Wolfsong73 replied to glhf's topic in Game Design and TheoryThe only way full open PvP could work, in my opinion, is by providing incentive for people to actively hunt down active PK'ers. A reward system with built-in limitations related to the incentive to prevent exploitation or abuse (ie. preventing people from killing their friends over and over to "power-level" their rep. etc). There also needs to be disincentives - actual in-game/lore-related penalties for someone being a PK'er. This requires there to be a distinction between someone who's engaged in PvP, and someone who's just running around ganking. L2 had a pretty straight-forward way of implementing this... If you attack someone, you go "aggressive". Someone attacking you back will also go "aggressive". If you're killed while in an "aggressive" state, there's no penalty for your assailant. It was PvP, plain and simple. However, if you go aggressive on someone and that person doesn't fight back, and you drop them, you go "chaotic". Being chaotic brings with it certain penalties. Regular city merchants will not do business with you. City guards will attack you on sight. You are considered an "outlaw" and so others can attack you without penalty to themselves, or without flagging as "aggressive". A chaotic/outlaw player is basically a "mob" at that point. What I always kind of get a kick out of is how against the idea of any kind of penalty for PK'ing/Ganking many self-described "hardcore" or "avid PvPer's" are. Most every suggestion they make always seems to involve piling all the risk and loss on the victims/sheep - such as full corpse looting, etc. However, they are typically completely against any kind of tangible risk or penalty to themselves for ganking/PK'ing, often citing it as "unfair" or "being punished for wanting to have fun", etc. That seems to be the opinion shared by glhf in this thread. The suggested risk/penalties they put forth for themselves are typically quite "vaporous" and extremely situational. A common one, which again is shared by glhf, is the whole "players getting together to hunt down and take on the PK'ers/Gankers". It sounds reasonable right? Two main problems with it: 1. It requires others to band together to hunt down the ganker/griefer, so it's not a guaranteed penalty to begin with. 2. The griefer/ganker can - and usually will (as per the "hyena" analogy used earlier in the thread) - run, teleport, or force-log at the first sight of someone coming to deal with them. So even when item #1 [i]does [/i]happen, they are gone. Because the typical ganker is not looking for actual PvP. They're looking for easy kills with little or no risk to themselves. The only PvP system most so-called "pro-PvP'ers" will ever accept is one that places all guaranteed risk/loss on the victim - with the reward of "full loot" - while keeping any risk to themselves as conditional and avoidable as possible. The only suggestions they seem to support in terms of lessening ganking/griefing is for the sheep to go somewhere else. Basically... run away and stroke the ganker's ego. Of course, when the sheep/victim leaves, they're regarded as a "carebear" for not standing there and being the willing victim. Again, GLHF's arguments are [i]so [/i]familiar, as I've seen them in thread after thread when this such discussion comes up. I made a suggestion to balance the playing field for the PK'ers and non-PK'ers in TERA's forums some time back as, at the time anyway, it pretty much favored the chaotic players/griefers/gankers. You wouldn't believe the outrage and indignance that was hurled back at me for even suggesting that a PK'ers existence be a bit more dangerous than it was. The strongest arguments against my suggestions came from those who always argued for "more risk and danger". Of course, and as usual, the only "risk" or "danger" they're in favor of is that piled on their victims.