The Negative Effects of a Player Filter in SotA

I have no interest in PVP and do not want to have to deal with it at all in my game, so why should I have to to make this guys happy?

 

<i>The issue with PvPing is when PKers run rampant with no regard for the law. If implement a risk/reward system to keep PvP in check you will have those that choose to PK and those that choose to only kill PKers or PKK. </i>

The problem with this is that by and large the "risk" was always weighted towards the non-PvP player and the "reward" towards the PvP player.

The concept of playing a game is to have fun. I would SERIOUSLY doubt that the people who got attacked in real life situations were having any "fun", so why would the player getting attacked out of nowhere in SotA have any more fun?

Also, if your idea of "risk vs reward" is the "risk" you take in ganking non-combat characters or sniping PvM character attempting more difficult PvM fights, then you have a rather novel concept of "risk". You're not looking to PvP in this case, you're just looking for an easy score at the expense of another player, which in the end tends to push the customers away from the game.

Early UO's success came because it was one of the first of its kind and had an established IP behind it. Once EQ was released, regardless of what people may think of game quality comparing the two at the time, the subs shot sky high while UO's leveled off... not because UO wasn't getting new customers, but because the number of new accounts was being offset by the number of people who got fed up with getting preyed upon and leaving. Since then, the biggest attempts at re-creating the open-PvP style of UO within a fantasy genre has been limited at best and a disaster at worst. Shadowbane and later Darkfall were both heralded as the Next Big PvP Game? when they were being developed and both BOMBED. Other games that controlled PvP did much better.

I'm not specifically anti-PvP. It absolutely should be included in the game, but it must be done so CAREFULLY. Some of the concepts put forward in tying PvP to certain ingame quest events sound really good... in theory. We'll have to see how they pan out in practice. I think if I were a PvP player making my case, I'd be considering the makeup of the game and what methods beyond simply repeating "Open PvP, Full Loot" ad nauseum I could come up with that would make PvP situations fun and a rewarding experience for anyone who wants to be part of them.

Player town vs player town combat/sieges, maybe?

 

In the early days of UO a newbie was being taught how to PK and I (a little less newbie)was the target. I and my bear haunted him for the rest of the day, until he swore not to kill again.

 

I'm not against PvP either (I do it in other games) but non-consensual PvP is a one-sided play style that drives people away.

 

Elsad "PVP people, the PVE guys don?t want to play with you and you cant FORCE them to its that simple."

If you don't want to PVP avoid low security zones where you might find PVPers.

And again let me stress PVPers = Not solely PKers. They like both PVE and PVP.

PVP mode is basically PVE with PVP gameplay enabled.

Elsad "Having them lose their stuff, and preventing them from going to certain areas are non negotiable in their minds as they are paying for this game too."

Who says they'd lose all their items? That could be limited to a few stuff.

And an other good mechanic is Bounty system that players can put on others... this generates gameplay for PKKers etc.

You're acting like there's not been any solutions before, but there is and EVE Online does it pretty well.

SotA isn't EVE, but it can learn a thing or two from EVE.

 

I'm not interested in it at all, which should it affect my gameplay?

 

In my opinion, going criminal looting the corpses of dead players and thieving skills is enough.

PKing in UO before the onset of guild wars, O/C and factions was nothing more than grief. It was fun, but its in the past for me now. In response to the OP and your problems with a PvP switch, nobody has said there will be a PvP switch, or open PvP for that matter. So so far, there's no problem?

 

TheJefu "In response to the OP and your problems with a PvP switch, nobody has said there will be a PvP switch, or open PvP for that matter. So so far, there?s no problem?"

Can't players switch between online PVE to PVP modes? Can you only pick the mode once when starting a new character?

rune_74 "I?m not interested in it at all, which should it affect my gameplay?"

It's a problem when people go farming for the best loot in Online Singleplayer or FPO mode cause it'll be easier to acquire the loot and resources.

Then those people could use the loot and super gear in PVP-mode OPO where its more difficult to acquire due to higher risk.

And it fragments the world population itself with such a filter: so you only meet who you want to meet as if those other players don't exist... this is not possible in a true virtual world.

 

Well this game is not a virtual world/pvp centric game. It's not what I want to play, and I only want to see people I want too. That is what will be fun to me. You have the option t o go the other route, but I don't think you should force people to enjoy something they don't.

 

I was merely stating that its possible and not impossible which make real life more close to a world with PvP enabled...

Btw, do you not remember "Hide your kids, hide your wife" "they're climbing in your windows snatching people up". May have not happened to myself but it has happened. And it happens more than you would know different regions of the world.

The difference between real life and pvp games is that there are harsher penalties in real life, and depending on where you live can be severe to extremely severe (e.i, jail, death penalty, firing squad, torture).

So in a nutshell they need to create the right amount of penalties to go along with being a PKer.

If you want to be a PKer:
- you will become red and anyone can attack you without penalty and the more people you kill the harder it will become to return to good
- guards kill you in towns
- there are bounties on your head, and maybe there higher the bounty gets the more intel is provided on your location
- possibly harsher death penalties.


BTW you do not have to be a murderer/pker to be considered a PvPer. I rarely went red and if i did it was because i was killing people who killed me the past but were now red.

There has to be risk to being a PKer because the reward is simple. You get to kill people and loot their gear.

 

@rune_74, I fully support the freedom to play a game the way you want to. I just don't think the methods of Filtering players who don't play as you prefer is the only or best way to do it.

And secondly people who play a Lower-risk PVE version of the game should have same difficulty in acquiring loot, resources (minerals, ingredients etc) as those who play with PVP enabled.

 

I agree with the same difficulty to get things, I never thought it would be better if I didn't.

 

@Hadriel
<i>"It?s a problem when people go farming for the best loot in Online Singleplayer or FPO mode cause it?ll be easier to acquire the loot and resources.

Then those people could use the loot and super gear in PVP-mode OPO where its more difficult to acquire due to higher risk.

And it fragments the world population itself with such a filter: so you only meet who you want to meet as if those other players don?t exist? this is not possible in a true virtual world."</i>

So your point is that a player works his butt off for hours and gets the loot he deserves, but a PK can come along and take it after less than a minute of combat? How is that fair or equitable? Who said it would be easier to aquire loot in the FPO or SPO modes anyway? You seem to be making a huge assumption to support your point. You appear to be seeing bogeymen where there may only be fluffy bunnies.

 

I think if you looking for a fully open PVP style game, you will be disappointed with SotA. Lord B has made is very clear that the ability to choose who and(or) when you interact with others is a core value to the type of game he is building.

 

The argument is that if you have a choice to hunt in a complete safe environment and one with PvP enabled and the odds of getting good gear are equal and the difficulty of the monsters are equal, you will chose the safe environment.

What then ends up happening is the open world pvp is non-existent and PvP is now only occurring in dedicated zones. For me an ideal game has PvP and PVE melded into one environment. This split feature is less appealing to me and its players end up playing basically 2 games in one, where they alternate between PvP gear and PvE gear.

This is the perspective from a person that enjoys both PvE and PvP equally. I understand this will differ from those that enjoy one and not the other.

 

The thing is your desired playstyle requires unwilling participants. The playstyle of those who just wanna do the story/PvE with their friends does not. That is the crux of the issue.

 

hmm ok how about if we have open pvp and you PK someone and turn your name red.....it never goes back ever. That would be a good penalty I think. Oh and you can't buy or sell or even visit any town that has lawful guards and rulership. And before you think this breaks immersion...medieval towns can't get info out that fast to each other...remember it't not medieval its a realm of magic...magic can do alot of things like marking a murderer permenantly .

 

Using real life as a reference point is not valid. If you get killed in real life it's over, you will not get PK'd ever again.

PK's will regularly kill the unwilling/uninterested until the victim logs off. Then they will brag to their friends about how they made someone uninstall.

This low sec concept would be fine *IF* low sec areas allowed players to play the game in peace. If it herds player into a low value area then why would anyone stay there?

What I am reading from all this is it sounds like people want to be able to keep down the competition in the pvp arena by controlling the supply of gear. Why wouldn't you want to PvP with players that have a level playing field? Is this out of fear of a level playing field?

One thing I have learned over the years is that skill &gt; gear.

 

+1, agree with the OP that it should be easy for PK to kill the nubs, I have nightmares of fully protected Carebears.

@Ristra - IMO there is a difference between PvP and PK. I'm a PK, I don't want a fair fight, I want 1v1 myself v nub. If all they have is a pair of shoes and a candle, I'm going to take it.

 

I really hope they change their mind and make 2 servers.