This Term "PvP" Is Redundant and Unnecessary

But there are rules and people are not trying to build a subgame around the chess tournament, the angry chess player and the hero that comes over to advise player of those rules.

 

there is also referees as well.

 

Ah, no.

fighting a person is very different than fighting an AI and if SOTA is going to hold true to the FAQ and provide PVP "options" and not a PVP only game those options need to be debated and understood especially if they would like to get more backing from players who find RPG/progression based PVP pointless and annoying.

True PVP centric games need force the "sheep" to be available to the "wolves" to be farmed and that requires fundamental design choices to be made. Those choices are also why RPG/progression PVP games as such a minority in the market. The bulk of theRPG/progression player population has voted and non-consensual PVP lost a long time ago....

 

And we will have GMs. Not sure what is your point, either of you.

 

i was referring to an advisor type.

 

Chess has rules, and people are there to enforce those rules. Someone getting angry isn't the issue, not the big picture, as there are systems in place for that.

It's people wanting to design chess to be less about player vs player and more around that person getting angry and people coming to put a stop to it, oh and it shouldn't have to be with the other player, it could be with the bartender or a spectator, or even someone outside in the lobby.

Even that is fine, IF there are rules in place for that specifically. But you lose a lot of bartenders if you don't pay them enough.

 

People have been adjusting the rules of games for as long as there have been games. My kids used to play with my chess pieces, and build lego castles on the board. It wasn't how I played chess, but they came up with their own mod of chess, and had fun with it.

I see pen and paper role playing games as an extension of the game of chess. One of my older sons (mid twenties) now plays warhammer 40k, and he paints his own warhammer guys, and moves them about on an scenario board in accordance with the rules of Warhammer 40K. That is a variant to chess, as I see it.

SotA PvP can be considered the same thing, moving animated computer graphics pieces around on a game 'board', but instead of controlling 16 'pieces', I control only one, and other people control the thousands of other 'pieces'.

Just variations on a theme, including PvP.

 

I trust RG with pvp since he knows what he wants, but I think you bring up a good point. Just because you can kill people why are they sheep to be farmed? Why would open pvp make it pvp centric? I think this is largely not a problem of pvp itself and more a problem with the way the players have been shaped by the games available too them. It's a lot of numbers going up and gear being collected and grinding and I don't think that is this type of game. But the expectation of that and the idea of that has been bleeding into it. I don't think this is a game that will be necessarily combat focused. While I expect to have a bloody time I also expect that I can interact in the world as something other than a combatant and have that as my game focus.

You insinuate that open pvp makes players become a resource to pe farmed. I don't think this is that kind of game.

PS: I support a kind of selection function for pvp like what has already been described. I just find some of the attitudes both fascinating and frustrating.

 

Also, I have a very annoying typing style and I apologize to all. I repeat myself WAAAAAAY too much.

 

Its all good! i mispell all the time!

 

Everything in a game is a resource if you can interact with it. Open PVP by definition means players are a resource that can provide something, either voluntarily or not, because you can or do kill them. I have yet to see an Open PVP game that does not use game design to ensure that players have maximum opportunity to kill each other and get something from it (slow travel speed, lack of instance travel, limited bank space, open looting, visible points of interest or events, etc).

Now if this is an "option" and I can choose not participate great that is the bare minimum that a mainstream game needs to offer. But even with optional PVP there are still significant design issues to be worked out unless they plan on totally separate instances with very different rule sets for PVP vs. PVE.

Net effect is this is a silly thread and we will be talking about PVP for as long as the game exists....

 

There fixed that for ya.

 

Where are your bleeding hearts for the lonely dark queen, forced by code to be isolated in her dungeon, doomed forever to serve as a play thing for disgusting human wretches, desecrating her abode as they ransack, **** and pillage her only to be resurrected and happen all over again. What did she do to deserve this hell? I for one, am her sworn protector, and any life, be it digital or with blood coursing through its veins shall be laid to waste upon trespassing into her holy sanctuary. Whether the code allows this or not, it is my pact, and on my honor it will not be broken.

Lord British, be ye warned if ye think I'll succumb to these flimsy whimsical arbitrary "PvP/PvE" titles.
Ishet Zenunim Taninsam Ama Lilith, Liftoach Kliffot!