@Roadspike said in Non-toxic PvP:
@Kestrel said in Non-toxic PvP:
One system I’ve been thinking about which I’d like some feedback on:
I think that this is incentivizing the wrong behavior. I think the behavior that you want to incentivize for both CvC and PvP conflict is proportional response. One of the issues with it that I’ve seen is when one character “wrongs” another, the second character (or player) turns their response up to 11 and immediately goes for the kill in order to remove the threat. That might be an effective strategy, but it doesn’t tell an interesting story.
I would find ways to incentivize (whether through XP, FS3 Luck points, public acclaim, or whatever) minor escalation that furthers the story rather than ends it. If someone says something nasty about your outfit at a gala, you don’t send a herd of cattle stampeding through their next gala, you bribe their modiste and have their next dress be the wrong shade or cut.
From a PvP perspective, that leaves the other character to respond and perhaps defeat your character… but from a CvC perspective, it leaves the other character still with the power and influence to continue telling the story with your character.
At one point, I had been kicking around the idea of an escalating relationship system that would work for both friendship/allies and enemies/rivals, where if you and the other player agreed that your characters were in that relationship, you would get a series of benefits based on the length and depth of that relationship, where some of the greatest rewards would come from the biggest sacrifice - i.e. when you lost a major conflict with your Rival, you would get some significant meta-bennies (what those were would really need to be worked out on a theme basis) so long as you accepted the loss gracefully on an OOC level.
I never got as far as fully mechanizing it, but I do like the idea of incentivizing difficult relationships. (On the allies side, the benefits came from taking risks or losses to help your ally/friend.)
