The Glass is Half Empty - A look inside why people are opposed to Open PvP and Full Loot

I hope so. I think having resources that are contested (pvp) and having resources that are fairly safe to obtain is also possible...

 

Oh this is quite true, although since everyone keeps insisting there can be only one...

 

Which is why I personally tend to prefer to play PvP modes that don't have extensive rewards. When the players are attracted by the PvP itself, they will be there to have fun, making the game better for everyone; but when they are attracted by the rewards, they will do their best to get their rewards, even if they destroy the PvP experience for themselves and everyone else in the process.

For those that have been following WoW from the start, it had this problem in multiple ways through it's story; players are too driven by the rewards, and will find the fastest way to get those rewards, even if it kills the PvP experience for everyone else. When rewards were had by killing enemy players, kill trading emerged, with opposite faction players just taking turns in killing each other and not even defending themselves; when they were had by capturing control points held by the opponents, players would just make two roving capture teams that would go in circles capturing the undefended control points without ever bothering with defense; when the biggest chunk of rewards was to be had by killing the enemy (NPC) commander, players would just make a beeline for the opposite commander, ignoring each other (and some times even waving each other as the opposite teams passed by) , turning the PvP into a PvE race; when the rewards for losing were too small, players stopped queuing without a strong pre-made group, sending queue times up to unacceptably high levels; when the rewards for losing were too big, "losing pre-mades" were created, with the objective to throw the game as fast as possible in order to get the consolation prize in as little time as possible; and so on. I sincerely have never fully enjoyed any PvP where rewards were the main reason for players to take part.

Because the gatherer find it more fun?

This is why I typically suggest an increased quantity (NOT quality) of rewards while flagged for PvP. Enough to make up for the smaller efficiency due to the player attacks, but not enough to make PvP gathering seem like the uncontested better way to gather. If gathering in PvP and PvE, on average, progress at roughly the same speed - taking into account player attacks and potential loses in PvP - then players will choose whichever setting they find more fun.

 

Ok now I know you are doing it on purpose You want to force people to go into PvP or Pay extortion to obtain what you want to deny them access to.
In the real world we call that Racketeering, Extortion and Monoploy...you'd get smacked with a RICO case in a heart beat. So the way I see this is either you really are being an exemplar of one of the major issues that turns communities against PvP or you are attempting some form of complicated humor that I have yet to unravel..... I hope they do not make the game with your kind of mechanics in it.

As for Richard wanting to draw people into PvP....I wasn't aware of this, Ill have to look for those comments, as it doesn't make sense to me that he would have the mind set to push people into PvP or into PvE.....but I have not been following him that closely over the last few years.

 

Richard expressed an interest in compelling players to PvP without forcing or punishing them. This might include increased node quantites or better loot drops, but I think its safe to say that exclusive items will be out.

 

You need little to nothing in the way of rewards. Just remove the harsh penalties and anti-social behavior. In the early days of lineage2 PvP was harsh on the level of UO but it evened out over time and I've mostly focused on PvP in every game since.

 

By harsh penalties, do penalties for dying, such as full loot? Also, how do you remove anti-social behavior?

 

This is the best question ever asked on this forum

 

Temporary hex banishment after death. Removes all anti-social behavior and allows every death to be meaningful. (in the strategic/tactical sense).
More details here.

 

The pure act of being killed by another player makes me feel anti-social. But the mention of banning me from a hex due to being killed for even a second makes me feel something mighty more than just a bit anti-social...

 

And completely prevents you from acting on that impulse.
Looks like it's working.

Anything other than temporary hex banishment, including but not limited to viewport removal from the battlefield, permits anti-social behavior.

 

Hex banishment also punishes social behavior, like when I want to fight along side my buddies.

 

Fighting is fine. Just don't die.

 

So.. if you are walking around and get killed by someone while gathering resources... you are banished from a hex.

1. You're getting killed - which makes you feel anti social
2. You're not unable to continue what you started when you get back.

Any chance of people who don't normally PvP coming anywhere near OPO with PvP will die.

Also - if you are punishing anti-social behavior the person being banned should be the killer, not the victum.

 

I agree. I perfer the LOTRO style setup here. Your community of players are all the same side, but in PvP you can pick a side to develop.

This keeps the PvP away from the general community/social aspects of the main story line, but also has some ties across (winning sides get benefits/minuses for the outside world).

Just playing a game to PvP, Urban Terror, Warframe, CS, ... I mean ?

 

Open pvp should create many ways to grief others but make one criminal in doing so.
I agree there should be a PVP mode that does not do this.
But in a open free environment it is more about good, evil, criminals and justice and how to deal with the other players.

 

My only gripe is you are segregated into certain zones for PvP. They should have added a mechanic where the creeps could conquer zones and it's up to the freeps to push them back. I like the idea of creating races just for PvP, like in SotA you could be a kobold, but there can't be too much limitation or there is no point. If a kobold army of PKers decended on a city in SotA, it would have both players and NPC guards to push back the horde. An interesting concept, but alas I don't see it happening here.

 

Absolutely agree. I remember Conan promised something along those exact lines, and not only fell short, just fell flat all around.

Anyone who can make a system like this, the real tug of war for PvP, integrated INTO the world, will be the next large step forward in the MMO experience.

I see it almost as a cross-over of genres, like DOTA/LOL + MMO RPG. There are some systems that do an okay-ish job, like EVE, but then other areas suffer (economy) so I still feel no one has a solid first pass package on that goal yet.

 

If you read what I linked, you'll see it's described as a pvp only mechanic. In particular, you have to consent to pvp in the first place to even be attackable.

I'll quote here from the .PDF describing the mechanic:

"
Outline of Temporary Hex Banishment
Each time a player kills or defeats another, while participating in activities that contribute to an at-war guild goal or PvP world plot, the victim is temporarily banished from the land-hex where the activity is taking place. The duration of temporary banishment could be any duration, from minutes to hours. (of real time, regardless if the victim is in game or not)
This system presumes the following is true:
• strategic removal of a combatant from the field of battle is a primary design goal for direct PvP. If this is not true, this mechanic is of no value.
Only players involved in activities that contribute to an at-war guild goal or PvP world plot would be visible to one another, via SotA's Selective Multiplayer feature.
"

So, while I appreciate the feedback, please read what I wrote before reacting negatively to a situation that is not even part of the system.

Also, I am not the originator of this mechanic. This mechanic has been used to great effect, for years, to eliminate anti-social behavior, in a wide variety of MUD's, prior to 1997.

 

I can't believe this argument is still going on after 34 pages. Why don't PvPers get it? There is nothing you can do that will intice me (a non-PvPer) to cross the bridge to your side. You can sugar coat it all you want to, I refuse to budge, and you hate me for it.

This is the same old debate that has been going on since the Felucca/Trammel split and it hasn't changed a bit. EA even gave them a special server with the old rule set, and they still weren't happy. Without "victums" they will never be satisfied, they refuse to pray on their own because of some misc guided Loyalty of a "good old boys club" mentality. I don't want to have anything to do with it, and they don't like it one bit.

Dear Dev's, don't fall for this. The way you have it now is just fine, please don't listen to them, they will never accept anything less than Full Open PvP. I Loved Trammel, more power to Trammel...