NiteHawk wrote:In terms of level 25'ers losing XP. I don't think it stops the harassment either because a level 25'er killing a newbie or new player in a group even has very little risk. If I were to even do that though, I'd allow EXP to climb up to a certain point. Being killed once and having to relevel even if it involves no gold to relevel is really rough and to me it would actually kill PKing completely. So you'd have to at least have a decent buffer of XP but I still feel like it just adds another layer that doesn't really solve it.
---
The whole damage reduction thing doesn't stop it either, but it at least prevents it after a certain period. But maybe simply the per death per hour needs to be adjusted too for example in the TOS. For example 3 kills per 2 hour per group, or 2 death per hour per group. It wouldn't stop the hunting though, and I do think its tough to nab someone unless you catch them with their pants down still.
The reason why I do like a damage reduction thing is that I think that it at least calms down players who been killed to many times. I think RUNNING and avoiding PKers is a part of the game, Losing XP is a part of the game. But imagine yourself in their shoes as a new player though, after a certain point it would get annoying. That way also it could be not moderated by staff anymore either.. Aka they die 3 times in an hour, they get immunity for a hour to at least feel safe and gain back the XP they lost and then some UNLESS they go hostile towards someone.
The three times a death thing is surely going to be exploited eventually anyways if its PER PLAYER that can do it. If we got 5 guys, separate clans, but hate one dude, each kills the dude 3 times, that would be rough on them. 15 deaths would be completely annoying. Surely a PKer' would be alright if a message came up saying that 'This person has been killed 3 times in an hour and has a immunity for the hour' or something like that. I think any decent person would say thats probably enough for them for now, yeah?
But again, the degree of how many kills and how long it would be is another. I honestly think 2 deaths per hour is actually enough, but that's just me.
--
Sides that, a level 25'er who dies to a newer player could get a heavier sickness that lasts longer too. Obviously the risk is if someone lower level gets a kill shot, but if thats the case I would assume that they were leveling and got jumped by said people, so fair game too. And I don't mean longer as in hours or anything, maybe a few minutes more per sickness level is all, or it starts at the second sickness level rather then the first level.
I may not be seeing it, but
i dont think death sickness is a viable risk/deterrent to PKers or an incentive/hope for new playing victims... especially if it is only a few more minutes. Definitely doesn't encourage anyone to stand up to a PKer on either a leveling character or a 25er (via alts or guild help)
because there is no lasting gain for your effort.
I keep hearing a few people (including NH above) say that losing EXP to PKers "is a part of the game" ... except that it seems that this statement doesn't universally apply as true to all players of the game - only those who are under 25.... so to me it seems like abit of a double standard for those people who say "exp loss is a natural risk to the game" to then cry out that that the remote potential of losing EXP as a 25er seems really rough for the poor 25ers (esp since its only if you somehow manage to lose a fight you are the heavy favourite for after being added to a wanted list for having already succeeded in such fights several times in the last 24hrs)... i mean the 25ers are already the ones who have the majority of the resources and power in the game... so
if the chance of losing EXP is really rough on the most experienced and established players in the community then its doubly or triply hard on the new players that EO is hopefully trying to attract and retrain.Basically people can be sporting about being killed if there is actually a competition about it. Ie the worst ranked team in the league can congratulate the best ranked team for thrashing them in a game because they played fairly under the same rules and lost. But if 25ers have nothing to lose and sub-25ers do, then the sub-25er doesnt feel like they are in a fair competition, but rather like a hopeless slave condemned to die in gladiatorial amusement.... To summarise, basically fostering the feeling of fair competition promotes better feelings in an underdog than being made a sport of with no meaningful way of competing.
And to address NH's concerns about my suggestion effectively killing off PKing, here are the reasons why i disagree that it would kill off PKing:1. Players only get put on the "wanted list" (where they risk EXP loss on a 25er) after X number of successful PKs of under-25ers in a 24hr period. Most 25ers would use the X to kill drop stealers or to enjoy PKing as is within this limit... it really only adds a risk people who choose to be excessive in Pking. So there would firstly still be Pking as is up to the current X per day
2. 25ers who exceed X still have the choice to continue Pking more if they like. This actually keeps more people playing the game actively. Because under the current system, after a PK happens usually 1 of the 2 parties ends up playing less... either the victim stops playing until the threat logs offline or the PKer must stop or risk breaking ToS (usually logging off or going idle)... either way you have a result where 50% of the people involved in a PK equation end up actively playing less of a game we want them to be playing/enjoying more of!
3. Players who really want to keep killing more than X with zero risk could just use a different 25er (e.g. not a slayer) to PK with or invest time in leveling a 2nd/3rd/4th slayer if they really must sneak around and do it (and hence rejoin the masses of mere mortals who are leveling)... Or they can just enjoy PKing in 'fair' fights vs other 25ers
Yes as NH pointed out, such a system doesnt 100% solve the issue of Pking harassment (ppl can still form gangs of 25ers to PK people etc) but it does naturally make it harder to do so for prolonged periods and adds an element of 'fairness' in the perception of new players... ie it is a solution that solves at least 80% of the problem naturally.
Now to me, the real question is what is the appropriate X number of PKs before being put on the 'wanted list' where the EXP loss risk applies. I think for a playerbase of our size it should start off small (my suggestion would be 1-3, keeping in mind that its a limit per 25er per day and many people have many 25ers) and be allowed to increase as the playerbase grows. Therefore everyone has the incentive to see the playerbase grow. Ppl who enjoy cultivating new players 'Defenders of Justice' style can do so more meaningfully knowing there is at least 1 way to scare a Pking 25er off (and inspire hope in those who are downtrodden that they might be able to defend themselves, "so keep playing and dont quit!")... and people who's main enjoyment of the game is in PKing can continue to Pk at their will (if thats what they choose to do, bearing the slight risk).
I guess like Daedroth, I too feel like ive reached the point that i've said all i have to say with my suggestion at this point (bar clarifications). I think i've logically laid out a viable solution as best that i can (not a 100% solve, but a natural deterrent for excessive Pking and a point of hope for newbie underdogs which is a big move in the right direction). Hopefully NH will give it more consideration in light of not many other viable ideas seeming to have arisen yet... but if not then all I can say is "best of luck to EO" and choose to play (or not play) as much as suits me under the current system.
