Scripts v.210, pvp features
|
*sam* Posted Oct 2, 2008, 1:19 pm |
This patch brings in some features I have been working on to make pvp encounters more feasible. Note that if you have a positive reputation you can still not be attacked by a player squad near Somerset.
* There's a new 'monitor gates' feature in the lobby that allows you to see squads who are leaving, arriving or scouting. * If you select a squad from this 'monitor gates' list you can delay their event spawn for a couple of minutes while you muster an attack squad and set it scouting. Only subscribers can do this since we don't want casual visitors from entertaining themselves by time-griefing us. * Several features on the squad webpage are now active: CR balancing, specified 'target squad', and 'auto attack target squad'. All are explained in the community comments I have posted beside them on the squad page. * The chance of successfully avoiding a pvp attack is now much higher if you’re arriving into town rather than leaving it or going scouting: this is to avoid “vulturing” attacks as well as probably being realistic. You will now also receive a message in the lobby when you successfully avoid a pvp encounter. So you know who is hunting you... |
||||||||
|
Mad Mike Posted Oct 2, 2008, 2:27 pm |
should raise PvP interest.
now we need to have a wiki entry with PvP etiquette |
||||||||
|
darthspanky Posted Oct 2, 2008, 2:36 pm |
and watch out for lord humungous hehe | ||||||||
|
Ivan Kerensky Posted Oct 2, 2008, 2:44 pm |
But it is perfectly okay for subscribers to time-grief each other ? Delay for several minutes a scouting event is a nasty trick and can be easily abused... "Hey, I dont like you so I will delay each and every scouting event I saw with your name on.." And what about the return ? will you be able to know there wont be a return so you can go to bed or could you be attacked by another player before your arrival ? what if you didn't anticipated the arrival and the opponent is not online ? |
||||||||
|
*Longo* Posted Oct 2, 2008, 2:44 pm |
Interesting. Who is the Lord Humungus I hear yas talking about?
And why do I feel like there is a target on my back all of a sudden? hehe |
||||||||
|
Ivan Kerensky Posted Oct 2, 2008, 2:53 pm |
I am also concerned about the CR balancing.
It make the dedicated scouting vehicule a hinderance for the traveller/scout and a bonus for the PvPer... By having un-armed scout buggy or duster at last position in his car list the PvPer is ensured to have it away from the combat but will still benefit from his scout and his bonus to find the other squad, the target on the other hand cant drop his scout so is starting with a penalty in CR... |
||||||||
|
*sam* Posted Oct 2, 2008, 3:51 pm |
I didn't say that.
I am actually logging the times that this delay is applied (it's always less than 3 minutes by the way), and who does it. If necessary (and I think it probably won't be necessary) each player could have a maximum number of uses of this 'delay card' per day etc. Each squad can only be delayed once per event, of course, no matter how many people use their 'delay card' on it.
I hadn't thought of that. I'm sure we could come up with some extra rules, such as: your squad's scouting skill is re-evaluated based on the cars that are left, after the CR balancing has been applied. |
||||||||
|
Kime Dennory Posted Oct 2, 2008, 4:12 pm |
Add me to the list of people who think this is perfectly reasonable, if terrifying.
-KD |
||||||||
|
*sam* Posted Oct 2, 2008, 4:17 pm |
Just a copy-and-paste from a PM I sent to someone with concerns:
Please don't react too quick about the pvp stuff! I am committed to supporting both pvp and non-pvp players. When we see how things are turning out we can discuss changes that are needed to help protect non-pvp-ers. There is already, of course, a pvp-free zone around SS, plus the ability to pay a bounty to escape any pvp event unharmed. And if your scouts are good you can often avoid pvp encounters entirely. |
||||||||
|
*sam* Posted Oct 2, 2008, 4:22 pm |
I have actually gotten to know the flavour of the DW community better than probably anyone else, over the last 2.5 years.. and I think we're very unlikely to get griefing-style pvp play.
Anyone that tries it will end up getting slaughtered by the rest of the players. I think supporting pvp will however allow the natural factions and vendettas that have been simmering to find a way to vent themselves. And this will actually bring an excellent source of challenging gameplay to those involved. As well as adding more dynamic to the economy, money-sinks etc. |
||||||||
|
simonmaxhill Posted Oct 2, 2008, 4:58 pm |
I am incredibly excited by this new development. | ||||||||
|
Jety Posted Oct 2, 2008, 5:37 pm |
I posted a thread, and there was a long discussion, about this a few weeks ago.... but this might be a very good time to re-evaluate a distinction between demoralizing and surrendering.
Losing characters is clearly the single biggest obstacle to PvP. If there was some mechanism to help insure their safety (but not guarantee it?) after getting beat down in a fight, that might go a long way towards encouraging PvP. |
||||||||
|
*Longo* Posted Oct 2, 2008, 5:46 pm |
When you surrender in a PvP battle, the event is over. The opponent cant keep shooting at you. You lose your cars, and, if a Gates encounter, your guys get home 100% of the time. | ||||||||
|
*sam* Posted Oct 2, 2008, 5:46 pm |
You're quite right Jety. What ideas have been suggested for this? Being able to greately increase the chance of walking home alive, if you make a $ payment to "the local NPC bandits" perhaps? (Assuming your injuries from the combat weren't fatal, of course). When I add animals and giant insects, the plan is to actually have 'walking home missions' rather than the current after-event system for characters on the losing side. But that could be a while away yet. |
||||||||
|
Jety Posted Oct 2, 2008, 5:49 pm |
A good way to approach this might be to create a way for a player to offer a bounty midcombat. After the fighting has gone on a bit, and a clear winner is emerging, they might say "You're defeated. For $50,000 I'll let you live and keep your gangers and vehicles"
If the aggressor is hellbent on slaughter then they don't have to offer any ransom demands. If they're just in it for the piracy, they can extort money without having to seriously hurt the opponent. The guy who is losing can maybe offer cash if the winning party will let him go. On top of all this and maybe better, would be a way to also invlove the vehicles in the extortion/bribery negotiation. "I'll give you my laser osprey if you'll let the rest of my cars and gangers go free" etc I know this would be a little bit of work, but I think the payoff would be huge in terms of getting people involved with PvP, not feeling like it's a huge all or nothing prospect, and letting "gentleman pirates" PvP as well as bloodthirsty mutants. |
||||||||
|
*sam* Posted Oct 2, 2008, 5:51 pm |
Yeah, I actually took note of that before, but I need to think about it some more. It messes up the current looting system somewhat. |
||||||||
|
Jety Posted Oct 2, 2008, 5:55 pm |
Here's what you could do.
1) Players agree to a negotiation session. Combat freezes. 2) A modified looting screen comes up where players can put items on the table, including cash and vehicles involved in the current combat. 3) If both players are satisfied with the transfer of goods and click an 'accept' button then combat is ended and goods change hands. 4) If a player 'rejects' the negotiation then combat resumes. 5) If no accord is reached then combat ends as normal, and the normal looting screen comes up. [edit] This addresses an overall resolution to pvp combat, but does not exactly address surrendering/player survivability. For example: 2 squads of 5 buzzer each square off. One team has a buzzer that's been breached and wants to surrender it to save the gangers inside, but also wants to keep fighting with his other four because he thinks he can still win. Then again... maybe the threat of gangers being executed is what it is - fantastic leverage. You negotiate to save their lives or they die. You can't have it both ways; save them and keep fighting also. I think the net effect of this system would be that even in large scale engagements, there would be far fewer casualties. I think a typical exchange would be like this. "You've breached one of my buzzers. I don't want the guys to die, so I'll give you one of my healthy remaining buzzers to call it all off. It's a pretty win-win deal. The loser keeps his guys and some of his buzzers. The winner gets a healthy buzzer as a trophy. Neither side has had to commit to a massive destruction of resources by fighting it down to the last buzzer standing. |
||||||||
|
*jimmylogan* Posted Oct 2, 2008, 7:11 pm |
You always have the option in game to make a chat offer. I know it could interfere with looting if this is done, so maybe an option to "end combat" and each player keeps what they have, then transfers >whatever< via the marketplace...
The drawback here is there is nothing to keep a player from agreeing to something, then not following through. I think the community might take over, though, and "force" them to follow through. Plus, I think most of us are here to enjoy the game and if that's the agreement then that's the agreement. :-) Just trying to think of a way for us to start using it without Sam having to code a "surrender with XXX" option... JL |
||||||||
|
Six Gun Jack Posted Oct 2, 2008, 7:45 pm |
you guys are making it a bit too complicated for the third option. I suggested this before, for pvp and npc combats. Its just another option on the drop down menu. Just like you have an option to surrender and lose all your vehicles, there can be another option called Ransom that computes a ransom based on skills of all the characters left alive and you have to pay that to the other side.
Combat ends just like a surrender, but the gangers involved are dropped off at town (as if an exchange of money ransom for the gangers happened at the same time in town). This would be easy to implement as there is no loot screen involved for the loser (but winner gets loot screen like normal gaining all vehicles), its just an end of combat modified where money is paid and gangers automatically survive the trip back. now you ask what about the vehicles ? well if you dont pay the bounty up front to stop pvp combat I think you should always lose your vehicles, that is the risk of fighting as always. I think there should be no trying it then saying oh no im going to lose, stop everything ! But with this option at least you can say oh no im going to lose at least I can guarantee my gangers survival. This should apply to both PVP and a new option for NPC combat (for npcs, the most viscious gangs could refuse this, and it could be related to the negotiator skill of your scout). This gives a chance to gaurantee survival of your valuable gangers at a price. Good money sink too, as I said earlier, it should be computed on relative skill of the gangers involved. |
||||||||
|
Jety Posted Oct 2, 2008, 8:17 pm |
Jack - No way. Don't rely on the computer to calculate midgame ransom values. It will simply never be able to account for the "Heavy flamethrower coming in through the side of your freshly breached Apache next round.... would you like to discuss this?" type negotiations.
I think being able to beg/bribe/extort people midcombat based on how things are going will be hugely fun. The purpose of this system would be to mitigate the risk of huge losses, not increase them. This is the only way to get the average player involved in pvp. Knowing that a pvp loss is a guarenteed loss of every squad vehicle will result in people opting out up front every time and never giving it a shot. Jimmy - By that reasoning we don't really need the player market either. The truth is that having the server play escrow is not that hard and keeps honest people honest. Also, it's greatly preferable to code it right the first time rather than putting in a half-measure and fixing it "later". |
||||||||
|
Valiance Posted Oct 2, 2008, 8:18 pm |
I can see the benefits of all of these things, but the Vanguards are gonna retrench into Somerset until we see how it all ends up | ||||||||
|
*jimmylogan* Posted Oct 2, 2008, 8:25 pm |
I can go along with that... I would NOT want one player continually clicking to palaver to stall the game though. :-) Just like there's a max number of timeouts there should be a max number of "let's negotiate" options. And of course one could call a timeout in order to "approach the opponent" via the chat window... JL |
||||||||
|
Six Gun Jack Posted Oct 2, 2008, 9:13 pm |
[quote=Jety]Jack - No way. Don't rely on the computer to calculate midgame ransom values. It will simply never be able to account for the "Heavy flamethrower coming in through the side of your freshly breached Apache next round.... would you like to discuss this?" type negotiations.[/quote]
I think you misunderstood. I am just coming up with a reasonable way for Sam to implement it, with not too much work. The only thing the computer calculates is the ransom value AFTER the player clicks ransom from the drop down menu, and this is just based off total skills of the gangers the players wants to save, thats it, simple to implement. Stuff you are talking about will give Sam headaches for months trying to make work. |
||||||||
|
Mad Mike Posted Oct 2, 2008, 11:57 pm |
could just simplify this, the losing side can surrender all their vehicles the winner can chose to loot the loser or take a cash settlement based on the value of the vehicles from the town the scout left from. | ||||||||
|
Lord Foul Posted Oct 3, 2008, 1:19 am |
All I have to say is;
Where's the love for the BAD GUY player with this new addition as this affects us the most? |
||||||||
|
*jimmylogan* Posted Oct 3, 2008, 1:28 am |
Why does it affect you the most?
|
||||||||
|
Lord Foul Posted Oct 3, 2008, 2:22 am |
Note that if you have a positive reputation you can still not be attacked by a player squad near Somerset. I'm a bad guy  So it's basically saying if you're a bad guy (negative rep) it's open hunting season on you 24/7 if you decide to do any type of scout in SS. I could be going on a scout to beat up on some pirate punks like Tusk and still get PVP'd at the gates in SS because I have a negative rep.
I could even be going out with some newer players to show them things and still get PVP'd because of my negative rep. I'd have to hope the player(s) that successfully PVP me would truce so as to not ruin a new players enjoyment. And of course it alienates the bad guys since pos rep players won't want to scout with a negative rep player for fear of getting PVP'd at the gates in SS. |
||||||||
|
*Toecutter* Posted Oct 3, 2008, 2:32 am |
hmm...a drawback to breaking the laws of the land...who would have figured 
|
||||||||
|
*jimmylogan* Posted Oct 3, 2008, 2:38 am |
Isn't it more likely that you're NOT going to beat up Tusk? If you have a negative rep, you're more likely to beat up traders...
This begs the question... Is it based on the rep of the squad owner?
Alienates? Or draws bad guys closer together? Sounds like the next step in getting what you play for...
LOL |
||||||||
|
Lord Foul Posted Oct 3, 2008, 2:39 am |
That's what the BH are for.
Why not make SS a PVP free zone for everyone? Why do us bad rep players have to get the short end of the stick? |
||||||||
|
Lord Foul Posted Oct 3, 2008, 2:43 am |
Isn't it more likely that you're NOT going to beat up Tusk? If you have a negative rep, you're more likely to beat up traders
Ahh the old "guilty until proven innocent" talk. I have attacked pirates when traders were so beat up they were not worth the trouble. Hell I could beat up on pirates for a month and still have a negative rep from my previous trader hunting. |
||||||||
|
*jimmylogan* Posted Oct 3, 2008, 3:13 am |
But if you have a negative rep doesn't that mean you ARE guilty in game terms?
I'm just enjoying the banter - I see nothing wrong with neg rep possibly being attacked... I've heard it said that the BH attacking is a joke in the sense that a highly skilled & equipped player will take them out too, thus netting even more loot.
JL |
||||||||
|
darthspanky Posted Oct 3, 2008, 3:13 am |
hehe lord foul welcome to the pirate life thers lotas of old post about this i complained alot when i was the only pirate. didnt help then i doubt it will help now. yer right they will attack ya in ss because ya have a bad rep. but too many do gooders feel the ability to truce pirates is a bad thing and think its unfair, but with constant bh attacks it limits yer ability to take dammage looted engine cars, and in the long run limits yer playstyle imo thats why im not a pirate anymore i only hit traders rarly only when i nneed some stone or water units. but look on the bright side when they come to elm we can slaughter them muhahahaha | ||||||||
|
Lord Foul Posted Oct 3, 2008, 3:29 am |
Ahh I see so if you only hit traders a few times in SS and then make sure you attack pirates a few more times to maintain a pos rep than you are not guilty?lol Ohh wait that's ok becuase you are "less" guilty than the other guy and are exempt from being hunted. The thing with BH is that if you get them going out you can usually take them with no problems, it's coming back and getting hit by them that can ruin your day. I hear ya Darth, it's almost getting to the point of not being worth the effort to be a "bad guy". It's great that it's an option, but it's starting to lose its luster. The reward should equal the risk and I have not seen much of a reward over the past few months like it used to be, as I think trader loot was downgraded by Sam.(notice how rare lorries have become over the past few months) |
||||||||
|
darthspanky Posted Oct 3, 2008, 3:54 am |
not to mention fl was suppose to be a place where pirate players could go as there own town free from bh but there are no traders to hunt the terrain is brutal and only no bh attacks at the fl gates the other 4 maps you need to get there bh can attack ya, and if ya manage to kill bh you get fl hero points whoo ho that totally suck never popping anything good anymore. and if it does pop up people know when to get online to buy it hehe. | ||||||||
|
Lord Foul Posted Oct 3, 2008, 5:34 am |
Yeah I know all that Darth, I have been a bad guy for 8 out of 9 months now ya know. 
Or were you just talking out loud?
|
||||||||
|
Ivan Kerensky Posted Oct 3, 2008, 6:29 am |
About the Negociation Button...
I am sorry but entering such negociation should not freeze the time. If you want to negociate then a Truce need to be agreed between both part, the fight STOP then if no agreement can be reached a new fight start ( to the death ) from NEW positions. It is totally unrealistic to be able to conduct lengthy negociation in the freeze second before you fire your HFT at his broken side... Simply put a Ask for Truce option, if both player select it then the fight is temporarily stopped and a loot windows open, except that in this window there is 4 boxes ( 2 for each players ). One box contain all their gear, another is for money. People are free to transfer gear and money from one of their box to one of thoses of their opponent just like in a regular looting screen. If gangers are transfered to an opponent boxes then they could be taken as passengers and are delivered to the town the squad return to ( probably in exchange of a ransom ). If both player click the Accept button then the Truce is set and the fight end. If any player hit the cancel button then the truce is called over and the fight start anew from close on position and stopped cars. we can assume the 2 leaders return to their battleline before the firefight start anew. To be noticed than the Truce can be called only once, that Calling for a truce is a switch that you turn on or off. Also as soon as the Truce screen is entered, medic can start performing first aid on members of their gangs and an option box could allow to perform also on members of the other side. This way the Truce could also serve for a brief and agreed pause in combat for player to treat their wounded then return to the fight. |
||||||||
|
*sam* Posted Oct 3, 2008, 9:17 am |
I think LF has a point here. It would be a pity if negative rep. gangs became isolated and no-one would scout with them even in SS. What do others think? BTW someone asked the question about whether it's the squad leader that counts. In fact no, if the squad has any cars belonging to a negative rep. gang then the entire squad is counted as negative rep. I didn't see any other way than this - it would be too easy to exploit if you could 'lead' the squad with a positive rep. gang in order to protect your negative rep. cars. |
||||||||
|
darthspanky Posted Oct 3, 2008, 9:54 am |
being a pirate isnt worth it imo, i wont try to nget rep low enouph to truce and yeah youll probly have pirate players go good cause of that. what if someone planted a mole in a ss squad with a low rep player to get the good reps? | ||||||||
|
Mad Mike Posted Oct 3, 2008, 12:52 pm |
I bumped an old post that started the whole BH concept when darth and I killed traders for a week straight and sent the prices in SS sky high.
If negative rep players hunt traders in SS then this will happen again. I suggest that SS is PvP unless you have less than -500 rep. we get neg rep time to time. a new player that doesnt realize trader hunting may get to -50 then suddenly get slaughtered by the player ss police. we do need to keep trader hunting in ss down to a minimum. if you have -500 rep then you have been hunting traders for awhile and have the money and cars to be able to come back if you get hunted by other players. |
||||||||
|
Ivan Kerensky Posted Oct 3, 2008, 1:07 pm |
You can go neg rep easily as a beginner by taking on unfeasible mission...
now the real question is : who will voluntarily target a squad he KNOW contain a beginner ? |
||||||||
|
darthspanky Posted Oct 3, 2008, 1:11 pm |
nobody would i dont think if they did alot of vets would try to get him. at least not unless they have a reason and are lunatics 
|
||||||||
|
*Zothen* Posted Oct 3, 2008, 1:37 pm |
Never noticed that BH do any harm. Had to deal with them a few time (thanks to "you know that I mean you", hehe) - always been their fault to attack me! Also, BHs are constantly scouted by a lot of squads, cos they give better loot. BHs are just another gang, imo. Well, short end of the stick? Guess its cos most players are rather PvE than PvP and everybody is free to choose their own way of actions. And pirates never had an easy live... *looks over the blood stenched dunes with the smoldering pirate car wrecks* |
||||||||
|
Mad Mike Posted Oct 3, 2008, 2:37 pm |
BH were tough before they could be hunted. they would outnumber you 2 to 1 with texans (which BTW where are they?!?) desert tanks, punishers and other heavily armed vehicles.
SS should be PvP free so new players dont get killed by other players right of the bat. maybe a combination of fame and neg rep makes a player huntable in ss? you can get neg rep fast but fame takes time. |
||||||||
|
*jimmylogan* Posted Oct 3, 2008, 4:26 pm |
My take on this - make SS PvP free. a) it is supposed to be a learning town and "more safe." b) gives incentive for someone to travel to another town for that kind of action.
The down side is that new players won't be able to even *try* PvP without going to another town... That's not necessarily a good thing either, but worth considering. JL |
||||||||
|
Ivan Kerensky Posted Oct 3, 2008, 4:29 pm |
But sandbox PvP wont help them practice either as the kind of PvP they will encounter in another town will be better equiped and crewed cars with dedicated Player Hunting configuration.
Nothing prepare to PvP... |
||||||||
|
Mad Mike Posted Oct 3, 2008, 6:45 pm |
players that have a very low neg rep and high fame could fall under the huntable. SS is supposed to be the new players town. if we make it pvp free someone can hunt traders with no one to stop them except weak BH UNLESS sam creates a super attack on a player that hunts pirates after many warnings from the mayor of somerset. the gang that does it only attacks when a player has -1000 rep and 200 fame and hunts traders.
we need a PvP free zone. SS makes the most sense |
||||||||
|
Manx Bartlet Posted Oct 4, 2008, 1:38 am |
I agree with a PvP free zone around SS. It would make sense for pirates and fair traders alike. There are always dangerous trade routes as well as places where it is in both the 'bad' and 'good' guys best interest to move about freely/trade. | ||||||||
|
Six Gun Jack Posted Oct 4, 2008, 9:47 am |
but... Sam has been trying to get people to get out of SS...lol
now it would be a safe pirate haven ? hmm... doenst make much sense. remember if you pvp others you will have a negative rep. Now you just go to SS for awhile and nothing anyone can do to you if we make it totally pvp free. So no, my vote is no on total pvp free zone, makes no sense and is exploitable by pvpers that way. maybe if there was a way to make a seperate distinction between a pirate that only hunts traders or a pvp pirate. |
||||||||
|
*viKKing* Posted Oct 4, 2008, 12:05 pm |
What we need is certainly pirates acting like traders in the Firelight area.
I mean pirates with trucks. Afterall, aren't they bringing there loot back home? |
||||||||
|
*Ayjona* Posted Oct 4, 2008, 1:50 pm |
Good point. I've been thinking about that. Together with something like this, I'd like to see pirates do what we often do when we fight: avoid completely destroying most opposing vehicles, even to the point of taking risks by letting players cars remain semi-functional, in order to increase their gains. Of course, there are probably pirate gangs out there who don't give a mangled badger's ass about loot, but for those who do, something like this would both increase realism, and add tactical options. (Now that I think about it, perhaps this functionality is present in the game to some extent. During my last runs before my long hiatus, and now, upon my return, I've noticed pirates switching targets when one of my cars reach near-inhabitable levels.) |
||||||||
|
Six Gun Jack Posted Oct 4, 2008, 8:39 pm |
yeah Ayjona,
Sam has made incredible work on the AI lately. They really choose their targets much better. You will see them leave off on cars that are about dead or no threat. They will also go after "soft" targets a lot now like a lorry and peds. Pretty viscious they can be, and much smarter. |
||||||||
|
Lord Foul Posted Oct 4, 2008, 9:18 pm |
Sorry Jack but your comments don’t make much sense to me either. Sam has been trying to get everyone that is not a newbie out of SS, not just pirate players so your reasoning does not make much sense to vote no just because people have different play styles. Again you’re not thinking this through, you can have a high rep and PVP plenty of people and still be protected in SS due to your positive rep. I on the other hand may never PVP players but with my negative rep I’m always vulnerable to being attacked in SS. From what I see those with a high rep and PVP you are the ones that can exploit the most. |
||||||||
|
darthspanky Posted Oct 5, 2008, 1:24 am |
if yer gunna make low reps huntably in ss then i think if any player has any type of bounty on them they should also be pvp huntable in ss despite there rep. |