proficiencies being strongly limited by inspiration gain (including potions, they're no walk in the park to spam) , I think it could potentially be pretty painful to do anything ingame. Attacking gets you killed, defending gets you killed, seeking to regain what you lost gets you killed, scratching your nose (possible future patch content?) gets you killed.