1. Hey Guest! If you're more than just a WildStar fan and want to keep up on the latest MMO news, reviews and opinion pieces then I'd like to suggest you visit our sister site MMO Central

Should There Be `Limits` on Ganking?

Discussion in 'WildStar General' started by Zapp Brannigan, Apr 21, 2013.

?

Do You Think Low-Level Ganking Should Be Disincentivized?

  1. Yes, you should be unable to attack players x levels lower than you.

    12 vote(s)
    10.4%
  2. Yes, gankers should recieve a stacking debuff (or vice versa) until the lowbie can fight back.

    13 vote(s)
    11.3%
  3. Yes, higher level players should be debuffed in lower level zones (only PvP stats. Somehow).

    6 vote(s)
    5.2%
  4. Yes, players killed by higher-levels should become immune to PvP for x duration.

    3 vote(s)
    2.6%
  5. Yes (other).

    5 vote(s)
    4.3%
  6. No, ganking should be completely unhindered.

    22 vote(s)
    19.1%
  7. No, though there should be safe areas.

    46 vote(s)
    40.0%
  8. No (other).

    8 vote(s)
    7.0%
  1. Soylentgreen

    Soylentgreen Well-Known Cupcake

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2013
    Likes Received:
    350
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Sudbury, Ontario
    I suppose it is possible yes like in the case you mentioned, but I would imagine it's more likely there was a reason. To be clear though it doesn't make it any better or more acceptable either way.
  2. Yinello

    Yinello Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2013
    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Location:
    Netherlands
    True, very true. I hope WS will feature a way to report extreme griefer like these. It would suck for WS to get a bad rep just for bad players.
  3. mercturq

    mercturq New Cupcake

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2013
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    3
    I think if you kill a player that is 6 - 10+ levels below you, you should get a "bounty" put on your head. Meaning, everyone can attack you, even from your own faction, and they should want to kill you since the debuff not only makes you attackable to everyone, but also you have a 5% chance to drop a currently equipped item which can be looted by whoever killed you.

    Yeah, I can't stand gankers. Ganker is the same as watching a bully in action. Big huge guy picking on a smaller kid. Though, it seems like everyone likes watching a bully get a taste of his own medicine which is where my idea comes in.
  4. moneda

    moneda Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2011
    Likes Received:
    240
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I don't care for slaughtering lowbies but I do enjoy an environment where such is possible. I feel like developer intervention in this scenario is unnecessary and would hamper things like building a name for yourself [as avenger or predator], new players growing accustomed to the environment of the server early on, encouraging social elements to OWPvP, and allowing the community to police itself.
  5. Xiones

    Xiones Cupcake

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    Manchester, CT
    Yeah. I'm hoping for some kind of like hover car or something. lol
  6. Zapp Brannigan

    Zapp Brannigan Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Location:
    Nimbus
    But wouldn't this still be achievable if there were measures that made it possible for a group of level 20's (let's say five) to take out a level 50?

    *You could still kill lowbie soloers.
    *You could still build a name for yourself as an avenger/predator, (again, the soloers).
    *New players would still grow accustomed to the environment, perhaps more-so in that they learn to group up to defend themselves.
    *Social elements would still exist.
    *The community would still be able to police itself, there simply wouldn't be a reliance on having a level 50 around for defense (though they'd still be very useful).
  7. Vembumees

    Vembumees Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2013
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Estonia
    What kind of fantasy country have you lived in?
  8. moneda

    moneda Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2011
    Likes Received:
    240
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I don't have a reason to believe that's not currently possible.
  9. Zapp Brannigan

    Zapp Brannigan Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Location:
    Nimbus
    I think it's ok for us to draw on other MMO's in making assumptions, until more information is available/we can play the game. In WoW, a hundred lvl 20's wouldn't be able to take down a level capped Death Knight, for example (unless they were right on a graveyard or something, I guess).

    I think it's pretty accepted that in the Western World, killing school kids is abhorrent, regardless of the reason.
  10. SoulstoDeny

    SoulstoDeny New Cupcake

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    3
    I would be all for a system like this. In fact, I would welcome it.

    What I'm not for is purposely putting barriers in place that discourage PVP on PVP servers because people want to level in peace. Ideally, not trying to level solo would be a solution.
    Mailroomclerk likes this.
  11. Galosha

    Galosha Cupcake

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2013
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I didn't say u can't do it, all i said u get negative attention for it from all sides (your included). So why in game u didn't get some form of it too? Like karma thing i mentioned earlier (page 3 i believe).
  12. Vembumees

    Vembumees Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2013
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Estonia
    In real war people will be slaughtered without looking at their age or gender. In real war if you conquer a country and want to keep it, you will slaughter its inhabitants to counter uprising. Or you send them to the mines to work until the die. That's what USSR was still doing the last 100 years in europe for instance. Nobody gave a <REDACTED> about your age or gender. Maybe that's what history books have been telling you, but not the people who personally experienced and lived to tell it.

    War is not pretty and it has no ethics. If you think in war someone cares what you do for living, how many kids you have, what age or gender you are, then you are a fool
  13. Yakzan

    Yakzan "That" Cupcake

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2013
    Likes Received:
    743
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Iceland
    <Mod Monocle> Be very careful to not have the thread segue into a political discussion as such discussions are frowned upon. </Mod Monocle>
  14. Zapp Brannigan

    Zapp Brannigan Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Location:
    Nimbus
    Maybe a hundred years ago. Times have changed. In this day and age, killing children in war (or even civilians), in cold blood, is considered abhorrent. Yes, there will be civilian casualties. <REDACTED> happens. People will not, however, go out of their way to kill civilians (not without significant public backlash if caught), nor would they be enslaved in Western culture in this day and age.

    I'll leave it at that, sorry Yakzan. I just don't particularly like being called a fool and not being able to defend myself.
  15. Jojin

    Jojin Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2013
    Likes Received:
    113
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Florida
    If a player wants restricted PvP where it is always fair, then they should just roll on a PvE server. There the PvP is designed to be on consensual and even ground.

    A PvP server should be designed so the players themselves are the enforcers for those players who prey on weak characters. It makes a more enjoyable setting as it allows for villains and champions to shine.

    I mean the complaint is it isn't fair an overwhelming force, a high level player, can continually kill a weaker force, low level player. However, this could apply to the same scenario of a group of high level players, an overwhelming force, constantly killing a solo player, a weaker force.

    Truth be told, it's almost an overreaction. The occurrence of such where a high level is camping out in a low level zone isn't all that frequent. Aside from cheap thrills, there isn't much to gain and it gets boring after a while.

    The exception would be using it as a taunt to bring out the opposing side's PvP players for some fun. This was a common thing to happen in games like Aion and quite effective. It spurred on some enjoyable battles. While the lower levels weren't very effective, they did make a difference with their information relay and even their ability to damage and hinder the enemy with their numbers.
  16. Galosha

    Galosha Cupcake

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2013
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I dont know what u referring to. Yes they did many horrible things (terrible laws and heartless political steps) but not outright kill kids.
    As for war - my grandmother from west Ukraine (she was born in 1916) and survived advance and retreat of german troops they didn't kill not only kids and old people but even men if they wasn't with shaven heads (sign soldier).
  17. Críostóir

    Críostóir Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2013
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Location:
    Grievance
    So, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm not planning (at least not initially) to roll on a PvP server, despite PvP often times being my secondary focus (behind crafting and gathering, and socializing). I have however, historically played on PvP servers and when they're done right, they can be amazing.

    Ideally, I would want the tools to deal with ganking being placed into our own hands, however that might happen. I like the idea of safe zones, but they'll get camped. I wouldn't mind them toying with (at least in the initial zones) some sort of "deleveling" system. For example, If a level 50 tries to stroll into a level 22-25 zone in the opposite faction's territory, she would be brought down (stats, health, etc.) to level 25. This would give the lower-level players a fighting chance, and they'd still have to be wary when out in the world.

    What I don't want to see though, is a system that completely prevents a level 50 from entering such an area (either physically, or by WAR's "chicken system" route).
  18. SituationSoap

    SituationSoap Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2013
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    28
    In my experience, the people who cry the loudest about wanting no limits on ganking people are the most vocal about complaining when it happens to them.

    I've become convinced in the last couple of years that open world PVP is functionally impossible to design in a way that would make even half the player base happy. This is why I've abandoned the ruleset completely. I love PVP in closed settings where there is an effort to make things fair. World PVP cannot be made fair, and I don't really feel like wasting my time playing a game of "let's see which side can bring the biggest group of people out tonight".
  19. atom

    atom Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2013
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Are you on the oppposing faction? Yes. Then you are directly opposing me. Simply because you are weaker does not mean you are not in opposition to me. There are games played where 1(or many) persons are so dominant over the opponent you would likely feel it does not qualify as a conflict, however I can assure you that it is. In the case of Zap vs. Drink, that is a valid conflict if you have established it. Man vs. Food is a prime example, he doesn't always win. It would more likely be you versus insects, and if you've ever tended garden, you know that you're at a disadvantage in that fight. Your examples are great conflicts that occur and demonstrate my point. I'm glad you're finally understanding!
    Message seems pretty clear to me. In opposition = versus. It makes no claim to fairness or equality as I have stated. So again, the problem is with a person trying to restrict themselves for reasons unbeknownst to me. I follow the rules, not impose non-existant rules upon myself. The language performs elegantly under this situation, there are even adjectives to help describe equal combat! Words like fair, equal, and structured would suffice. It's amazing how malleable yet certain our language can be, truly impressive. It also appears we've regressed.
    Suppose you do, and it's only possible on a PvP server, which outlined above has it's risks given the definition of the word versus. If you wish to take those risks, you roll PvP. If you do not, you roll PvE. This really doesn't seem that difficult to understand. Maybe I'm not seeing the key element that makes such concise verbiage so obtuse and unimaginably difficult.
    As I stated before, the solution doesn't involve the game, it involves people and their inability to make correct decisions. I can only hope to educate them on the folly of their failures in judgment. However, it's noted that when you bring them these truths, they often reject them simply because they are not capable of understanding they made a mistake. They now wish for the world to conform to them and they are a lost cause on this matter.

    The only viable solutilon I see is if they cry on forums, you move them to a low pop PvE server and disallow them access to PvP servers until they write a 500 word essay on why they were wrong. I'll even rent my HL Mencken style of critique to those essays so Carbine doesn't have to pay for it. We can list it under an unpaid internship. Where is Gaffney? He needs to hear this.
    Mailroomclerk and Simokon like this.
  20. Zapp Brannigan

    Zapp Brannigan Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Location:
    Nimbus
    False. If I'm sitting on a quaint little hill minding my own business, I am not opposing you. Unless you want to sit in that exact spot. In which case you could politely ask me to move. And, if I were to comply, I would not be opposing you. If there is no intent of opposition, then there is no 'versus'. 'Player vs Player' indicates that two players are in contention of each other, not that one player is minding his own business and the other kills him with no resistance.

    That said, your big words have scareded me, so I'm happy to drop the subject. I've been convinced that people won't accept having limitations placed on ganking (a while ago, so I'm assuming you haven't read past the post you quoted). To repost what I'm leaning towards now:

    Don't have increased resistances/defences for being higher levelled in PvP. If a level 20 player deals 500 damage to a level 20 mob, he deals 500 damage to a level 50 player. Additionally, cap the big damage numbers to a percentage of a players health in PvP (say, 40%). This way, a level 50 would not be able to 1-shot the level 20, it would take 3+ hits. All in all, this would not be a ganking preventative. A solo level 50 would still decimate a solo level 20. However, under this system, it would be possible (assuming numbers n' <REDACTED> are right) for a group of, say, 5 level 20's to group up and take out the level 50. This way:

    *It is still possible to gank lowbies, though help will be more available to them.
    *It will encourage lowbies to group up.
    *It would encourage more PvP; lowbies might actively group up for the purpose of hunting down 50's, rather than simply running away.
    *Anti-gankers would still have their place if they wanted to protect lowbies.
    *It would still be possible to build animosity between the factions through ganking.

    Now, and I'm being completely honest here, I cannot see a reason to oppose this system other than 'but I wanna kill all the lowbies and be unstoppable because I'm so leet!'. If a valid argument exists, I'd love to hear it.

Share This Page