Understanding OPEN PVP (Why?)

I was reviewing some articles writing by Raph Koster recently:

"It is always more rewarding to kill other players than to kill whatever the game sets up as a target.
A given player of level x can slay multiple creatures of level y. Therefore, killing a player of level x yields ny reward in purely in-game reward terms. Players will therefore always be more rewarding in game terms than monsters of comparable difficulty. However, there's also the fact that players will be more challenging and exciting to fight than monsters no matter what you do"

After you have beaten all the PvE, what remains is the challenges of facing real live opponents. Even the rewards (full loot) will be more exciting then known drops of monsters or AI.

Pretty much why most (WHO WANT OPEN PVP) want a full open non-consensual world. Pker or not.

"Psychological disinhibition
People act like jerks more easily online, because anonymity is intoxicating. It is easier to objectify other people and therefore to treat them badly. The only way to combat this is to get them to empathize more with other players."

Yes, you will face jerks, they may want to spoil your fun , your game. Overcoming "Jerks", "Pkers" can also be some of the most rewarding aspects of game play.

Listen, I understand if some people are not competitive and don't want to even meet 1 Jerk in a game. I totally understand. Yes, this is not real life, its a game. Ok.

But removing an Evil or hurdle then makes the game very linear and defeats the purpose of succeeding and developing in a game. You may be cheating yourself from the thrill of succeeding in difficult circumstances.

To me, an online world has to be free and run by the community. Otherwise, might be better to just play a closed peer to peer system of co-oping with friends (5-6 people) and not bother increasing the number beyond that.

I remember in Lord of the Rings Online. I just did things with my guild of 30 people. We did raids, quests etc. Self sufficient. Didn't even notice if there was anyone else on the server because they never could impact our game play in any way.

Do we need MMO's or multi-player games anymore ? Why not give us games and i'll just contact 5 friends to co-op dungeons. Why bother with an online community if its just a glorified chat room?

 

Ok, ill bite. Who is most? I shiatsu don't get the impression mousy want open PVP and full loot. If anything, and I am being generous here, is an even split. But we already know that is bull because everyone who isa strong PVP lover have degrees of looting and even degrees of pking like zones, seiges, arena, etc... So most what?

I simply want the game they promised first, what they do with mmoesque stuff after is whatever it is. But this was strongly billed a classic style adventure, modernized, first. Not uo2.

As for any psychological whatever nonsense, I do plenty of PVP in LOTRO and online FPS games, so forget the idea that we all, the non hard core PVP in your face all day everyday, don't like our party that way in other venues.

Our just keep that argument going because stereotypes are funny.

As for why make a game to have options? Want more than your already known friends, I see no reason to stop that when the tech stacks nowadays afford it as an option. In other words, they would still be using photon for networking, and it can scale1 to ks of people, so why limit it if you don't have to?

 

On what, exactly, do you base this claim? Most? I doubt it.

 

Most of those for open pvp, their reason.

 

Arg !!! MOST WHO WANT OPEN PVP !!!

 

But that group is not most who want the game.

Show mea number that says most who want PVP outweigh those who don't.

 

I disagree with both Raph's and your assumptions of what is 'fun' and 'rewarding'.

I enjoy massively multiplayer games for ALL reasons, including the opportunity to fight other people, but primarily for the vibrant living feel many other people give a world and the companionship that is to be had with friends and strangers alike - companionship that does not start with them killing me unexpectedly and ends with my losing time/effort/items/materials.

 

If you are NOT saying that most people want PvP, then I suggest you edit the original post, because that is how it reads.

 

Already edited . Ideally , the goal is to get as many people as possible to do OPEN PVP FULL LOOT. Then the other percentage can do what they want. The game will not be full open pvp loot, i'm just hoping 80% or more go that route and take up the challenges a world like that brings.

 

Don't worry, u can play without any jerks or pking. Again, I just hope more people, if a full loot pvp server, game setting etc were offered, choose to go that route.

 

If there were 2 servers:

(1) Open world PVP full loot. Protection in town limits, maybe some starter dungeons or even roaming guards that would protect areas at variable times (where u could call "Guards").

(2) Fully Consensual PvP

Option (1) would make for a much more exciting world.

Evil forms: thieves to rob people in towns, killers on the roads, running into people not knowing if they are friend or foe !!

Good Forms: Anti-pk guilds (Owain), player towns build defenses and offer shelter. Surviving a PK encounter !!

You open up the game to more Roleplay and content !

 

I think there are more on this board who want open pvp but you hear from the consensual pvp crowd more.
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/personal-pvp-definition-poll
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/poll-pvp-or-pve-which-are-you

 

Where you, and all other pro-Open PvP proponents lose me, and I believe many others, is right here. If you suggest anything OTHER than having 'fully consensual PvP' I will disagree with you.... and I am FOR the PvP to be few rules and full loot!

But I insist that anyone that wants the possibility of PvP encounters should make that choice, knowingly, beforehand. And I do not think it should be a switch or a slider or a hard 'now i'm not/now i am' thing - I would like to see the method of consent be driven by the guilds you join, the areas you travel to, the items you deliver/carry, the NPC's you piss off, the raw materials you want, the monster you hunt, etc. etc.

To me, those are natural ways that within the world people could CHOOSE the risk of a PvP encounter but do not have to have an all or nothing approach to it. I am fine with PvP, but my wife is not. But sometimes, she enjoys trying it, and she should be allowed to, on HER terms, not other people's. And the same goes for every single player.

 

Exactly, and of course there is the option to not have PvP an option at all.

 

ie: Trammel and Felucca?

 

I'd love there to be a non-consensual pvp server. But I understand the cost in running 2 servers etc , so its unlikely. But it would make it easier to understand if you had.

(1) PvP Server(2) PvE Server (Consensual PvP option)

This is where UO got it wrong. They put a consensual and non-consensual option on the same server. Of course most choose path of less resistance (Trammel) and moved there/played mined whatever.

What they should have done was immediately open up 2 or 3 classic servers (W, Central, East Coast etc). And allow those that didn't want a trammel have that option at least.

 

Stay within the argument - talking about who is the loudest gets us no where and usually leads to us arguing of who is the loudest versus "how" someone can be genuinely encouraged to partake in open PvP

 

Everything you bring up has been brought up before - and some how it all degrades to separate the communities, and the economies

No one talks of the frustrating aspect associated with open PvP - only the excitement

What would be a real incentive to get folks to try it? Seems to be the question that needs to be debated.

I think that the community understands very clearly - what the wants of the Open PvP - full loot are - but nothing new has been brought to the table concerning genuine efforts to encourage those that are interested but need more reasons to give it a go

 

and then show us the numbers of PVE only people! and show me the same from the other side of the coin. Money is money when it comes down to it, so do you really want to lose possibly great numbers of either side? I dont think so from a business perspective!

 

You could also meet people that will go after the PK that ganked you! adding to your social environment!