Personal PvP Definition Poll

Lum aka Scott Jennings: Good Read

PvP Round Table Transcript

 

I'm interested in PvP for the sake of strategic conquest. Warhammer, DAoC, Lineage2, gw2. I would basically like to see "city states" play civilization with eachother where they could fight over land and resources but also have many growth paths to victory. PvP is a team sport.

I don't care to see thieves, "full loot", griefing, generally anti-social behavior.

 

I liked being a Dread Lord alot. The murder system was what caused me to go blue again.. 4 toons in stat loss penalty box due to sketchy isp pings was no fun.

I played dark age of Camelot and still do on occasion.. Loved that system also you could Pk anyone of the 2 a posing realms.. Introduced me to the assassin same effect as Pking. After that i havent liked pvp sense. Uo is the only game that made my heart race.. Pking or getting pked it was a rush.
Lor

 

From my understanding from the update, battles can be/will be more like Rasa. Longer range.

you could get dropped and not see where it came from. So it's best keep your head down & be tight with the Walls, if any.

Depending and the range and weapons, I'm hoping they put in some optics.

My choice of words for a "PK"would be deletd (Low minded/low skill lil Rat) & most unkind.

PvP: May become an Internet "Sport" one Day...{IMO}

Modified loot suggestion: Reagents-Arrows-Bolts-Ammo (any kind)-Gold-Gems-Weapon Snapper (cheap @ any BS shop)-Making the Looser find a good expensive BS that can fix it.

 

The title and contents of the pool seems to be mismatched; the options seem to be more about our preferences regarding PvP than our definition of PvP.

As for me, only consensual PvP without player looting. In fact, I tend to prefer playing PvP where there is no penalty for losing, and the only rewards are bragging rights; this kind of PvP seems to attract players that just want to have a good time, whereas having meaningful rewards often results in attracting players that won't think twice before ruing the experience for everyone else if by doing that they can get a little more rewards.

 

I must agree with Silent Strider about the mismatch, this isn't 'defining' what PvP is at all.

Personally I would like see PvP designed specifically in a way that can resemble UO - as much as can be reasonably implemented.
-'Safe Zones' and w/e kind of regional limitations nessessary to allow the game to grow, but with enough of the core elements left to allow for similar "extreme" conditions hardcore PvP advocates can support.
I'm of the opinion reward imbalance helps to grow the economy, so i'd prefer PvP to be designed in a way so that the people engaging in PvP can feel satisfied with thier risk/reward balance.

'PvP just to have a good time' as the only form of PvP in-game would mean there would be no competetive form of PvP outside of preplanned guild sieges. No possibility of spontanious regional wars over adjacent hexes, or meta armies of Pk'ers invading a once peaceful relatively unplayed PvP region for people like Owain to hunt down, I dunno, it would just feel like something was missing if we just stuck with the same PvP options as GW and WoW.

 

True, I got off of definition by blabbing in chat while posting, and I apologize for my lack of clarity. Forgive me. Thanks for responding!

 

For me PvP varies from game to game. In UO, PvP (for me) was dueling, attacking and defending guildhouses, and competing for champion spawns (and maybe some Brit moongate spam). In SSB, PvP is dueling and 2v2s. In SotA, I have no idea what PvP will be, but I do know that it will involve hiding behind walls to exploit third person PoVs, just like every other third person game with PvP out there.

 

Meaningful PvP. PvP in a strict RP setting. By this I mean that death isn't used to settle trivial arguments. Those who would strike another do it with the understanding of the pain and cost to the victim (character not player.) I might whack someone upside the head for doing something stupid, but I'm not going to kill them. Consquently, being strictly PvE in an RP setting is constraining. I thought Trammel did a decent job of it by allowing PvP between consenting guilds.

As I've stated several times before, I'm not opposed to evil player PvP per se, I'm opposed to the frequency of it. If I wander into the wilderness there should be some risk of encountering a brigand, but it shouldn't be a near certainty. Ideally, I'd like the ability to set that frequency, something like 1 in 10 times that I venture into the wilderness I'll be matched with a brigand-type player.

PvP is undoubtedly the most difficult thing to design and nothing is going to satisfy all players because PvP can range from a friendly poke to wars to kill everything that moves.

 

Only experence in PvP, for me in UO was in a protective Band. Protocol got out of control, However. PvP can get very Expensive.

 

The best PVP I was ever involved in was back during my MUD days. After level 25 everyone was flagged for PVP but there were also limits on who you could attack that made it so you could only attack those who you'd actually have to fight even though the fights may not last long due to them not being as strong as you. Also relative limits so that five 40th levels couldn't gank a solo 40th level. You could honorable duel if you wanted but mostly my friends and I would ambush each other.

 

Being able to attack anyone outside city areas.

Full loot

 

Just want to know what the design goals are for PvP, in SotA.

IMHO:

IF

• Is it to permit open world hex control, as part of a larger plot mechanic?
• Is it to permit meaningful removal of combatants from the field?
• Is it to prevent negative social player interaction, after defeat in combat?
• Is it to encourage players to try PvP for the first time?
• Is it to encourage players to continue PvP'ing?

THEN

• Temporary banishment works better than anything else.
• Defeat works better than death.
• Allow PvP in competitive guild/alliance activities.
• Prevent item damage on PvP death.
• Remove or reduce all monetary and experience rewards as part of any PvP activity.

However,

Spoiler: biased, narrow, glib and sarcastic commentary..

IF

• Is it to encourage farming of other players?
• Is it to damage the economy?
• Is it to permit players to socially "harm" other players?
• Is it to ultimately turn PvP into a high latency first-person-shooter?

THEN

• Permit full loot; meaning every item, all currency, all armor, all weapons, all bags, all equipment in all bags, is immediately made available to the victor, upon death of the victim.
• Permit regular death at the hands of another player, and force the player to resurrect at their death site, and impose normal death penalties.
• Permit selling of all PvP looted items directly to NPCs, without any compensating consumption systems, for gold.

 

my definition of PVP is any time one player fights another player. No matter the choices involved or consequences.

Yes, even Dueling with no consequences, no risk, and agreed by both parties is PVP.. I hate it though, Always thought people that wanted to duel were silly. But i played a shadow priest and generally destroyed everyone so.. meh (later on my DK destroyed everyone). that's the only game I played that had duels, WoW.

 

My personal definition of PvP???: Seige Perilous.
I think having felucca and trammel was a good idea. But what completed everything was to have seige perilous as well.

 

PvP to me means if i decide to attack you i can (for whatever reason) Honorable or unhonorable kills, There should be safe zones and unsafe zones,. if you make it to the safe zone good for you, if i accidentally go into the safe zone, the guard or whatever should kill me (if im a murderer), but UNLIKE, UO the gaurds shouldnt be on god mode! they should be a little higher than me in level and skill to make me work for killing them or being killed by them, not a "poof" guard there! now your dead! and if there are more than one guard within range, oh well i shouldve thought this PVP out better!

 

I have not chosen any poll options, but instead I will just describe what PvP is to me and what rules or systems there could be for me to enjoy it. PvP in my opinion is combat involving at least two players fighting eachother and up to many players fighting many. The rules and system around the fights may be different from game to game, but the ability to fight one another using one's skill to try to defeat the other is the essence of it.

I like an element of excitement in PvP, this may come from experiencing some kind of loss with defeat. Like with factions in Ultime Online, you lost faction points, or in other games where you might lose XP. If death is entirely meaningless, then overall PvP is not as enjoyable for me, though there are some exceptions. A sense of achievement is nice too, like gaining a certain amount of faction points due to my own success against other PvP players.

Apart from dueling for fun, I also like being a part of a grander scheme of things, like factions in UO where you'd fight for control over cities and attack and defend each others forts to take or keep your control. However, I don't like being forced into a faction/side at character creation and much prefer having control over that during gameplay, much like being in a guild.

With systems that have justice type of mechanics and laws, where you can kill players while turning into a murderer, I am the type that would rather hunt the murderers than become one myself. I'm not one that finds enjoyment in preying on unsuspecting and unwilling players, most likely they will not provide a good fight, which for me is what PvP is all about. PvP should also be enjoyable for all who participate, at least for me it is much more fun that way.

Everything else aside, I definitely prefer it when there's a sense of approximate equal fight, and the fights may last a while. Giving a need to gauge your opponent and try various tactics to both stay alive and hopefully win or try again.

 

Justice for all. I've never been any good at PVP in any mmo's I've played (EVE, UO) but that hasn't stopped me from trying to participate. I'd be more willing to join in if I knew that not every single valid opponent in the "unsafe area" was already a honed expert that could drop me in 2 seconds flat.

 

Justice! I will not be the LAW but someone will. I suck and newb at PvP but I like the danger (as long as its not reskill-teabag-grief). Consider allowing subduing your opponent/target (mugging) so you can take items / loot but dont have to kill the victim (finish blow, to make killing of someone allways a weighty choice). Most robbers in RL are after your wealth and not your life, one of the reasons being that killing would have alot heavier concequence, so they mug you and run away with your wallet. This would support justice system (of not having to kill, if you really dont mean to). But easier way would be consensual and or safearea/danger area model. Making real justice work in a game that it would not have any grief... i think it cant be done because of... well... people(will find a way).

EDIT: I picked the Law basically because the idea of it appeals to me (and the tingling danger, in some amounts), not because I would know will or will it not work in a game

 

Let the player's actions online influence every player online's experience, As well as the outcome.
That is all.