Disruption of Events in PvP POT's...

Doc, this may or may not have come up because of you and or people you associate with.... FYI there have been issues for the past 3 weeks now, and no one said anything tell it was obvious it was going to get out of hand.
But this is an issue that I fear if left unchecked will destroy any ability of having a structured event in a PoT that is set for PvP.
Only reason we have events in a PvP PoT is because any thing else just does not work as well.

Also when filling out the form it says nothing about removing governor abilities. the only thing it says is this: looks like it only discloses individual lots, and says nothing about the governors abilities being restricted.
Open PvP town? [] My entire town will be a PvP zone. This will override any non-PvP flags set on individual lots.

 

i want a safe place to do week events

 

I agree with the OP and recall being in strong opposition and very vocal on the forums arguing against the removal of ban options in a PVP flagged PoTs for these exact reasons.

The intent is not to remove PvP from PvP towns, but to remove unwanted behavior and eliminate grieving or hacking/exploit prone players.

 

My expectation is that Portalarium will remove those players, not POT owners.

Having an exploiter banned from a POT only helps that POT while kicking the can down the road to the next POT. If someone is breaking the EULA, then report them and have Portalarium deal with it. If they're just being good at PVP, then lock yourself in house if you can't deal with it.

 

@DarkStarr

Thanks for the offer, the problem with it is that in this particular circumstance some of the troublemakers are members of that list of guilds you provided. Not all certainly, and in the end, manpower is not the issue. Identifying the individuals for social ostracization or neutering doesn't solve the problem with the game.

I'd love to see you start holding your PvP events again, the playing field is wide open and players are always looking for a game.

The Lot Ban mechanism doesn't work as advertised, it doesn't prevent attackers from scaling walls, attacking players through walls with AoE spells, Chain Lightning etc. A Town Ban option would eliminate that problem putting them out of the scene, and while I do recognize that the reasons against having a Town Ban list in PvP POT are real, the need for and arguments for having that option are real too.

Why not leave it up to the actual PvP POT owner? Portalarium's official stance seems to be 'Oh, you got kicked from your plot in a POT - yeah, we warned you about that, it's not our problem, go somewhere else - you exist at the whim of the POT owners.' Why is this situation any different? Town Ban list option is simple enough - the technology exists, you just have to enable it and that's way easier than fixing the problems with Lot Bans not working.

V/R Brickbat

 

Agreed - I believe we're dealing with the transition between environments with limited negative player interactivity (PvE) and environments with unrestricted dynamic conflict. Players who exist primarily in PvE environments will likely have a much different definition of what griefing is, compared to players that regularly play in PvP environments. If there's temp bans in PvP POTs I'd prefer there's other tools I could put to use before going that route.

As for PvP events, one tactic players could employ would be having a few dedicated healers provided by the hosts of the event or volunteers, then form groups for the spectators. This way the dedicated healers would be responsible for healing spectators in case of errant combat damage from combatants, and also from players that intrude on the event.

In the PvP world there will always be things considered to be negative interactions among players, but I'm more concerned with concerted efforts to drive players from the game, or players that personally harass others on a consistent basis. Those are the types of things I consider to be anti-competitive. If you're going to try and 'wipe someone off the map' ... let there be in-game structure to express that sort of thing.

But yeah, I think a KOS list for guards might help, maybe make NPC guards a separate category in the NPC count. It would also be cool if guards could be used as scouts for information. If you have a guard near the entrance of your PvP POT and it sees a player on the KOS list, perhaps the guard could send a message to the /zone channel for the town, or some type of administrative/town defense chat channel. If it's a player with very high stealth, perhaps the guards don't react to that player immediately?

Also, I'd like to determine guard intensity, and allow players to determine the laws and system of government for their town.

 

To me the irony here is not lost from the original poster... as he was a part of a pvp/pk group that raided the shooter jennings release party in game. an event that was being covered by several major papers and magazines and was being streamed in several countries. it was ok to raid that event but now that one of his events is being harassed now we need to be able to ban.

I do actually agree that there needs to be more safeguards for town owners. My original position has changed from 6 months ago when pvp towns lost the ability to ban which i was totally against at the time. We changed our pot from pvp to normal due to that change. Now i get what other players warned me about. That it would come down to i dont like person x or y cause they fight in my town so they are gone.

where i truly do not feel what is going on at the evl event is griefing. I recognize the aspect that in the future there will be 1,000's of old school uo griefiers in the game. that holding an event like this would be a primary raid event for them due to the large cluster of players in a pvp zone in a game where most players can spend their entire game playing time in this game never crossing into pvp. they will hunt these events cause of the causalities they can claim. If there was a true Big Red guild like uo had in this game now. I guarantee that all these events would be crashed and they would kill everything they could over and over again cause they find that fun. That is whats coming in the future. I would prepare for it expect it.

 

Players solved issues like this before. Devs are not needed, and PVP is supposed to be like that. If you cannot protect your event, don't make it in a PVP town.

If someone is cheating report them.

 

Never seen a game where players 'solved' this sort of thing - seen many where players left because of this type of behaviour remaining unchecked......

 

@DarkStarr

Wow, send the problem makers to fix it, interesting way to protect your backers Port.

 

This is probably the most ridiculous 'storm in a teacup' thread I have seen for quite a while.

If you are in a PvP PoT expect PvP.......don't complain about it.

If you really like "organised" exclusive PvP then organised it in a Non-PvP PoT where you can control it and request additional game mechanics to help support what you are trying to do (you wont get it instantly but i'm sure you will get it).

 

if people try to disrupt events whilst i am present, i will kill them... and i will keep killing them until they either stop or leave

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

 

Just to clarify.

Jar may have been in our group, but that was all LOTC. My guild. We had the go ahead from devs and Violation (it was in Vengeance). There were rules in that fight too, once established they weren't broken. That was friendly and in good fun.

There was respect for the event.

 

OTC and OOV are sister guilds. You just split up the pvp people into a separate guild. The leader of OTC is your brother and you guys play together. You just found a great way to disrupt an EVL tournament without getting your hands dirty.

Sooner or later EVL will catch on and your guild will also be KOS to them. So tell us is Sciamano the leader of OTC your brother or not?

Keep hiding behind his skirt. What you are doing is disrespectful towards those who are giving the event. I asked all my guys to stand down out of respect for the event.

 

<pops popcorn><pours a drink><sits in his comfy chair>

There... All Set!

Please... continue! Pretend I'm not here at all.

 

Maybe some lore that grants Governors the ability to remove a players PVP flag while they're attending an event?

Just look at normal sporting events - you have to sign up prior to, sometimes you have to have sponsorship, you have to pay fees, you have to abide by the rules, if you don't play fair you get sidelined or ejected completely.

Some Governor grade authority for events would be awesome - maybe a way to set a town to "event mode"?

 

a modification of this kickstart stretch goal, that we met by the way.

$1.9 Million: The World is a Stage

• A new City Center Theater Building.
• Rentable by an individual or group for a performance.
• Only approved individuals may enter backstage or on stage.
• Players must pay to enter seating areas.
• Viewers may only emote, such as claps. (Claps are tracked to "rate" the performance)
• Money goes to performers for their performance.
• Also usable for weddings and other community events!
• We add a full complement of "masks" and "costumes" for use at various events.

 

Reading this thread reminds me of a classic RP situation:

Threatening-looking bandits stand sparring about a lovely lady in waiting.
A noble knight, seeing the lovely lady's plight, quickly dispatches the bandits.
The lady thanks the knight as he dies in the flames of her fireball for killing her love interests.​

Now, if you were this lovely lady experiencing this scenario in an open POT PVP situation in SOTA, would you report this knight for griefing your event?

Essentially this is what is discussed here: Reporting and banning someone because they took a different perspective, role played that part, and changed a sandbox situation. I think we need to remember that in open-PVP sand box games, this is exactly what is supposed to be possible. And remember that role playing is a matter of perspective. Good RP can perceive Evil RP as truly .... evil ... when all they simply may be doing is role playing the opposite perspective. It might not be wrong or griefing, but it can result in an outcome you don't like. That is how RP goes. It is no different for PVP. In fact, in open PVP, players are accepting the potential for dynamic events to shape their experience all the more. That is the beauty of sand box open PVP.

In this context, as I read this thread, I personally thought that calls for reporting, griefing, banning, and adding systems to control open PVP in open PVP POTs were .. over the top. One guild is horrified that they were unable to fulfill a role (an honorable PVP festival) the way they intended, while another is gleeful that they fulfilled theirs (a planned, targeted PVP attack). You know what? That is fantastic. It means that SOTA is working in an open sandbox way as intended to create truly community-driven events and stories. Not neatly-staged neatly-controlled stories of one group. But bigger stories of cooperation and conflict playing out across factions on the grander Novian stage.

For those championing something else for open PVP, remember that nobody said that open PVP is "predictable". Nobody ever said that us POT owners get to have "private open PVP to our liking." If you disagree, consider that you might have picked the wrong tools for the experience you are seeking. A group that wants to very neatly control its own POT PVP events - without concern of interference - might be better served with a non-PVP town that you can limit access to and then just flag for PVP within individually as you wish. Otherwise, for those who insist on open PVP towns but take offense to creative interruption, well, it might be wise to have sufficient force of guards on hand to maintain control of an open POT PVP event.

 

I get that - but for a Governor hosting a PVP event (any event really) in a bought and paid for player owned town, having a bunch of thugs crash your event is more like terrorism. People in this thread and these forums openly talk about kill lists and kill on sight orders - this, imo, only strengthens the need for POT tools that allow POT owners to plan and host events as they see fit.