We are happy to announce that starting August 20, 2019 at 11:00 AM PDT the Divine Gateways will open once more for limited Apocalypse testing sessions! For more information, check out our FAQ here: https://ashesofcreation.com/news/2019-08-14-steam-announce-and-play-test-faq-for-ashes-of-creation-apocalypse

Player Enforced Laws

How about a system wherein Node Leadership can create laws and have them enforced by designated players within the region of the Node.

Example: "Everyone must cover their head when outside during daylight hours", then anyone who violates the rule (and encounters an enforcer that gave a damn) would face the mechanism* whereby the enforcer could punish the behavior.

Additionally any punitive actions against players would be posted on a public bulletin along with their supposed "crime".

*haven't got that part figured out

Comments

  • I doubt implementing a player run griefing system would be in anyones best interests.
  • Griefing players wouldn't be in the best interests of free and open trade for the Node and the idea is to have ways of combating griefing like a bulletin.
  • Hatchet said:
    I doubt implementing a player run PVP system would be in anyones best interests.

    Besides in all PvP community interest.
  • Did you quote and then rewrite said quote? ...that's shady.

    I think Mayors, and the community based on node government type, should be able to make laws. I think it would be best if there was a list of laws you could choose to activate or not activate though.

    Letting players make laws will undoubtedly end with someone making a law saying you have to wear a hat during the day. So when travelers and traders who are unaware of such archaic laws arrive in the node they are, I assume, unintentionally affected. I said I assume because I don't think players would make laws intentionally designed to negatively affect non-citizens. I could be wrong.

    Nodes, even if you declare citizenship, are not inherently warring factions like in WoW. So why players would want to be able to start conflict with any visitors is beyond me. Citizens of a node, military, religious, or other should be encouraging visitors to help level their node and generate revenue.
  • Azathoth said:
    Did you quote and then rewrite said quote? ...that's shady.

    I think Mayors, and the community based on node government type, should be able to make laws. I think it would be best if there was a list of laws you could choose to activate or not activate though.

    Letting players make laws will undoubtedly end with someone making a law saying you have to wear a hat during the day. So when travelers and traders who are unaware of such archaic laws arrive in the node they are, I assume, unintentionally affected. I said I assume because I don't think players would make laws intentionally designed to negatively affect non-citizens. I could be wrong.

    Nodes, even if you declare citizenship, are not inherently warring factions like in WoW. So why players would want to be able to start conflict with any visitors is beyond me. Citizens of a node, military, religious, or other should be encouraging visitors to help level their node and generate revenue.
    Exactly. You'd want to grow your sphere of influence with anyone neutral in order to gain power and help to fend off any potential enemies. It does nobody any good to just be a bully for no reason. That's the toxic "gank" mentality that these games don't need. Doing something "just cause I can" is a very toxic mindset (to me anyway).
  • Azathoth said:
    Did you quote and then rewrite said? ...that's shady.

    I think Mayors, and the community based on node government type, should be able to make laws. I think it would be best if there was a list of laws you could choose to activate or not activate though.

    Letting players make laws will undoubtedly end with someone making a law saying you have to wear a hat during the day. So when travelers and traders who are unaware of such archaic laws arrive in the node they are, I assume, unintentionally affected. I said I assume because I don't think players would make laws intentionally designed to negatively affect non-citizens. I could be wrong.

    Nodes, even if you declare citizenship, are not inherently warring factions like in WoW. So why players would want to be able to start conflict with any visitors is beyond me. Citizens of a node, military, religious, or other should be encouraging visitors to help level their node and generate revenue.
    Because the node may have a precious resource that citizens are protective about. If you can kill a stranger because they don't have sandals on without corruption than that is a great advantage to keeping your resources .

  • If we learned anything from every single persistent PvP game that ever existed, there will be player enforced "laws" no matter what. 

    They will likely take the form of "do not build near the mine", or "do not level any node within 20 miles of our metropolis past village". 

    The laws will be enforced with wipes and/or PKs...just like every single persistent PvP game.
  • Azathoth said:
    Did you quote and then rewrite said quote? ...that's shady.

    I think Mayors, and the community based on node government type, should be able to make laws. I think it would be best if there was a list of laws you could choose to activate or not activate though.

    Letting players make laws will undoubtedly end with someone making a law saying you have to wear a hat during the day. So when travelers and traders who are unaware of such archaic laws arrive in the node they are, I assume, unintentionally affected. I said I assume because I don't think players would make laws intentionally designed to negatively affect non-citizens. I could be wrong.

    Nodes, even if you declare citizenship, are not inherently warring factions like in WoW. So why players would want to be able to start conflict with any visitors is beyond me. Citizens of a node, military, religious, or other should be encouraging visitors to help level their node and generate revenue.
    @Azathoth, the system that person was referring to would put enforcement of the law/rule in the server's hands; not the player's*. As for who the law would be applicable to you could make it only affect citizens or the game could provide a notice in advance before travellers or traders arrived in the Node.

    The law could make being in that Node a more distinct experience than without, and if a Node's leadership chose to impose a law as archaic (and funny) as having people wear hats outside during daylight hours it would still flavor the server's story in that region (even if it sabotaged its own infrastructure).

    *therefore enforcement of said law may not be absolute
  • I would also be against player police, allowing other players to curb your fun seems odd. There are corruption mechanics in place to curb PvP and I am sure there will be some form of guard response to players breaking absolute laws. Do we really need players running around as police?

    I understand the uniqueness aspect that could develop, but in Nodes where rulers could potentially pass laws without a majority vote some really odd laws could be created. Having to read and agree to a wall of possible "odd" laws every time you entered a node would be weird, but is a good solution to one of my original concerns.

    I am aware of the types of players that can be found on the internet. The thought of some of them being able to make a rule that they think is "funny" in the node I have citizenship/freehold in doesn't set right with me.

    However, I could always move like anyone else that would find strange laws non nonsensical.

    If IS put a list of what they thought were humorous laws associated with specific node types in with a regular list of law-options, I would be happiest.
  • I would like to believe that if the law was too outlandish nobody would follow or enforce it (this would depend on the mechanism that they use to enforce it).

    Presets for laws is an interesting idea and it would curb ridiculous behaivior from Node leadership; but, it removes an easy outlet for creativity from the players.

    As for the players being enforcers you could make a designated social hierarchy (like from the Kickstarter stretch goal) where when a position from a set amount of positions becomes available you would perform a quest chain to join and perform certain tasks/reach certain milestones to recieve a promotion (when it becomes available). Additionally when these individuals enter the Node they wear the colors of their organization (to be decided by the highest ranking member), and you could implement the option of resisting the enforcer's punitive measures.
  • Players having influence over others directly would be silly, the game is supposed to have freedom and the fact that elections are supposed to happen every month if the person in charge kept changing and the laws with them it would annoy a lot of people.
  • If enforcement is up to player choice and the law is player made then what's to stop someone from making a law banning wearing any clothes or armor. Then using said law to "punish or take out" say a trader or anyone who they think has 'fat loots'?

    Thus could expecially be a problem if the player made law changes pvp flag states

    Thus it is my observation that is would not be beneficial to the health and fun factor of the game
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited February 2018
    This was more about attracting PvP part of community to your node. PvP players would appreciate "perma purple surroundings for their play time", not to fight only visitors, but each other too. And whole PvP community that chooses this node for their home would have a more fun place to live in.

    People that dislike this law, would be free to go chose another node for their home.

    But I guess as PvE player, one does not care about PvP plyers right? Shouldn't allow them even one zone (with safety fully off) to have fun i guess. Screw PvP players. Green protection is needed everywhere.

  • Personally I do not like the idea of players being able to set arbitrary rules that others players must follow. As @Azathoth said, I like the idea of a list of laws provided by Intrepid that could be chosen to be implemented by the node leadership. In regards to @Gothix comments, I would be fine with the military node being a permanent purple node, but I will state that nothing is stopping you from attacking anyone in any node other than the fear that once red you would be more likely to be attacked yourself. 
  • No player laws please.. As @Cambiguous said, one option is that you'll have a limited section of laws set by Intrepid, and you can chose which of those you want to force onto your node citizens. This way the laws will be balanced, and not players going crazy with outrageous laws. 
  • If enforcement is up to player choice and the law is player made then what's to stop someone from making a law banning wearing any clothes or armor. Then using said law to "punish or take out" say a trader or anyone who they think has 'fat loots'?

    Thus could expecially be a problem if the player made law changes pvp flag states

    Thus it is my observation that is would not be beneficial to the health and fun factor of the game
    @Ninja Shadow, that would depend entirely on the mechanism that they use to enforce the law; it may not be detrimental (or too detrimental) to the player, and may not be directly beneficial to the Node and organization.

    I left how they might be able to enforce the law out so that we could theorize how to implement the mechanism in such a way that it doesn't overtly punish the player nor encourage the enforcers to pursue arrests. We could use this as an opportunity to exercise our critical thinking about systems contingent on a single mechanism.
  • How would you approach conflicting laws? Like one where you have to wear hat outside and one banning hats outside?

    How far would the punishments be able to go? To far and it makes an easy grief system, not far enough and it becomes a worthless system. This can become vary difficult in a game where everything has some sort of effect.

    I understand how cool it would be to have the ability to make any law you can think of, but in practicality for a mmo that much freedom can cause a lot of problems and would take a lot of work to build and ballance.

    A better solution would be having premade laws that node leaders could choose to enact or disable. This would take much less work and would be much easier to prevent misuse.
  • @Gothix, just because someone would prefer PvE that does not mean they don't care about PvP players. Using that logic, anyone that would want everyone in their node to be purple by default cares less about the rights of PvE players. I don't think anyone is saying this, or trying to imply this. I was not, I assure you.

    However, with all the meaningful player driven PvP opportunities Ashes will have, why is there a need for a "strictly purple zone?"

    Should there be laws available that say, "All players in this node that attack another player are flagged and gain corruption even if they don't kill the player?"

    I don't think that makes any more sense to be honest, it just seems like a fair balance to "Everyone is flagged for PvP."
  • It sounds more like converting people that enter your military zone into jihadist, either you kill yourself now or join our ranks to wage war on the rest of the world. History shows that rogue nations have a very questionable branch of their military and they conduct unilateral operations to benefit their employers or "governments" behind the scenes or in secrecy. 
  • Steven sad no grief box!!
  • Can't we all just be friends? B)
Sign In or Register to comment.