The Mana World - User contributions [en]

Archive:PVP proposal from Feline Monstrosity

2008-05-15T20:03:29Z

Feline monstrosity: /* Comments */

{{Category_gameconcept}}
{{Status_red}}
{{Opinions|
{{Pro | Feline Monstrosity}}|
{{Contra | Crush}}
}}

My idea for [[PVP|PvP]] is to have an option in the player's setup window to switch on PvP or to keep it off. On a basic level this would mean that people who have activated PvP can attack and be attacked by other people who have PvP activated.

This would mean that people who wish to stay out of PvP can do so and the more competitive people can fight wherever and whenever they want to.

==Guild Wars==
This could be combined with [[PVP proposal from Crush|Crush's proposal]] where guilds can declare war on each other and have raidable HQs. Players in guilds who are at war with each other may attack one another freely and players in guilds who are allied with each other may never atack one another (and neutral obviously has no effect).

==Addressing Problems==

===Newbies===
PvP would be mentioned in the tutorial (or whatever equivelent is implemented) and newbies would be introduced to the idea and warned of the possibilities. When a player then first goes to switch on PvP in their setup window they will be presented with a warning pop-up message which says something along the lines of "WARNING: You are switching on PvP. This means that you can be attacked by other players, even ones of a higher level, and you may be killed!". This warning should pop up each time PvP is activated, but there should be a "Don't display this warning again" option.

===Unfair Kills===
One problem presented by this system is that high level players could easily attack players of much lower levels if they have PvP activated. This could be solved by there being a restriction on the ability to attack players when there is a certain gap between their combat skills. This could be calculated by calculating their skill in all combat fields (melee, ranged, magic, etc.) and taking a mean of them all. A concrete gap can be defined once the combat system has been finished (I don't know enough of the mechanics to suggest one myself).

===Ganking===
Ganking (acting friendly and then back-stabbing) could be partially solved by people not being able to attack players in the same guild/party as them or an allied guild.

===Ganging Up===
Players ganging up on each other could be solved by implementing a party system, where in players may not attack other players who are in combat already, unless they are in combat with another player who is in your party. Also, to prevent a party of people all attacking just one person, players may not out-number each other in one fight unless the out-numbered player(s) are part of a larger party.

==Comments==
''I've decided to list myself under "opposing" because of the following reasons:''
*''Making declaring war on another guild just symbolic without any real effect on PvP rights would make the whole guildwar concept completely useless. The realism argument is quite nonsensical in this situation because the ability to switch PvP on and off at will and thus deciding freely if others may attack you or not is just as unrealistic. So either remove the "first option" or remove the claim that this proposal is compatible with the guildwars proposal.''
*''A concrete definition of the level gap under "unfair kills" is missing. Also keep in mind that non-combat skills also contribute to the character level.''
*''The ability to restrict specific people from attacking you at will ("anti ganking" rule) makes the whole PvP system useless. You could just block everyone who is a threat for you and only fight with people you can beat easily. But these people would then just block you and there wouldn't be any PvP at all.''
*''The "ganging up" rule lacks a clear definition of "being in a fight" and "being outnumbered" (especially considering the target-less combat system on the new server).''
''When these problems are solved I might support this proposal.''
--[[User:Crush|Crush]] 00:46, 14 May 2008 (CEST)

:''I've rectified the guild wars and unfair kills sections and suggested a partial solution to the ganking problem. I don't really know enough about how the game mechanics will be to completely solve the ganking problem and the ganging up problem. Do you have any suggestions yourself?'' [[User:Feline monstrosity|Feline monstrosity]] 22:03, 15 May 2008 (CEST)

Archive:PVP proposal from Feline Monstrosity

2008-05-15T20:03:16Z

Feline monstrosity: /* Comments */

Archive:PVP proposal from Feline Monstrosity

2008-05-15T19:59:50Z

Feline monstrosity:

Archive:PVP proposal from Crush

2008-05-15T19:53:13Z

Feline monstrosity: /* Comments */

{{Category_gameconcept}}
{{Status_red}}
{{Opinions|
{{Pro|Pauan}}
{{Pro|Crush}}
{{Pro|Yosuhara}}
{{Pro|jaxad0127}}
|
{{Contra|Dr Wahl}}
}}

My idea of PvP combat is to restrict PVP to personal duels and combat between guilds. Guilds can declare war on each other and then the members of the guilds can fight against each other whenever and wherever they want except in towns. To make pvp more attractive i propose a honor point concept.

The reason I favor this system is that i want to give players the possibility to stay completely out of pvp when they want while giving people who enjoy pvp a competitious and rewarding atmosphere. By focusing on guild vs. guild pvp i want to encourage team oriented pvp combat while avoiding unfair fights party vs. single players, avoid ganking (acting friendly until the other player is occupied, then attacking him. When someone is in an enemy guild you know you can't trust him) and give the players a group they identify with so that they know what they are fighting for.

==Personal duels==
When you want to fight someone, you can challenge him to a duel. He can then decide if he wants to fight you or not. When he doesn't it counts as an automatic win for you. When you win a duel against an opponent who is equally strong or stronger than you level-wise you gain some honor points. When you lose against a lower enemy you lose some honor point. When you win against a weaker enemy or lose against a stronger enemy (like it should be expected) nothing happens.

==Guild war and peace==
Every guildleader can declare war on other guilds. When he does so the members of both guilds receive a warning. About an hour after the guildleader declares war pvp is enabled between members of the two guilds everywhere except towns. The leaders of both guilds can offer peace at any time. When the offer is accepted pvp is immediately disabled between both guilds. Every kill of a member of an enemy guild gives an honor point for every guildmember and every death of a guildmember by the hands of an enemy guildmember means the lose of an honor point for every guildmember.

The idea is that when you are in a (wrong) guild you have the thrill of being attackable everywhere, but you know exactly who your enemies are. And when attacked by an overwhelming force you also know who to ask for help (that guys who lose honor points when they let you die). It also brings the interesting aspects of diplomacy (avoiding making the wrong enemies, threat other guilds with declaration of war, form alliances) and strategic warfare (keep members of enemy guilds away from key resources to weaken them) into the game.

When you are fed up with being attacked everywhere because your guild pissed off all the big pvp guilds you can still leave the guild and become a guildless player again.

==Honor points==
Collecting honor points in pvp combat should give both the individual character advantages as it gives the guild advantages when it got members with many honor points.

Players could have the following advantages when they collect enough honor points:
*A good position on a public scoreboard
*Access to special quests
*Access to prestige equipment
*Advances when dealing with npcs
*Of course they will be more popular in guilds because the guilds honor points are the sum of the honor points of their members.

Guilds could have the following advantages when the sum of the honor points of their members is high:
*A good position on a guild scoreboard
*The right to have a guild emblem
*Access to guild equipment (like shields or capes with the guild emblem visible)
*More organizational guild features
**Giving guild members special tasks like recruiter, treasurer etc. that give them some privileges of the guild leader
**higher member limit
**creating private chat channels in which other people can be invited
**option to form sub guilds
**etc.
*Access to a private guild headquarter ranging from a little meeting hut to a huge castle (on an instanced map).
*Permission to attack other guilds headquarters.

==Guild Headquarter Raid==
Another idea to make guild wars more interesting. This idea is loosely inspired by the guild war system of Ragnarok Online.

===General idea===
The idea is that guilds can attempt to invade the guild headquarter (HQ) of an enemy guild and steal their guild flag to humiliate the guild and steal a lot of honor points from them. In contrary to the Ragnarok Online guild wars system this can be done at any time. The attacking guild will usually outnumber the defending guild because they will usually planed the attack in advance and arranged that as many people as possible take part while the defending guild is caught by surprise and there will usually only a few people be online that are scattered all over the world. To counterbalance this strategical disadvantage of the defending guild the following system is designed to give the defenders a big tactical advantage.

===Preparation===
To attack a HQ the attacking guild has to schedule the raid at an npc. Every guild can only raid another guild every 24 hours. Of course only guilds that have a guild HQ can be raided.

Now both guilds get a message and have a half hour to prepare for combat. The attacking guild meets on a special map while the defending guild meets in their HQ. After the half hour preparation time the attacking guildmembers are teleported onto the map of the HQ. The position of the attacking guild should be a random area outside of the HQ. Random to avoid spawn camping of the defending guild.

===Setup and goal===
While a smaller HQ got a simple layout and is difficult to defend, a large HQ should have a much more complex layout with many points that give the defending guild a tactical advantage. But all HQs got two important rooms.

The first is a spawn room. It should be close to the entrances. When the defenders die they respawn in this room a few seconds later. Attackers can not enter the spawn room nor can they attack the defenders that are in it.

The second is the flag room which is usually in a position that is hard to reach for the attackers but easy to reach from the spawn room. In the flag room is the flag of the defending guild which they have to protect. The flag is basically an item that can only be picked up by the attacking team and is dropped when the character who got it dies.

The mission of the attacking guild is to get into the flag room, take the flag and bring the flag out of the HQ. Guildmembers that die respawn at their usual spawn location in the normal game world and have no chance to get back into the combat.

The mission of the defending guild is to eliminate all attackers before they can bring the guild out of the HQ. When they die they respawn after some seconds in the spawn room.

===Outcome===
When one of the guilds reaches their goal a lot of honor points from the loser are transfered to the winner. The result could be that the defenders have to move into a smaller HQ or that the attackers lose the right to attack again.

When the defending guild lost they have to invest a minor sum of gold to buy a new guild flag for their HQ. They can't use the facilities of their guild HQ but they can not be attacked either until they did so. This is a precaution against inactive guilds serving as honor farms for active guilds or attacking the same guild over and over again with different guilds.

===Strategies===
The preferred strategy of the defenders should be to take out the attackers one by one so that they can use their ability to respawn to their advantage. The attackers should try to stay together and rush into the flag room as fast as possible to make use of their superiority. Besieging the spawn room to prevent the defenders from recapturing key positions while a task force captures the flag can also be a successful strategy.

==Comments==

This rules quite suites me, but i don't agree that player should automatically win, when his oponent refuse to accept challenge... What if he's busy, or he just don't want to fight? Should the challenger take advantage of this? --[[User:Yosuhara|Yosuhara]] 15:18, 21 September 2006 (CEST)

I agree with Yosuhara. Why not have a third option, "declined"? If a player refuses your challenge it will add 1 to the "declined" option. This way you can easily see how many fights the person has undertaken while also providing an accurate assessment. Also, how will you calculate who won? Obviously it will be determined by who dies, but what about monsters, etc.? Perhaps while two players are dueling they cannot be targeted by ANY outside forces (monsters, friends, etc.)? This keeps things fair and prevents people from ganging up on others (except in party vs. party of course). '''--''' [[User:Pauan|Pauan]] 08:04, 23 December 2007 (CET)

The whole guild wars thing seems to open to abuse. I can imagine that some larger guilds might bully the smaller or weaker guilds by declaring war on them, ruining the game for anyone in those guilds because they are not strong enough either in statistics, numbers, or both to defend against the guild warring against them. I would suggest that guild leaders can only declare war against a guild that is roughly equal or greater in power and/or numbers to the other guild. '''--''' [[User:Falcata|Bobby Jim]] 14:36, 24 December 2007 (CET)

:I've seen rules to prevent attacks from high level players/factions on low level players/factions in a lot of games of a lot of different genres. And these rules always left loopholes in practice or even had abuse potential on their own. But when you think that you can design any rules on this topic that really work then feel free to do so. --[[User:Crush|Crush]] 03:41, 25 December 2007 (CET)

Also, I can easily see abuse of the guild headquarter raid. A guild could quite easily gain honor points quickly by continually raid the guild HQ of another, weaker guild. '''--''' [[User:Falcata|Bobby Jim]] 14:36, 24 December 2007 (CET)

:I fixed your concerns by 1. denying guilds to do more raids than one every 24 hours and 2. removing the defeated guild from both the benefits and disadvantages of guild HQs until they feel ready for it again. --[[User:Crush|Crush]] 03:41, 25 December 2007 (CET)

Also, what if a guild doesn't have or want an HQ? What then? '''--''' [[User:Falcata|Bobby Jim]] 14:36, 24 December 2007 (CET)

:Having a guild HQ is purely optional and a guild without a guild HQ can not be raided. --[[User:Crush|Crush]] 03:41, 25 December 2007 (CET)

What are the advantages of having a guild HQ? [[User:Feline monstrosity|Feline monstrosity]] 21:52, 15 May 2008 (CEST)

Archive:PVP proposal from Crush

2008-05-15T19:52:57Z

Feline monstrosity: /* Comments */

Archive:PVP proposal from Feline Monstrosity

2008-05-13T20:45:37Z

Feline monstrosity:

{{Category_gameconcept}}
{{Status_red}}
{{Opinions|
{{Pro | Feline Monstrosity}}|

}}

My idea for [[PVP|PvP]] is to have an option in the player's setup window to switch on PvP or to keep it off. On a basic level this would mean that people who have activated PvP can attack and be attacked by other people who have PvP activated.

This would mean that people who wish to stay out of PvP can do so and the more competitive people can fight wherever and whenever they want to.

==Guild Wars==
This could be combined with [[PVP proposal from Crush|Crush's proposal]] where guilds can declare war on each other and have raidable HQs. Either guild's status towards each other (allied/at war/neutral) could be in writing only and have no effect on their PvP rights, ''or'', players in guilds who are at war with each other may attack one another freely and players in guilds who are allied with each other may never atack one another (and neutral obviously has no effect). I personally am in favour of the first option for realism.

==Addressing Problems==

===Newbies===
PvP would be mentioned in the tutorial (or whatever equivelent is implemented) and newbies would be introduced to the idea and warned of the possibilities. When a player then first goes to switch on PvP in their setup window they will be presented with a warning pop-up message which says something along the lines of "WARNING: You are switching on PvP. This means that you can be attacked by other players, even ones of a higher level, and you may be killed!". This warning should pop up each time PvP is activated, but there should be a "Don't display this warning again" option.

===Unfair Kills===
One problem presented by this system is that high level players could easily attack players of much lower levels if they have PvP activated. This could be solved by there being a restriction on the ability to attack players when there is a certain gap between their levels.

===Ganking===
Ganking (acting friendly and then back-stabbing) could be solved by there being a PvP block system. I.E. Players could block other players from atacking them (which would obviously work both ways - you could not attak someone you'd PvP-blocked).

===Ganging Up===
Players ganging up on each other could be solved by implementing a party system, where in players may not attack other players who are in combat already, unless they are in combat with another player who is in your party. Also, to prevent a party of people all attacking just one person, players may not out-number each other in one fight unless the out-numbered player(s) are part of a larger party.

Archive:PVP proposal from Feline Monstrosity

2008-05-13T20:45:13Z

Feline monstrosity:

{{Category_gameconcept}}
{{Status_red}}
{{Opinions|
{{Pro | Feline monstrosity}}|

}}

My idea for [[PVP|PvP]] is to have an option in the player's setup window to switch on PvP or to keep it off. On a basic level this would mean that people who have activated PvP can attack and be attacked by other people who have PvP activated.

This would mean that people who wish to stay out of PvP can do so and the more competitive people can fight wherever and whenever they want to.

==Guild Wars==
This could be combined with [[PVP proposal from Crush|Crush's proposal]] where guilds can declare war on each other and have raidable HQs. Either guild's status towards each other (allied/at war/neutral) could be in writing only and have no effect on their PvP rights, ''or'', players in guilds who are at war with each other may attack one another freely and players in guilds who are allied with each other may never atack one another (and neutral obviously has no effect). I personally am in favour of the first option for realism.

==Addressing Problems==

===Newbies===
PvP would be mentioned in the tutorial (or whatever equivelent is implemented) and newbies would be introduced to the idea and warned of the possibilities. When a player then first goes to switch on PvP in their setup window they will be presented with a warning pop-up message which says something along the lines of "WARNING: You are switching on PvP. This means that you can be attacked by other players, even ones of a higher level, and you may be killed!". This warning should pop up each time PvP is activated, but there should be a "Don't display this warning again" option.

===Unfair Kills===
One problem presented by this system is that high level players could easily attack players of much lower levels if they have PvP activated. This could be solved by there being a restriction on the ability to attack players when there is a certain gap between their levels.

===Ganking===
Ganking (acting friendly and then back-stabbing) could be solved by there being a PvP block system. I.E. Players could block other players from atacking them (which would obviously work both ways - you could not attak someone you'd PvP-blocked).

===Ganging Up===
Players ganging up on each other could be solved by implementing a party system, where in players may not attack other players who are in combat already, unless they are in combat with another player who is in your party. Also, to prevent a party of people all attacking just one person, players may not out-number each other in one fight unless the out-numbered player(s) are part of a larger party.

Archive:PVP proposal from Feline Monstrosity

2008-05-13T20:44:50Z

Feline monstrosity:

Archive:PVP

2008-05-13T19:41:50Z

Feline monstrosity:

{{Category_gameconcept}}

The role and concept of player vs. player combat is a topic that is very controversal among the development team and fan base. There are many different views how much pvp combat should be restricted and how much victory and defeat in pvp combat should be rewarded or penaltized.

Arguments against restricting pvp combat are:
*Encourage competive gameplay
*Posibility of self administration (players are able to punish players directly who behave badly in their opinion)
*Constant thrill of being attackable

Arguments for restriciting pvp combat are:
*Encourage cooperative gameplay
*Avoid high level characters destroying the game for low level characters
*Avoid ganking (killing characters while they can't defend themself)

Here a list with some of the proposed concepts:

;[[PVP proposal from old wiki]]: Reward for killing notorious player killers
;[[PVP proposal from Andrew Harrison]]: Separating the world in zones with different risks of pvp combat and rewards in these zones for killing monsters is propotional to the pvp risk.
;[[PVP proposal from Crush]]: PVP combat only between guilds that are at war.
;[[PVP proposal from Feline Monstrosity]]: PVP optional, can be switched on from setup window.
;PVP based on challenge: Players have to challenge other players for pvp combat. The challenge can be rejected. There may or may not be a penalty for rejecting challenges.

Also note this thread:
http://forums.themanaworld.org/viewtopic.php?t=649&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Archive:PVP proposal from Feline Monstrosity

2008-05-13T19:40:34Z

Feline monstrosity:

My idea for [[PVP|PvP]] is to have an option in the player's setup window to switch on PvP or to keep it off. On a basic level this would mean that people who have activated PvP can attack and be attacked by other people who have PvP activated.

This would mean that people who wish to stay out of PvP can do so and the more competitive people can fight wherever and whenever they want to.

==Guild Wars==
This could be combined with [[PVP proposal from Crush|Crush's proposal]] where guilds can declare war on each other and have raidable HQs. Either guild's status towards each other (allied/at war/neutral) could be in writing only and have no effect on their PvP rights, ''or'', players in guilds who are at war with each other may attack one another freely and players in guilds who are allied with each other may never atack one another (and neutral obviously has no effect). I personally am in favour of the first option for realism.

==Addressing Problems==

===Newbies===
PvP would be mentioned in the tutorial (or whatever equivelent is implemented) and newbies would be introduced to the idea and warned of the possibilities. When a player then first goes to switch on PvP in their setup window they will be presented with a warning pop-up message which says something along the lines of "WARNING: You are switching on PvP. This means that you can be attacked by other players, even ones of a higher level, and you may be killed!". This warning should pop up each time PvP is activated, but there should be a "Don't display this warning again" option.

===Unfair Kills===
One problem presented by this system is that high level players could easily attack players of much lower levels if they have PvP activated. This could be solved by there being a restriction on the ability to attack players when there is a certain gap between their levels.

===Ganking===
Ganking (acting friendly and then back-stabbing) could be solved by there being a PvP block system. I.E. Players could block other players from atacking them (which would obviously work both ways - you could not attak someone you'd PvP-blocked).

===Ganging Up===
Players ganging up on each other could be solved by implementing a party system, where in players may not attack other players who are in combat already, unless they are in combat with another player who is in your party. Also, to prevent a party of people all attacking just one person, players may not out-number each other in one fight unless the out-numbered player(s) are part of a larger party.

Archive:PVP proposal from Feline Monstrosity

2008-05-13T19:39:46Z

Feline monstrosity:

My idea for [[PvP]] is to have an option in the player's setup window to switch on PvP or to keep it off. On a basic level this would mean that people who have activated PvP can attack and be attacked by other people who have PvP activated.

This would mean that people who wish to stay out of PvP can do so and the more competitive people can fight wherever and whenever they want to.

==Guild Wars==
This could be combined with [[PVP proposal from Crush|Crush's proposal]] where guilds can declare war on each other and have raidable HQs. Either guild's status towards each other (allied/at war/neutral) could be in writing only and have no effect on their PvP rights, ''or'', players in guilds who are at war with each other may attack one another freely and players in guilds who are allied with each other may never atack one another (and neutral obviously has no effect). I personally am in favour of the first option for realism.

==Addressing Problems==

===Newbies===
PvP would be mentioned in the tutorial (or whatever equivelent is implemented) and newbies would be introduced to the idea and warned of the possibilities. When a player then first goes to switch on PvP in their setup window they will be presented with a warning pop-up message which says something along the lines of "WARNING: You are switching on PvP. This means that you can be attacked by other players, even ones of a higher level, and you may be killed!". This warning should pop up each time PvP is activated, but there should be a "Don't display this warning again" option.

===Unfair Kills===
One problem presented by this system is that high level players could easily attack players of much lower levels if they have PvP activated. This could be solved by there being a restriction on the ability to attack players when there is a certain gap between their levels.

===Ganking===
Ganking (acting friendly and then back-stabbing) could be solved by there being a PvP block system. I.E. Players could block other players from atacking them (which would obviously work both ways - you could not attak someone you'd PvP-blocked).

===Ganging Up===
Players ganging up on each other could be solved by implementing a party system, where in players may not attack other players who are in combat already, unless they are in combat with another player who is in your party. Also, to prevent a party of people all attacking just one person, players may not out-number each other in one fight unless the out-numbered player(s) are part of a larger party.

Archive:Classes

2008-05-13T12:39:16Z

Feline monstrosity: /* Some potential classes */

Suggestion for classes in TMW:

Added to the menu buttons on the top right of the gameplay screen there would be a class button where you could change you class. We could also call classes job, proffessions, etc.
Choosing a class will give you stat bonuses, but will restric the spells, weapons, and armor you can use.

==Some potential classes==

;Warrior:Basic melee fighter. User of swords, axes, maces, hammers etc. Not that great with ranged weapons
;Ninja:Can use most swords and knives, along with thrown weapons(throwing stars, kunii, sinban, etc.)
;Rogue:Can use most knives and thrown weapons. Some offensive magic.
;Mage:Your basic magic user. Primarily elemental offensive magic, with some healing magic and summoning magic.
;Druid:Nature mage. Can use some bows, but primarily relies on summoning magic and nature related spells (entangling vines, wild shape, etc.)
;Ranger:Master of all objects that can make you go "ouch" at distance
;Sorcerer:A magic user that uses completely offensive magic, with no defensive/healing magic
;Cleric:A magic user that uses primarily healing/defensive magic. Can do several summons.

==Jobs==

Jobs should be based upon non-combat skills. For example, someone who loves to mine could become a miner, which would give them mining bonuses. Of course, you would be able to change jobs, but unlocking a jobs would have some criteria to meet.

==Comments==

:''Thanks for your input, but we already decided to use a classless character system. For more information read [[Skill system]] and [[Attributes]]. --[[User:Crush|Crush]] 15:54, 22 April 2008 (CEST)''

::''I understand that. My idea is that we could use classes alongside skill system. You could choose to remain classless, but by choosing a class you would gain bonuses in different skills (different classes would enhance different skills). And like I said, by choosing a class you would specialize yourself to certain types of weapons and skills based on the class. -- [[User:Yanom|Yanom]] 22:43, 22 April 2008 (CEST)
''