Pirate Playing, The unfortunate breakdown of realit
|
Jety Posted Sep 8, 2009, 4:46 pm |
How do you reconcile a player attacking a town with pirates one day and parking all his cars there the next day? | ||||||
|
*viKKing* Posted Sep 8, 2009, 4:48 pm |
In my proposal Darkwind: Black Out, I proposed such kind of players would only be allowed to the outskirts of the town, and wouldn't be allowed to access premium services there.
Hence the gates fee must be understood as a way to illegally enter the town in this case. |
||||||
|
Dr Mathias Posted Sep 8, 2009, 5:32 pm |
I was wondering when someone would ask this. I didn't want to be the one to do it.
There may come a day when players that attack a town or trade route (effectively the towns the route serves) are truly outlawed in those towns. To attack a trade route, town, or camp you'd need to be based from another local camp, or else have a massive fuel reserve to get to your target. For pvp attack purposes there should be a nearby 'temporary camp' or staging area for the pirates IMO, instead of all participating parties driving out the same gates to kill each other, then drive back in those same gates. Seems like a recipe for warfare inside the walls to me... Maybe the answer lies with viK's suggestion, an inner city where you need to be in good graces with the government, and an outer city where the lowlifes hang out. Or each town has an associated pirate haven a la Shantyville. The part-time piracy that goes on now is absolutely ridiculous. A player can decide they need a lorry, hit a few traders with a laughable rep loss and insignificant bounty, and drive the lorry right back into town- with no ill effects whatsoever. I hate that, considering the colossal shafting dedicated pirates get. Now, you can join the pirate side for an encounter and maybe get some villain points! YIPPPEEEEE! I'm sure you've heard the phrase 'don't #### where you eat' -well, time to apply that to this game. |
||||||
|
*jimmylogan* Posted Sep 8, 2009, 5:39 pm |
Not agreeing or disagreeing (out loud anyway  ) but I will say that we've had discussions in the RC about this and one of the things that has come out is the need for rep per FACTION.
To give a basic view of the way I'd like to see it done - Faction I has pirate gang A, B and trader gang 1 Faction II has pirate gang C, D and trader gang 2 Faction III has pirate gang E and trader gang 3 and 4. Faction I is at war with Faction II, etc. If you "hit" a Faction I gang (pirate or trader) then you'll GAIN rep with Faction II & III and LOSE rep with Faction I. IOW - you'll quickly make an enemy out of Faction I. They won't truce with you as often and they may even put a bounty on your head. Partial rationale is that just because they're "traders" doesn't make them "good guys." They are in competition with other traders, etc. Faction rep would also get you missions with the ones you're friendly with and not the ones you're enemies with. |
||||||
|
simonmaxhill Posted Sep 8, 2009, 8:23 pm |
I think Factions would be real neat.
I think the notion of a "keep" and "castle" and "outskirts" for each town is pretty sensible and also in line with the notion of Evan as a feudal society. |
||||||
|
darthspanky Posted Sep 8, 2009, 8:31 pm |
factions are a good idea one, per rep per town/gang has been talked aboutb for a very long time and will probly be aq long time till its implemented but as of right now that system isnt in place and it is traders are good guys now lol since there so valuable to evan community bh are put on anyone who attacks traders who are mostly crappy fame gangs but yet high fame pirates that get attacked by the 'good' guys never get any revenge with bh and they have high fame lol | ||||||
|
Crazy AL Posted Sep 8, 2009, 9:18 pm |
Good stuff and it makes sense! | ||||||
|
ISHOULDCOCO Posted Sep 8, 2009, 9:26 pm |
Yeah , DW ain't exactly black and whie morality
Gangs are traditionally about territory and fealty/sovereignty Yeah DW originally had a "Affliation" tab but never got implemented ? COCO |
||||||
|
Dr Mathias Posted Sep 8, 2009, 9:26 pm |
Bounty hunters were only put in game for one reason, and that is to penalize/punish players who hunt traders excessively. There was simply a perception that hunting traders is less risky or more lucrative than hunting pirates. There is a reason only 4 or 5 players have gotten rep to -2k. Bounty hunters give little to no satisfaction when hired by players to attack other players, in fact they've been a griefer's wetdream. The crux is that hunting traders excessively doesn't hurt anyone (other players or the economy) except superficially, so in effect bounty hunters punish a playstyle. I've decided to be the fence sitter that the game favors. I made CASH when I hunted pirates. I'll have access to all the missions. I'll still be able to truce pirates, a little less effectively perhaps, with my negotiators. My lvl 8 negotiator will allow me to truce better than I ever could as a pirate (post truce nerf) anyway. I can hunt traders when their fame gets high enough- acquiring juicy lorries- without long term penalty. Best of all, the bounty hunters won't look twice at me. So what if I can't play the way I want? |
||||||
|
Dr Mathias Posted Sep 8, 2009, 9:49 pm |
Traders are not necessarily good or bad. They want to make money, either locally or globally. Some would certainly stoop to stealing trade secrets or murder, and when the state gets involved, you get privateers.
In the medieval era that you guys are referencing, Maltese traders would get along with Maltese corsairs. The latter certainly wouldn't have been thought of as 'pirates' by people of their nationality. The Muslims had a different opinion. I wonder, would it be helpful to consider the towns of Evan as budding nation-states? If you attack the trade route between Somerset and Elmsfield, might some other city-state benefit from that? Perhaps a Somerset trade cartel could offer a mission like 'capture x Texan trader vans'. That shouldn't get you hunted by Somerset bounty hunters IMO. On the other hand, maybe sam wants all the cities to be close knit friends with a shared common goal, in which case 'bandits' are enemies to all? If that's the case, maybe all the talk of faction is pointless, and pirates are 'bad guys'. I can't imagine we're all expected to play 'good guys'- we were given the option to hunt traders after all. We should be able to make piracy in Elms skyrocket, and sell fuel from our Texan friends for a nice nest egg. Players should be able to hit Texan traders from Badlands, Shantyville, and Texan. They would be travelling that entire route. |
||||||
|
4saken Posted Sep 8, 2009, 10:09 pm |
I think I am liking the idea of factions based on area/town. You could do it other ways, but I think that would either be completely impersonal (e.g. Red vs Blue) or else too personal (e.g. ARL Nation vs Everyone Else).
If you draw the line along areas you could have the Northlands (Elms, SS), The Truckstops, the Southlands (Texan, Sars) and FL. That makes 4 factions. I am pretty sure that attacking traders in FL will not hurt my rep in SS with this system! It also allows for maybe some "home base" kind of stuff as well as having certain gangs aligned against certain towns (e.g. FLMH) but maybe not others. Also some factions may not be as opposed as others. For instance FF is allied against SS but is probably may be nearly neutral against the Truckstops so attacking the Truckstops may have no effect at all on your FL rep or may affect it only slightly one way or the other, as opposed to attacking FL or SS. Being pirate land FL may not even give you that bad of a rep attacking FL (!) whereas in SS and attacking SS I think they would be very offended indeed! Also as had been mentioned I think it fits the feudal/shades of grey of DW better than the current system. |
||||||
|
darthspanky Posted Sep 8, 2009, 10:17 pm |
if yer gunna do it ya need lots of factions like 20 or more, and they can change over time some gangs moving from 1 faction to another? and include all npc gangs even the racer and town event only npc gangs. | ||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Sep 9, 2009, 2:42 am |
to answer
town specific rep |
||||||
|
*Lugal* Posted Sep 9, 2009, 4:12 pm |
I'm a big advocate of multiple reps. When I was in the RC I was thinking of individual reps on a per-gang basis, but I'm pretty sure that would be too cumbersome and not really accomplish much. The old black and white dichotomy doesn't really fit, either.
Per faction reputation makes sense because, as pointed out, different gangs have different methods, goals, etc. It was mentioned before that faction rep would return to a neutral state over time, just as it currently does. I'm assuming that's still the plan. Now what I'd like to see included in the factions are: 1) The towns as a whole (they are effectively city-states), independent of the external NPC gangs. (or perhaps even partially affiliated with some?) but including the vendor NPCs. Mess with Jake and you annoy ALL of Somerset. 2) Factions to include the 'town NPC gangs'. I want Dirge and their friends to know that I hate them. |
||||||
|
4saken Posted Sep 9, 2009, 7:45 pm |
I'd love per npc-gang rep, as I have stated many times in the past. The faction thing is kindof a short-hand for that and also gets towns/players in on the action. And it lets them attack in some areas and defend in others. If more complicated scenarios are made later down the line rather than just "2 sides clash" (run the gauntlet, defend position X, etc) it would also add more strategy as some town areas might be better for certain kinds of battles, and which town is your home base would affect your game-play experience. | ||||||
|
Iron Wraith Posted Sep 10, 2009, 7:47 am |
Do towns really care who brings in the goods, as long as the goods arrive?
If you jump a trader and take his truck and then sell the cargo in the town he was travelling to, how does the town suffer other than not having to pay him his mission fee. I can imagine the local town council shaking their heads and muttering about damn pirates when goods never arrive, but since the economic model is bust and they dont suffer any long term effects why should they care. Implemented a full integrated economic model would be an accountants dream and a software engineers nightmare. It would be vulnerable to the cunning wranglings of the whole community who would quickly exploit its weaknesses before they could be patched and Sam would end up spending all his time making Sim Apocalyse rather than a drivy shooty car game. I gave up on worrying about realism several games of my own as it is a sysaphian task with little or no thanks and extra griping and no added gameplay. The best solution I have come up with is to raionalise the game effect insome way for yourself and live with it. It's a car driving shooting game with a money system to support it, not the other way round. Don't worry, be happy. |
||||||
|
Fealty Lost Posted Sep 10, 2009, 6:06 pm |
Everyone: I brought all these points up in the camp discussions long, long ago. Nothing happened then, either.
I suggested 'road-specific' security forces. I suggested 'per town rep.' I suggested 'player/gang/trader-specific' markings (etched serial numbers/lo-jack's, etc) that would disallow sales in 'good' towns of stolen/jacked materials. I suggested 'good' and 'bad' merchants (with the accompanying low buy prices at the 'bad' merchants to reflect 'fencing'). They might be all smiles out front...but around back, well.... There's nothing wrong with being a pirate...but you're nobody's friend...and the economy should reflect that, unless, of course, you're taking all your stuff to FL...and then, since it's nothing but a whole lot of low-lifes...prices should be even LOWER for stolen/jacked goods and HIGHER for everything else. In a society trying to put itself back together, piracy doesn't make friends...and the sort of gangers that would hire onto a low-rep gang are more likely (and should be in game play) to just drive off in that nice big rare-weapon vehicle of yours in the middle of a furball as they would to hang around and get their arses shot off for a salary...not to mention all the stuff that should just, ummmm, 'disappear' from your lock-ups at 4 in the morning. If you want to be a pirate, then your gangers would be...wait for it...PIRATES TOO...and just as scummy as you. Rep' should influence the type of ganger you get. Piracy attracts the scum of the Earth...addiction should be through the roof...gangers should defect like crazy, and with YOUR stuff every chance they get unless they're compensated MUCH better than us goody-two-shoe types, who are in it for the good of society. You shouldn't get any bonus for hunting pirates, when the majority of your doings are against legitimate traders...you just chose an 'alternate' avenue of revenue this time and weeding out the competition. The second you attack a trader, your Rep' should fall to '0' (anyone that escapes will tell the next town who it was that attacked them) and stay that way until your Leader 'does time' to pay for his gang's crimes (we have hospitals and rehab...why not prisons?). 'Wraith...what happens next week when that trader is supposed to show up again...but can't since you whakked him last week? Of course the game has a never-ending stream of traders...so that's not a factor...but RP-wise, yes, the towns DO care who brings in the goods...because there would be a disruption in the supply line while another victim...er, trader, was rounded up to do that run. The only reason there isn't a 'long-term effect' is because of the never-ending stream the game provides. Adding a set # of traders on each travel road, which doesn't regenerate until after a set time, would get the towns way more interested in piracy...since over-hunting a supply road is just like over-fishing the Grand Banks...and see what that got us? That's not a hard thing to add to the game, providing a bit of realism for both sides of the coin...after all, if you're slaughtering traders on the same road day after day...they're going to stop going that way, the town's going to suffer and the forces for good are going to have to step up. Right now the game keeps the traders rolling along no matter what. That's doofus. Pirates should have a bottom-feeding, scum-of-the-earth existence. Cowboy the f_ck up, Mr. Pirate. Nobody likes you. |
||||||
|
Dr Mathias Posted Sep 10, 2009, 6:32 pm |
I've really enjoyed this game.
I've met some very creative and enterprising people, and had real competition. In many other online games, particularly in a persistent world pvp environment, a fight is usually over before it starts. In DW there is always a chance you may win, or a chance you may lose. It is the best balanced MMO I have ever seen. Darkwind, or rather sam, allows players to participate fully in all facets of the game- mechanics, aesthetics, narrative. For that I am grateful. Over the last year or so, playing as a dedicated pirate, I've detailed many points that I perceive as unfair in gameplay terms, and illogical in storyline terms. Some of the problems could be rectified without much coding effort. For example, reinstate the ability to truce pirates; put cargo in trader vehicles instead of giving us empty pinatas. I was at a point where I didn't even care what the cargo was- or if it had any resale value- as long as something was inside the carrier vans. There is a glass ceiling imposed on the pirate playstyle- where the tedium and disadvantages become overwhelming. After hitting that ceiling the game is no longer enjoyable. I suppose my perspective is faulty; I've always assumed there was or should be a 'slot' for a pirate player- a distinct category that a player can cross over into, and with work and time, remove themselves from if they so choose. I define a pirate as a player who deliberately chooses to keep rep in the negative in order to gain the respect of the road pirates. I've already detailed in previous posts why I like a pirate playstyle, and more importantly that it should affect the economy. Please remember that a gang with -2000 reputation was able to truce pirates all over Evan 100% of the time. Essentially the areas that were safe for pirates to travel were reversed from the average player. I'm not sure if fame played a role at that point, but this ability was severely nerfed. I understand why in theory- sam doesn't want a 'sure thing' for players. There should always be some risk to travel and I agree. But it never was a sure thing- the threat of bounty hunters always loomed over you and you can't truce them anyway. Keeping that magic -2k is hardly worth the effort, and believe me it becomes grinding once you get to -2000 rep. Oftentimes you can't even find the traders you need to attack to keep your rep low- whether they're making record profits or not- because the bounty hunters are an extra-encounter variable that intercept you. If you have a high negative rep you will be unduly punished for playing the game the way you choose to. Your playstyle doesn't infringe on other players, impact the game world significantly, or give you an unfair, let alone reliable, advantage. Months ago I outlined all of the many disadvantages when playing as a dedicated pirate. Since then, my discoveries have only added to the pile. It blows my mind that all three bounty hunter gangs based in TEXAN attacked me in Elmsfield. Thanks for adding more bounty hunters (sarcasm). I suppose they got added because of all the 'economic activity' near Texan that needs protecting. Thats bogus though- because where bounty hunters are based doesn't matter at all. They can attack you anywhere. They teleport. Something that hurts pirates was added, nothing gained. We all know by now that the size of the npc economy is imaginary and irrelevant anyway. More bounty hunters to protect that which doesn't even exist. Again I state that bounty hunters are a punative measure targetting a playstyle. Looking at it another way, do we see punative additons (teleporting pirate gangs) targetting only goody-goody players who achieve stellar reputation and fame? Final straw: Fame increases your bounty significantly. Bounty is apparently not tied to how many times you attack traders, how many merchants you kill, or how much (imaginary) economic damage you are doing. The problem is that high fame is very important to trucing pirates. It is not simply your negative reputation. A pirates only advantage is trucing other pirates. That's it. You have an unfair choice- keep fame up so you can semi-effectively use the one advantage to having a negative rep (trucing), but you massively increase the bounty hunters. Anyone who has had a bounty over 3K (not very hard to get) knows what I mean. However, keeping fame low- so as not to increase your bounty- means you don't get to play the game. Heaven forbid you place first in a pro event (my favorite thing in the game)- that will add to your bounty! Placing in a league?!!! It is not my inclination to play a 'bad guy' in games. A long time ago I found myself at a -200 rep due to a long-corrected arena bug, and dived into pirating whole hog as a result. I now find myself wondering why I was interested in Darkwind's npc economy, or why I cared so deeply about the 'rights' of a player who chooses to prey on traders. I was a member of a minority playstyle that, apparently to me, is not welcome in this game. |
||||||
|
*sam* Posted Sep 10, 2009, 7:04 pm |
It's nothing to do with that Dr M, it's simply that I have limited time to work on DW. I have to pick and choose what I implement. Not one pirate player has come to me and explained that making trucing harder was going too far. How would I know then? The subtelties and balance of gameplay are only apparent when you're playing - very hard from my side of the fence. I do rely on player feedback. With regard to making more loot in trader cargos- yes, it's still on my to do list. I haven't had time to do it yet. I'm hoping to revamp the importance of the bulk goods soon, and at that time trader cargo should become more important too.
Suggesting is the easy bit Damon. Suggestions take typically tens of hours to implement.
That's all wrong. The trader gangs do get beaten back and become hard to find, and the town economy does suffer. Possibly the effect of piracy on town prices and goods availability is a little too subtle, but you have to factor in scalability. Any game model for a multiplayer game has to function irrespective of how many players are involved, otherwise it will just break down when the playerbase grows. |
||||||
|
*Longo* Posted Sep 10, 2009, 8:46 pm |
Being a pirate does kind of sux now. I do it for convenience anymore...if I can truce 1or 2 travels out of 4 then that is that much less I have to drive 350 m to escape. I used to escort just about everyone taking anything of value from BL to Southern Pride....now we dont bother because the chance is higher that BH will hit than making it safely on their own... | ||||||
|
FireFly Posted Sep 11, 2009, 8:37 am |
I hunt traders because it's more fun than going after regular pirates, mostly it's more of a challenge to, since in the larger ones you need to split your team up depending on were they are going.
But as others stated, it's not really more profitable by any means, but I still think it is more fun, and thats ultiamtely why I am playing this game. |
||||||
|
Fealty Lost Posted Sep 11, 2009, 4:24 pm |
Sam: First off...still love this game and still DO NOT envy you the task of making a world that's playable from many angles: I discovered this while trying to come up with a workable PvP system for the MMORPG I'm involved with.
Second: As relates to the over-hunted traders: Subtlety don't work. The effect of traders being overfished should show up as higher costs for everything...NOTICABLELY HIGHER...so that players have a reason for engaging in PvP/hunting pirates or, as your new town PvP has opened the door...being allowed to escort trader caravans (?) between cities AND gain Rep'/Fame from doing so, so that our pirate players, when they jump a caravan, can get a (hopefully) nasty surprise. To do so, of course, means players don't show up in the escort, but are merely considered part of the caravan...and stop the pirates from loading up player-killing vehicles he normally wouldn't take on a scout, just to grief those who want to try and make a society work, instead of tearing it apart for greed. This would have the effect of getting more people involved in PvP, rookie and vet' alike. With players involved, looting steps up a notch, also.
Thirdly: As I've said all along, I know changes take time and not every suggestion can be implemented...but I was flat-out attacked on many of the same suggestions that are now gaining merit amongst the community...so had to get in a self pat-on-the-back there.  We all appreciate the hard work and time you put into this game. Kudos. ...and more Kudos.
Now, quit screwing around and fix it! ::..ducks..:: |
||||||
|
betterlucky Posted Sep 11, 2009, 4:49 pm |
Damon's second point is an interesting one. Every now and then there could be an epic convoy between two towns with hot pvp action in exactly the same vein as the new town PVP.
You could add in an extra feature where pirates get rewarded for jacking lorries even if they don't win and militia for rescuing them. So you'd get players hopping out of cars, jumping in demo'd lorries and driving them off to escape distance. |
||||||
|
*Rahn* Posted Sep 11, 2009, 5:13 pm |
I like this one. Not only does it sound fun, exciting, and dangerous, it strikes me as realistic. |
||||||
|
4saken Posted Nov 4, 2009, 3:05 am |
Bump.
IMO this line of thinking should be the Next Big Thing worked on for DW. |