09-07-2016, 01:39 PM
If you do not want players to engage in a particular kind of behavior in-game, then you either prohibit it, punish it, ignore it, facilitate it, or reward it. You have to decide which, if any, of those paths that you want to take, as a response to the behavior in question.
Players are not the game world. They are forces outside of the game world that seek to take actions within the game world by proxy - their characters, units, and armies. Players will naturally look for advantage. Players will naturally push the envelope. Players will naturally exploit opportunities. In chess, a player gets to take one action, and then the other player has opportunity to respond. In your game, how many actions can a player take, before the other player(s) can respond?
A bear doesn't actually have to attack and kill a player for camping (or for other undesirable activity). It could simply appear, and scare off the player's unit. The player's unit may lose something, a sword for example, in their bid to flee. They would get no say in whether to flee or not. You simply chalk it up to instinct. Whose instinct? Their instinct.
There's more than one way to skin a cat.
In this example, the player is impacted in an incremental way, rather than in one fell swoop. If you use a percentage-based chance, then they might get away with their behavior, or they might not. It is a risk that they incur by way of choice of their actions that they seek to take (but are not guaranteed to succeed by your game world).
I'm just trying to give you some feedback, per your original posting in this thread.
Players are not the game world. They are forces outside of the game world that seek to take actions within the game world by proxy - their characters, units, and armies. Players will naturally look for advantage. Players will naturally push the envelope. Players will naturally exploit opportunities. In chess, a player gets to take one action, and then the other player has opportunity to respond. In your game, how many actions can a player take, before the other player(s) can respond?
A bear doesn't actually have to attack and kill a player for camping (or for other undesirable activity). It could simply appear, and scare off the player's unit. The player's unit may lose something, a sword for example, in their bid to flee. They would get no say in whether to flee or not. You simply chalk it up to instinct. Whose instinct? Their instinct.
There's more than one way to skin a cat.
In this example, the player is impacted in an incremental way, rather than in one fell swoop. If you use a percentage-based chance, then they might get away with their behavior, or they might not. It is a risk that they incur by way of choice of their actions that they seek to take (but are not guaranteed to succeed by your game world).
I'm just trying to give you some feedback, per your original posting in this thread.