#599 "Vow of Peace" to opt-out of PVP

open
nobody
None
7
2010-12-07
2009-06-20
No

After being chased off by a couple people who like to kill other players, I thought it would be nice if there were some way to opt out of PVP for those who wish to, while allowing it to continue for those who enjoy that aspect of the game. The idea I settled on I call a "vow of peace".

1) Player seeks out a NPC, who should be pretty close to a young player's start area (somewhere reachable by a new character without too much difficulty). They express their desire to take a vow of peace.
2) NPC checks that the player is not currently marked as a player-killer, and refuses to grant the vow if so (mark must be cleared first, which I believe is handled after two weeks of not attacking other players and after interaction with another NPC; the details here are inconsequential to this feature)
3) If the player is clean, they are bound to the vow. They can no longer be attacked by other players, however they also cannot attack other players.
3a) osl suggested an interesting twist, namely that players under a vow of peace are attackable, but the damage that would be done to them is instead done to the attacker. This would be an interesting twist, but may be harder to implement, and may detract from the players who do enjoy PVP. It would be a surprise to those who grief other players by attacking them randomly, however care would have to be taken to make sure people cannot game the system and use a vowed player to "train" themselves.

If a player later decides they wish to participate in PVP battles, they need only to see the NPC and express their desire to break the vow. It can be undone immediately, and can be retaken as long as the player is not marked as a player-killer (no other "cool down" required).

Thoughts welcome, come find me (Rocinante) in IRC.

Discussion

  • Nobody/Anonymous

    mabey it could be a /pvp on or /pvp off becus i like to randomly train in random locations and it would be a pain to go back to town get un-pvp and then go back to training partner and then have to come back to town to get it turned back on then new players would not have to look for this person it could be a pop up they get after they start playing telling them about it

     
  • Anonymous - 2009-06-20

    Hello hello :)

    I really like Rocinantes idea with the NPC who can turn pvp on and off. Though as training is allowed but not a main part of the game in my eyes, I also like the idea of going to that NPC to turn it on or off... We can maybe think about creating more than one NPC who can switch your pvp status, like maybe one in each town or something, so players can reach them more fast instead of going back to Semos, but these are details which can be discussed later I think :) But yes, really nice idea Rocinante, thank you for that :)

    Greetings

    Bluelads4

     
  • tigertoes

    tigertoes - 2009-06-20

    i think the idea of doubling the xp loss on the attacker would be fair and no def/atk hits OR def/atk hits subtracted from attacker

     
  • Steve Huston

    Steve Huston - 2009-06-20

    osl's first idea was a ring, much like the /pvp on or /pvp off idea. The problem with that is it's easily exploitable: I approach an unsuspecting character who has pvp turned on, hit them for a large amount of damage with a slow weapon, then quickly type /pvp off so they can't return attack (or their returned attack does damage to themself).

    I agree that it might make training more involved, but I don't know that it's a terrible trade-off; I haven't seen too many people training like I used to, but perhaps it's still more popular of an activity in areas where I don't yet travel.

    Bluelads4's idea of having an NPC in each town is even better; perhaps if there's a church at each town, that would be a good place for the NPC, simply adding a function to an existing character where it makes sense to do so.

     
  • Anonymous - 2009-06-27

    That church idea sounds good! As though there is one in fado with the nun before and in ados with the guy who makes the greater potions... There isn't one in semos, but maybe the temple can help there... I would just take Fado, Semos and Ados because they are the biggest cities and reachable...

     
  • Katie Russell

    Katie Russell - 2010-12-07
    • priority: 5 --> 7
     
  • Nobody/Anonymous

    Sourceforge.. Retweeted it :)

     
  •  tuebix

    tuebix - 2011-07-04

    i was sent here after my post to the ideas forum. So i first re-post the description of my idea:

    ------------------------ start ------------------------------------------------
    What about a quest reward, a "ring of peace" or whatever name you want to give it. If you have that ring with you (keyring, finger or bag), you can neither attack other players, nor be attacked by other players. If you want to do pvp again, you have to safely store your ring in the bank, or put it on the ground. That would make pvp enabled for those wo want it and disabled for those who don't.
    -------------------end-----------------------------------------------------

    reading the contributions above, I see that my idea was already mentioned at least in a similiar way. Maybe the ring should get broken when put on the ground and be repaired by the guy who also repairs the ring of life.

    This would mean some annoying components, but this way it would be impossible to quickly switch off pvp again, after attacking someone.

     
  •  tuebix

    tuebix - 2011-07-04

    I just had another idea, which would use only a minimal amount of code changes. What do people think of this:

    Attacking other players is only possible if they are in the same group as you are.

     
  • Athana

    Athana - 2011-07-08

    Maybe this about pvp only if in same group will happen sooner if indeed needs less coding

     
  • Hendrik Brummermann

    The problem is not if it requires more or less code (the group one requires more code), it's about the concept:

    PvP serves as a way of self regulating the game in cases of blocking and steeling. Simply allowing players to make themselves immune against PvP means that bad people don't have to fear making more people angry against themselves as they can handle.

     
  •  tuebix

    tuebix - 2011-07-09

    Well, at the moment it seems to me that there are quite a number of people who regard trying to kill other players as a sport. And I have the impression that those are more than the people who might make others angry. The stealing issue is in my opinion already solved with the corpse blocking feature.

     
  • Athana

    Athana - 2011-07-10

    Yes tuebix. Plus that now players can't block access to bank chests. Or entrance or exit to a door can work with pushing (in case they put an item below them to not be pushed you can right click on the gate to use it). But you can't pvp in protected areas anyway.
    Many problems of that are more of less solved. So now I think the main reason to kill a player is just to loot or as a "sport" or for revenge.
    Now, if it wont go in the grouping feature, the we go back to the ring or ..pipe of peace or vow of peace whatever :-)

     


Anonymous

Cancel  Add attachments





Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.

Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:





No, thanks