Quote:Original post by IronLion85

Quote:Original post by makeshiftwings
If I were a griefer, here's how I would play the example game:

I and six or so friends would create new throwaway level 1 characters. We would then go into the safe zones, and immediately attack someone. Any time a guard started to attack any of us, we would unplug our network cable and then relog 20 seconds later. If anyone got killed, they would recreate a new throwaway level 1 and get back to the group. While we were killing someone, we would shout homophobic remarks at them just to do our best to ensure they quit the game or at least post a funny whine about us on the forums. Once we kill someone, one of us logs in with our "real" level 5 character and scoops up the loot that drops, skillfully getting all the reward with none of the risk. If we wanted to ensure no one knew the "real" characters behind the griefing, we'd ensure that the passing off of loot from the level 1's to our level 5's was done when no one was looking, so our level 5's can stay in the Guild of Holy Goodness without tarnishing our reputation.

Next, the 6 of us would have played enough MMORPGs to know how they work, and how to find the exploitable skills and attacks fairly quickly. We would exploit the heck out of all of them and kill as many people as possible before we get nerfed in the next patch, and after that patch, we just change our tactics again. Nonpermadeath MMO devs have enough to worry about with nerfing everything every few weeks to soothe the feelings of people who got killed by unfair balance; think of how hilarious it will be when the people complaining on the forums just lost five months of work and a character they loved PERMANENTLY just because the devs gave the druids an attack that worked too well against the mages.

Throughout this whole time, we would be selling our ill-gotten goods and probably our level 5 characters on ebay. Especially if our level 5 characters get really bad reputations. The funny part would be that we'd probably be selling the goods back to the same people we just killed and took them from, since god knows almost nobody is really going to feel like they should grind for weeks to get that sword back again when they lost it so unfairly to a bunch of griefers like us.

you can never get away from people like that. You can't let people like that stop you from making a game though, hasn't stopped MMOG developers from making new ones that's for sure. Would you say people like that should stop developers from making a game like this? Only one character per account though in my ideal game.

Not sure if someone posted about this is the second half of the conversation (wanted to post before I forgot), but these patterns are generally easy to spot. You could simply have the server watch for these patterns (same IP address creating level one players, attacking more skilled players, and repeating), and then simply cut their subscription and block the IP address from the server. Send them a nice email about how they were assholes and were ruining the game for other people. Maybe you could unblock their IP address in a couple months. That way, they'll only get to kill a few players (maybe two or three) before being banned from playing for a while. Then they'll get discouraged in those few months and probably forget all about it.

On permadeath: I love the idea of permadeath. I want to (someday far from now) create an MMO with permadeath. You could simply have hospitals be the 100% safe places to be (have a building "enchantment" keep magic out and have guards remove weapons on entry) and make cities heavily guarded so they are mostly safe. This scenario seems to suit most people.

There should be no way of ressurrecting your character. This defeats the idea of permadeath altogether.

A game with permadeath would be fun because it would be a simulation. You could start letting players do things that have generally been reserved for NPCs, such as running inns, shops, crafting items, political positions, etc. Obviously not everyone wants these roles, but some people might be quite happy living a calm second life online.

I would love to see an MMO where focus wasn't just about killing things and getting to level 55. Create a game where the goal is to make an NPC free, player run world with a functioning political body and economic system. I know this would be hell to code for, but the results could be amazing.

Quote:Original post by NickGravelyn

Quote:Original post by IronLion85

Quote:Original post by makeshiftwings
If I were a griefer, here's how I would play the example game:

I and six or so friends would create new throwaway level 1 characters. We would then go into the safe zones, and immediately attack someone. Any time a guard started to attack any of us, we would unplug our network cable and then relog 20 seconds later. If anyone got killed, they would recreate a new throwaway level 1 and get back to the group. While we were killing someone, we would shout homophobic remarks at them just to do our best to ensure they quit the game or at least post a funny whine about us on the forums. Once we kill someone, one of us logs in with our "real" level 5 character and scoops up the loot that drops, skillfully getting all the reward with none of the risk. If we wanted to ensure no one knew the "real" characters behind the griefing, we'd ensure that the passing off of loot from the level 1's to our level 5's was done when no one was looking, so our level 5's can stay in the Guild of Holy Goodness without tarnishing our reputation.

Next, the 6 of us would have played enough MMORPGs to know how they work, and how to find the exploitable skills and attacks fairly quickly. We would exploit the heck out of all of them and kill as many people as possible before we get nerfed in the next patch, and after that patch, we just change our tactics again. Nonpermadeath MMO devs have enough to worry about with nerfing everything every few weeks to soothe the feelings of people who got killed by unfair balance; think of how hilarious it will be when the people complaining on the forums just lost five months of work and a character they loved PERMANENTLY just because the devs gave the druids an attack that worked too well against the mages.

Throughout this whole time, we would be selling our ill-gotten goods and probably our level 5 characters on ebay. Especially if our level 5 characters get really bad reputations. The funny part would be that we'd probably be selling the goods back to the same people we just killed and took them from, since god knows almost nobody is really going to feel like they should grind for weeks to get that sword back again when they lost it so unfairly to a bunch of griefers like us.

you can never get away from people like that. You can't let people like that stop you from making a game though, hasn't stopped MMOG developers from making new ones that's for sure. Would you say people like that should stop developers from making a game like this? Only one character per account though in my ideal game.

Not sure if someone posted about this is the second half of the conversation (wanted to post before I forgot), but these patterns are generally easy to spot. You could simply have the server watch for these patterns (same IP address creating level one players, attacking more skilled players, and repeating), and then simply cut their subscription and block the IP address from the server. Send them a nice email about how they were assholes and were ruining the game for other people. Maybe you could unblock their IP address in a couple months. That way, they'll only get to kill a few players (maybe two or three) before being banned from playing for a while. Then they'll get discouraged in those few months and probably forget all about it.

YES! Someone with some solutions. That's a great way to deal with griefers and unfortunately I don't have the technical know-how to come up with an idea like that (I didn't know you could have a server spot patterns), but I'm glad someone does.

Quote:Original post by IronLion85
I don't know what thread you read. Read the topic thread. Where do I imply that a prestige system is the solution to the problems that go along with permadeath? In fact, someone else suggested a prestige system and I said that I didn't like the idea.

True, you didn't start it, but nowhere did you say you didn't like it. You disagreed with the idea of "prestige points," but on two separate occasions you discussed how a correctly implemented permadeath system would take care of prestige on its own -- in a third occassion, you discussed financial lineage as an alternative. Obviously, lineage and prestige are ideas you are kicking around. I am trying to offer reasons why they won't work in any game whose genre begins with the word "massive."

I also gave an example why, which you so tactfully ignored: Lineage was never successful in America because nobody wanted to be a serf. Everybody wants to be the knight or the King. It just doesn't work with our mind set. People may not go out of their way to try to become the best, but at the same time, you won't find people who go out of their way to subject themselves to other people, or, if given the option, would allow themselves to be subjected.

Quote:Original post by IronLion85
"Fame doesn't mean a thing if everyone is famous, if your goal is to become famous than shouldn't fame mean something?"

I'm sorry but if you don't understand that sentence that's your problem not mine. And if the rest of that paragraph was a little fragmented and nonsensical it's because I didn't want to individually quote every sentence of yours.

Technically it is yours since it is your job to convince me of your points in an argument. One of the ways you convince another person is through rhetoric and eloquence -- not writing sentences that barely make any sense. If they are too confusing, the point is lost.

But that is really here nor there. This topic is about permadeath, so lets keep it related to that, not proper argument technique.

Quote:Original post by IronLion85
Let me simplify it for you: -If everyone is famous no one is. Why would you want to be famous if everyone else is too? People strive to be unique-

I have to keep going back to the example of "my ideal game" because there are currently no other examples to use. I could describe "my ideal game" in detail but it would be about 50 or more pages long and no one would read it.

If thats what it takes to get across how the permadeath system would work and tie into a full game, then hell, I would read it. At the moment, you are just giving random glimpses that seem to be made up off the top of your head for the sake of rebutting any argument someone comes up with. I would love to see how the whole picture would work, because as has been said before, the whole MMORPG paradigm would need to be revolutionized.

Quote:Original post by IronLion85
You're right. There aren't any permadeath games on the market. That's because none have been attempted (correct me if I'm wrong). What that means is that you can't be completely certain that one would fail just as I can't be completely certain that one would succeed.

No, you are right. But the fact of the matter is, no company wants to take the risk because it doesn't make sense financially. Truthfully, main stream games aren't normally with ones with the innovations (sometimes they get lucky) -- but they do often show what games like, seeing as they are what gamers are playing. You could argue that MMORPG players have been offered no real other opportunity, and you would probably be right...but is there an underlying reason for this that we are not seeing?

Quote:Original quote by IronLion85
Nothing has been "proven not to be successful" in this subject.

Well, my proof is that the model has been discussed at great length, and to no avail. Unless you can offer proof on the contrary, everything just becomes speculation as to whether permadeath may or may not work. You could say that since it has never been tried, it hasn't been proven not to work -- but I consider the fact that there have been no attempts to try a major indication that there is obviously something missing from the equation.

Quote:Original quote by IronLion85
This isn't exactly an easy argument to present. I'm trying to persuade people that a permadeath game can work because there seem to be a lot of people that simply refuse to accept that it might be a valid concept. As far as I can tell you haven't really refuted a single idea of mine. You explained how a prestige system wouldn't work (I never said there should be a prestige system). You've said that not everyone will be able to be "famous" or "known" (something I never tried to argue). And you've explained that no MMORPG can ever reach "that sort of realism", but as far as I can tell you were talking about my game concept with that, and not the concept of permadeath.

I believe the concept of permadeath can work, but only with the correct game concept to back it up. Permadeath isn't something you can just plug and play. Permadeath would never work in a game like WoW. You would need to completely redefine gameplay -- hence why your game concept is just as important as permadeath itself if you want it to work.

Now, onto other topics. This is a hard one for me because I no longer understand the appeal of a MMORPG, besides as a social tool. It seems utterly pointless to me to get home from work, log on, and spend 5 hours mining coal for your virtual company. I personally have many better things to do with my time. So it is hard for me to visualize a society where not everyone is trying to be the hero, though I suppose your argument that modern MMORPGs are evidence to the contrary of my statement probably does hold. However, a lot of this I believe comes from the fact that people can come back day by day and see progress. There really is no Sisyphusian grind; rather, the bolder at some point reaches a plateau, and they begin pushing up another mountain. If permadeath exists, won't this scare characters away from this sort of behavior, and kill that aspect of the MMORPG experience. And if that is so, doesn't that destroy the audience that you pointed out as being the individuals who did not care about prestige and that sort of thing? How would you address this?

As well, I hate to be a pessimist, but in my experience, there is always someone smarter than you when it comes to griefing based activities. The post above discusses pattern recognition to boot griefers from the system: I would just use a proxy for all my different characters. Bam, I just got around your system. The fact of the matter is, if someone wants to ruin the game, they are going to. Yes, creating server rules to boot out the script kiddies and their likes is an important task, but you need a more deeply rooted social system that frowns upon this sort of behavior and allows players to avoid it all together. Safe zones and rules allow this sort of thing.

The biggest issue I see is the difference between real life and a game. Even in a game with permadeath, I can still make a new character. A lot of what keeps people in line are the repercussions of their actions. If I shoot someone in the street, there is a good chance I will be apprehended and sent to jail for life. In a game, I can kill someone and just create a new character. You offered the solution of the jail cell, which I think is a good idea. If you can just ban griefers all together, most people wouldn't bother buying the game if they wanted to be a griefer. However, does that offer freedom to players? Is there a possibility for a social based regulatory system? Is it even worth it? After all, it is a game, and it should be fun. Let us not forget our primary target!

Quote:Original post by NickGravelyn
Not sure if someone posted about this is the second half of the conversation (wanted to post before I forgot), but these patterns are generally easy to spot. You could simply have the server watch for these patterns (same IP address creating level one players, attacking more skilled players, and repeating), and then simply cut their subscription and block the IP address from the server. Send them a nice email about how they were assholes and were ruining the game for other people. Maybe you could unblock their IP address in a couple months. That way, they'll only get to kill a few players (maybe two or three) before being banned from playing for a while. Then they'll get discouraged in those few months and probably forget all about it.

If it were that simple to stop griefing, don't you think all MMORPG's would have done it by now? Here are the problems with that approach:

1) Defining griefing, or more precisely, defining who's an "asshole". If you are making a game where the system allows low level characters to attack high level characters, then you are, in effect, saying that it's ok. If you wanted to make it across the board illegal for low levels to attack high levels, you could just make it physically impossible for them to attack, that's much simpler. So instead, in your example, you're setting an arbitrary limit. How many higher level characters are you allowed to kill before you're banned? What if the higher level character provokes you into fighting? What if you're RPing a war with a certain group? Why is it ok for higher levels to indiscriminantly kill lower levels but the lower levels can't fight back?

2) The solution isn't pre-emptive. You're letting them "only" kill 2 or 3 players (though honestly if you perma-ban someone for killing 2 players of a higher level than them, your entire system is flawed. In reality, most people would only consider it a "pattern" if you had just killed 10 or 20 people). Still, even assuming you do ban someone after killing a mere two times, that still doesn't make the two people who were killed feel any better.

Quote:Original post by visage

Quote:Original post by IronLion85
I don't know what thread you read. Read the topic thread. Where do I imply that a prestige system is the solution to the problems that go along with permadeath? In fact, someone else suggested a prestige system and I said that I didn't like the idea.

True, you didn't start it, but nowhere did you say you didn't like it. You disagreed with the idea of "prestige points," but on two separate occasions you discussed how a correctly implemented permadeath system would take care of prestige on its own -- in a third occassion, you discussed financial lineage as an alternative. Obviously, lineage and prestige are ideas you are kicking around. I am trying to offer reasons why they won't work in any game whose genre begins with the word "massive."

I also gave an example why, which you so tactfully ignored: Lineage was never successful in America because nobody wanted to be a serf. Everybody wants to be the knight or the King. It just doesn't work with our mind set. People may not go out of their way to try to become the best, but at the same time, you won't find people who go out of their way to subject themselves to other people, or, if given the option, would allow themselves to be subjected.

Quote:Original post by IronLion85
"Fame doesn't mean a thing if everyone is famous, if your goal is to become famous than shouldn't fame mean something?"

I'm sorry but if you don't understand that sentence that's your problem not mine. And if the rest of that paragraph was a little fragmented and nonsensical it's because I didn't want to individually quote every sentence of yours.

Technically it is yours since it is your job to convince me of your points in an argument. One of the ways you convince another person is through rhetoric and eloquence -- not writing sentences that barely make any sense. If they are too confusing, the point is lost.

But that is really here nor there. This topic is about permadeath, so lets keep it related to that, not proper argument technique.

Quote:Original post by IronLion85
Let me simplify it for you: -If everyone is famous no one is. Why would you want to be famous if everyone else is too? People strive to be unique-

I have to keep going back to the example of "my ideal game" because there are currently no other examples to use. I could describe "my ideal game" in detail but it would be about 50 or more pages long and no one would read it.

If thats what it takes to get across how the permadeath system would work and tie into a full game, then hell, I would read it. At the moment, you are just giving random glimpses that seem to be made up off the top of your head for the sake of rebutting any argument someone comes up with. I would love to see how the whole picture would work, because as has been said before, the whole MMORPG paradigm would need to be revolutionized.

Quote:Original post by IronLion85
You're right. There aren't any permadeath games on the market. That's because none have been attempted (correct me if I'm wrong). What that means is that you can't be completely certain that one would fail just as I can't be completely certain that one would succeed.

No, you are right. But the fact of the matter is, no company wants to take the risk because it doesn't make sense financially. Truthfully, main stream games aren't normally with ones with the innovations (sometimes they get lucky) -- but they do often show what games like, seeing as they are what gamers are playing. You could argue that MMORPG players have been offered no real other opportunity, and you would probably be right...but is there an underlying reason for this that we are not seeing?

Quote:Original quote by IronLion85
Nothing has been "proven not to be successful" in this subject.

Well, my proof is that the model has been discussed at great length, and to no avail. Unless you can offer proof on the contrary, everything just becomes speculation as to whether permadeath may or may not work. You could say that since it has never been tried, it hasn't been proven not to work -- but I consider the fact that there have been no attempts to try a major indication that there is obviously something missing from the equation.

Quote:Original quote by IronLion85
This isn't exactly an easy argument to present. I'm trying to persuade people that a permadeath game can work because there seem to be a lot of people that simply refuse to accept that it might be a valid concept. As far as I can tell you haven't really refuted a single idea of mine. You explained how a prestige system wouldn't work (I never said there should be a prestige system). You've said that not everyone will be able to be "famous" or "known" (something I never tried to argue). And you've explained that no MMORPG can ever reach "that sort of realism", but as far as I can tell you were talking about my game concept with that, and not the concept of permadeath.

I believe the concept of permadeath can work, but only with the correct game concept to back it up. Permadeath isn't something you can just plug and play. Permadeath would never work in a game like WoW. You would need to completely redefine gameplay -- hence why your game concept is just as important as permadeath itself if you want it to work.

Now, onto other topics. This is a hard one for me because I no longer understand the appeal of a MMORPG, besides as a social tool. It seems utterly pointless to me to get home from work, log on, and spend 5 hours mining coal for your virtual company. I personally have many better things to do with my time. So it is hard for me to visualize a society where not everyone is trying to be the hero, though I suppose your argument that modern MMORPGs are evidence to the contrary of my statement probably does hold. However, a lot of this I believe comes from the fact that people can come back day by day and see progress. There really is no Sisyphusian grind; rather, the bolder at some point reaches a plateau, and they begin pushing up another mountain. If permadeath exists, won't this scare characters away from this sort of behavior, and kill that aspect of the MMORPG experience. And if that is so, doesn't that destroy the audience that you pointed out as being the individuals who did not care about prestige and that sort of thing? How would you address this?

As well, I hate to be a pessimist, but in my experience, there is always someone smarter than you when it comes to griefing based activities. The post above discusses pattern recognition to boot griefers from the system: I would just use a proxy for all my different characters. Bam, I just got around your system. The fact of the matter is, if someone wants to ruin the game, they are going to. Yes, creating server rules to boot out the script kiddies and their likes is an important task, but you need a more deeply rooted social system that frowns upon this sort of behavior and allows players to avoid it all together. Safe zones and rules allow this sort of thing.

The biggest issue I see is the difference between real life and a game. Even in a game with permadeath, I can still make a new character. A lot of what keeps people in line are the repercussions of their actions. If I shoot someone in the street, there is a good chance I will be apprehended and sent to jail for life. In a game, I can kill someone and just create a new character. You offered the solution of the jail cell, which I think is a good idea. If you can just ban griefers all together, most people wouldn't bother buying the game if they wanted to be a griefer. However, does that offer freedom to players? Is there a possibility for a social based regulatory system? Is it even worth it? After all, it is a game, and it should be fun. Let us not forget our primary target!

Trying to quote little bits of other peoples' posts really irritates me so I'm going to try to respond without doing it if you don't mind.

In regards to the prestige/lineage issue:

What I meant when I was talking with the other poster is that there is no need for a prestige system. The idea of "prestige" never even entered my mind until he brought it up. I do believe that in a permadeath game, if you are able to go on pretty dangerous adventures with people and survive, you will gain some peoples' respect (not a lot of people necessarily, but you will have some rapport with certain people). That's what I meant. I guess I wasn't clear, and it sorta depends on how you define prestige.

Inheritance/lineage does not have anything to do with prestige in my mind, it merely means that your next character (who would be your heir), would inherit the property that your old character left behind when/if they permadied(a house, items that you left in your house etc.).

I'm going to have to give an example related to "my ideal game" again...
I would never create a game where people would have to involve themselves in activities that weren't fun. You're right. No one wants to be a serf, so that wouldn't be part of the game. If anything, NPCs would fill the boring roles that players wouldn't want to fill. I have other ideas related to this too, maybe I will type out my game idea.

In regards to my poor grammar skills... oops. Sometimes I'm in a hurry to reply and neglect to make any sense. Sorry if I was a little spikey.

About my game idea: I guess maybe I should write it out, it might make my support of permadeath a little clearer and show people how it could work. Problem is I am not a game designer (I have no way to put a real project together) and writing out an entire idea like that would take lots and lots of time. I might do it anyway though. I'm not pulling these idea out of my arse though I swear, they are all coming from a general "big idea" I have in my head.


**"You could argue that MMORPG players have been offered no real other opportunity, and you would probably be right...but is there an underlying reason for this that we are not seeing?"**

The reason is that investors aren't willing to take risks with anything that is too different. Gamers don't have any other options. Getting as many people to accept permadeath as a viable concept is a step toward getting investors to accept it as a viable concept. People need convincing.


There's no way to win a discussion on permadeath, the only thing anyone can do right now is come up with ideas and concepts. Money is what's missing from the equation, and the money will only come when a larger number of people accept that the concept is workable.


**"I believe the concept of permadeath can work, but only with the correct game concept to back it up. Permadeath isn't something you can just plug and play. Permadeath would never work in a game like WoW. You would need to completely redefine gameplay -- hence why your game concept is just as important as permadeath itself if you want it to work."**

That's certainly true and that's a carbon copy of a paragraph in the topic post.


**"However, a lot of this I believe comes from the fact that people can come back day by day and see progress. There really is no Sisyphusian grind; rather, the bolder at some point reaches a plateau, and they begin pushing up another mountain. If permadeath exists, won't this scare characters away from this sort of behavior, and kill that aspect of the MMORPG experience. And if that is so, doesn't that destroy the audience that you pointed out as being the individuals who did not care about prestige and that sort of thing? How would you address this?"**

I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I believe the "grind" in current MMOs needs to die. I think the main focus should be on things other than progression of a character's skills (not that that sort of progression wouldn't exist).

**"As well, I hate to be a pessimist, but in my experience, there is always someone smarter than you when it comes to griefing based activities. The post above discusses pattern recognition to boot griefers from the system: I would just use a proxy for all my different characters. Bam, I just got around your system. The fact of the matter is, if someone wants to ruin the game, they are going to. Yes, creating server rules to boot out the script kiddies and their likes is an important task, but you need a more deeply rooted social system that frowns upon this sort of behavior and allows players to avoid it all together. Safe zones and rules allow this sort of thing."**

You may be right. The goal should be to stop as much of that behavior as possible, and that's all you can do. The fact that it will exist in some form shouldn't discourage someone from making this sort of game.

Finally, you're right, games should definately be fun. However they can also be entertaining, intrigueing, interesting, immersive, challenging etc. etc. etc.

Quote:Original post by makeshiftwings

Quote:Original post by NickGravelyn
Not sure if someone posted about this is the second half of the conversation (wanted to post before I forgot), but these patterns are generally easy to spot. You could simply have the server watch for these patterns (same IP address creating level one players, attacking more skilled players, and repeating), and then simply cut their subscription and block the IP address from the server. Send them a nice email about how they were assholes and were ruining the game for other people. Maybe you could unblock their IP address in a couple months. That way, they'll only get to kill a few players (maybe two or three) before being banned from playing for a while. Then they'll get discouraged in those few months and probably forget all about it.

If it were that simple to stop griefing, don't you think all MMORPG's would have done it by now? Here are the problems with that approach:

1) Defining griefing, or more precisely, defining who's an "asshole". If you are making a game where the system allows low level characters to attack high level characters, then you are, in effect, saying that it's ok. If you wanted to make it across the board illegal for low levels to attack high levels, you could just make it physically impossible for them to attack, that's much simpler. So instead, in your example, you're setting an arbitrary limit. How many higher level characters are you allowed to kill before you're banned? What if the higher level character provokes you into fighting? What if you're RPing a war with a certain group? Why is it ok for higher levels to indiscriminantly kill lower levels but the lower levels can't fight back?

2) The solution isn't pre-emptive. You're letting them "only" kill 2 or 3 players (though honestly if you perma-ban someone for killing 2 players of a higher level than them, your entire system is flawed. In reality, most people would only consider it a "pattern" if you had just killed 10 or 20 people). Still, even assuming you do ban someone after killing a mere two times, that still doesn't make the two people who were killed feel any better.

I guess the better solution might be to only allow one character, like I said before.

Quote:Original post by IronLion85

Quote:Original post by makeshiftwings

Quote:Original post by NickGravelyn
Not sure if someone posted about this is the second half of the conversation (wanted to post before I forgot), but these patterns are generally easy to spot. You could simply have the server watch for these patterns (same IP address creating level one players, attacking more skilled players, and repeating), and then simply cut their subscription and block the IP address from the server. Send them a nice email about how they were assholes and were ruining the game for other people. Maybe you could unblock their IP address in a couple months. That way, they'll only get to kill a few players (maybe two or three) before being banned from playing for a while. Then they'll get discouraged in those few months and probably forget all about it.

If it were that simple to stop griefing, don't you think all MMORPG's would have done it by now? Here are the problems with that approach:

1) Defining griefing, or more precisely, defining who's an "asshole". If you are making a game where the system allows low level characters to attack high level characters, then you are, in effect, saying that it's ok. If you wanted to make it across the board illegal for low levels to attack high levels, you could just make it physically impossible for them to attack, that's much simpler. So instead, in your example, you're setting an arbitrary limit. How many higher level characters are you allowed to kill before you're banned? What if the higher level character provokes you into fighting? What if you're RPing a war with a certain group? Why is it ok for higher levels to indiscriminantly kill lower levels but the lower levels can't fight back?

2) The solution isn't pre-emptive. You're letting them "only" kill 2 or 3 players (though honestly if you perma-ban someone for killing 2 players of a higher level than them, your entire system is flawed. In reality, most people would only consider it a "pattern" if you had just killed 10 or 20 people). Still, even assuming you do ban someone after killing a mere two times, that still doesn't make the two people who were killed feel any better.

I guess the better solution might be to only allow one character, like I said before.

(I double quoted because I'm going to respond to both)

First to makeshiftwings:
The pattern isn't killing higher leveled characters, it's the pattern of creating low level characters over and over and never attempting to pursue any other actions other than killing people. As for the limit, you could use 10 or 20 as the pattern. I was simply suggesting a possible way to remove people.

The main point was implementing simple IP blocking; perhaps using another method of selecting IP addresses. Maybe just using a voting system of sorts. Players who feel they were victims of this system simply file a complaint. If enough complaints are filed, one of the GMs watches the player. If they feel it necessary, ban the IP. There are numerous strategies to picking IP addresses (some better than others), but in the end, my point was the use of IP blocking is an effective method of stopping griefing.

I understand that this isn't pre-emptive, but the server isn't psychic. There is no good pre-emptive method that won't hinder the core gameplay. Your idea of making it impossible to attack ruins gameplay. I believe that the server should find non-intrusive methods of control (such as IP blocking) that won't change gameplay for people. For instance, simply not allowing them to attack ruins any immersion the player has found.

Perhaps a better system altogether is to non-discriminantly observe all players. If a player kills X number of other players in Y amount of time, a message is sent to a GM who can observe the player to survey the motives. If the GM believes the player is simply role playing, that's fine. Otherwise, they can ban the IP address. This requires more man-power, but also makes the system less likely to have flaws.

To IronLion85:
Allowing one character isn't the problem. After that character dies, the griefer can create another character to keep the process going. The only effective method (in my eyes) to stopping griefers is to find a way to systematically find them and block the IP addresses. The challenge (as I discussed a bit above) is finding a good balance between computer management, which may pick innocent players on accident and miss griefers, and GM management, which takes more manpower.

Quote:Original post by visage
Reason One: It is called "Massive" for a reason...
The fact of the matter is, these games are massive. When I say massive, I mean player base. WoW has over 4 million subscribers. The fact of the matter is, every one of these players wants to be the hero.

Doesn't permadeath work toward solving this? If players have devoted a lot of time to increasing character skills, not as many people are going to be willing to throw their character's life on the line to earn a few bucks or save a princess. If anything, they may form a small army and gang up on the bad guy. But even then, they won't want to be in the front line. This would be completely the opposite of what we see right now in MMO games.

When a player tries to step up and become a hero, and fails, he has been completely reset to the beginning of the game. He should have devoted more time to careful planning before he ran into that situation. Players who do succeed will really be worth mentioning. If the game takes on a serious attitude, the entire population of the game could be focused on a few simple accomplishments at a time.

1. Kill the evil dragon who prevents us from leaving the village.
2. Climb the mountain to chop down a tree to build a bridge to cross the river.
3. Wander the dangerous new land to find food for everyone.
etc

Near the beginning, yes, everyone will try to be a hero. But near the end, the game will be lucky to have one hero. No one will want to start a character from scratch. Most players will probably stay in the village trying to increase character skills by training, working, or doing small quests or safe activities.

Quote:Two: Prestige doesn't work
Because the game world is so big, and since everyone is vying for the spot as the great hero or the evil dark lord, nobody gets there.

I still believe permadeath would help solve this. A king or dark lord would have a lot of targets on his head. Both during his success to the top, and during his crowning. The poor bastard probably wouldn't even be able to leave his castle without 10 personal guards.

Quote:Because I won't lie, I play video games to get away from real life, not pretend to do it somewhere else.

I play for both. Why live one life when I can experience hundreds of them?

Kest, fantastic! Your example of a king/ dark lord that live in fear of being killed resonates with the dangers of being a roman emperor. You have more power than anyone, yet you are a prisoner of your own palace, afraid of your own shadow because an assassin might lurk there.

Permadeath + hierarchical system makes for an interesting game.