PVP. One Language. One Voice.

Watching conversations about PVP on these forms can be painful for many. Much of this is because PVP in SOTA is not solidly outlined yet and there are 2 polar views or positions about how PVP was handled in UO. UO was involved in setting the definitions of many terms used in online gaming today from MMO to Griefer, and it is only fair that these definitions are brought into the conversations about SOTA. However, SOTA is a different game and is trying to do some things differently than have been done in the past, so it make sense that these terms be refined or new ones created as we move forward.

I have seen many conversations derailed mostly because someone took a term a wrong way which caused it to quickly fall into a barrage of emotional statements. There is already at least one term which cannot be used because it has been used in a disparaging way. Coming up with an intelligent and logical way of relating to these terms could have the affect of allowing conversation to be more balanced thus limiting mis-communications.

What I propose is that we set a standard definitions for certain terms, or come up with new terms, to allow people to express their playstyle without triggering old world stereotypes or definitions that create hostility where none might be implied or intended. We need terms that are not meant to be used as weapons or insults, but instead used to describe playstyles in a way that represents how they will exist in the context of SOTA as a default.

Here is my recommendation as a starting point. Lets discuss and refine these and I will update them as we come to a consensus. I also invite the MODs and Portalarium to edit my post with any corrections they see fit so this can be seen as an official way to talk about these subjects and relate to these different players. We can then link here if anyone starts to misunderstand the terms we are using in a discussion, and hopefully keep conversations from running rampant.

An individual player may exist in more than one playstyle.

• Soloer - Enjoys playing alone. Mainly plays single player or plays multiplayer with limited to no interactions with other players.
• RPer - Enjoys interacting with other players in-character (IC). RPers often do not want to see conversations that would not belong in the mythos of the game world, and wish to act as if they ARE their character with no knowledge of the real world.
• PVEer - Enjoys playing against the environment or computer controlled AI Opponents. Generally wants little to no interaction with PVP, and wants to be safe from the aggressive actions of other players: at least until they choose, or consent, to be involved.
• PVPer - Enjoy playing against other players. Generally has little to no interest in playing against computer controlled AI Opponents.
• PK (Player Killer) - Enjoys playing EXCLUSIVELY against other players, and typically takes on a villainous role. Generally has no interest in playing against computer controlled AI Opponents and enjoys being isolated from standard gameplay.

Assumptions: To be updated as more information on PVP is available.

• SOTA PVP will be by consent only, and there will be not be any sort of non-consensual PVP.
  • Consenting to PVP involves knowingly entering an AREA, accepting a QUEST and/or joining a GUILD which enables you for PVP.
• PVP and Non-PVP enabled players will not see each other, so PVP mechanics will not affect those that opt-out of, and are never involved in, PVP.

Recommendations or Suggestions? Do you think this will help?

Comments are welcome, but please no debating on PVP mechanics. This is just for coming up with acceptable labels and definitions for playstyles to be used as a standard when discussing features that relate to them.

 

Please define the parameters of "consent"...missed that one.

Like the idea and hope we can agree on definitions.

 

I like this so much I wish it was a sticky. If we all use the same terms we can actually have some meaningful discussion on this stuff.

 

I know you said that players can exist in more than one playstyle. However I think the above playstyles are not inclusive of this, and therefore you should consider changing the definitions.

RPers
For example, some people like to RP themselves. Sir Frank is a good example of this, as he is Frank in real life and when he journeys to New Britannia he will still be Frank from real life, he'll just have armor and wield a sword. I'm not Badear in real life, but when I play the game I might be.

I think what you were trying to say is that RPers generally have a strict desire to have nothing in real life cross over into what's happening in the game, and that's not necessary true. Richard Garriott is another great example of this. Although he often goes by the name of Lord British in real life, I would suggest that he is almost a hybrid of the "all in method" of Sir Frank vs. the "all out method" of Badear.

PVPer
This is where things get really tricky. I know you used the word "generally" in your description, but you can be someone that enjoys both equally. Yet not many people would consider themselves a PVP-PVEr. Most people will pick a lane. Because of this, I would suggest making the definition read a little less black and white. Verbiage more like this would be encouraged: "PVPer - Enjoys playing against other players. Generally has LESS interest in playing against computer controlled AI Opponents."

PK(Player Killer)
You can be a player killer that is the best person in the world in game and out of game. My character, Badear, plans to be an in-game Bounty Hunter that kills and captures the most evil sorts of player characters in the game. The use of terms like PK should usually be describe in how they are used. For example, "The PK stole all my money, then killed me and looted my corpse." From my perspective, that was a bad PK. From someone else that might have been a heroic act of justice. You really can't put the label of "villainous" on a PK without context.

 

Great post Umbrae!

For me the term 'PK' ties directly to non-consensual PvP, and 'PvPer' is more of a general term for those who engage in combat between players. It might be worth mentioning the role 'consent' has in those definitions if we are in agreement on them.

 

I think you need to include the co-op player in there somewhere which is what I think FPO mode was originally meant to cater to. It's the mode I'm mostly interested in anyway - when this game was pitched it was as an Ultima style RPG with a fancy selective multiplayer system. I read that mostly as an RPG in the vein of Ultima 7 that I could play through with friends. And I mainly prefer playing co-op games with my friends.

Of course as the game has pretty much become a MMO game I am not sure how that has changed. I am still hoping for an Ultima RPG sort of experience with friends so hopefully Co-op/FPO is still going to be a core feature with a proper central story to support it.

 

To me a pker is by definition non consensual (wants to fight pvpers or pveers) whereas a pvper is consensual (wants to fight other pvpers).

That's why pkers get labelled as 'gankers' or 'griefers', because what they do is at least partly non consensual.

 

Maybe a combo term is in order?

rpPK - PvP role player that typically looks to be the evil character.
griefPK - Person that wishes to take PvP beyond combat and into the realm of harassment.

 

Sure, but at the end of the day, they are both non consensual.

 

Consent is hard without more firm details on PVP in SOTA. However, this is pretty much what has been defined so far.

I would also like to reiterate to everyone that this is not about what a term means to YOU. It is about how to change these definitions as they related to SOTA. The problem is that people are taking their personal meaning of these terms and using them as weapons. This is why Bears Don't Care anymore. We need to move past that and the negative definitions and take ownership of these terms as a COMMUNITY.

The best way is probably to come up with new terms; however, I think the confusion this would cause is not worth the benefit. For example, PK is very negatively viewed by many and relate it to griefers or gankers. Since there will be no non-consensual PVP in SOTA, you cannot view this term in SOTA the same way. However, many players relate to themselves as PKs (even in the context of SOTA) so it is unfair to take this term away from them. The Devs have said you can play evil or the villian, so this mean we as a community have to refine the PK term as it relates to SOTA, which I hope I did justice to in my OP.

 

PK

PK = Random Player Killer, if you are not their friend then you are likely are target to get killed regardless how strong or weak you are.

Noto-PK = Killer of players based on game mechanic flagging whether they deserve it or not (I.E. tricking a player into flagging themself criminal)

Anti-PK = Not to be confused with Noto-PKs, Anti-PKs are not necessarily the good guys but will kill only players who have a reputation for random player killing while maintaining a "good" game mechanic standing.

PKK or PK Killers = Could be considered Anti-PK however PK Killers will kill any player and any associated player based on their reputation for random player killing OR support of (I.E. second accounts mules), regardless of game mechanic
standing.

Also you can go ahead and slap on RP onto any associated term as needed.

 

If we accept these two descriptions of PK then consensual is factored in. The rpPK is not looking for dualing/faction/guild/arena/node defense/capture the flag/etc. The rpPK is actively seeking out targets of opportunity, be it from a "good" or "evil" role play.

The griefPK isn't interested in role play, only targets of opportunity. They want as many possible targets as they can get and non consensual PvP facilitates this grief PK.

 

This should go without saying but, quite frankly, different games are different games.

There are games where PvE is mandatory for leveling up your character / acquiring stuff but the end game is PvP.
There are games where PvP is fairly casual but the end game PvE raiding requires serious commitment.
There are games where PvP is mostly PK and otherwise toxic players.
There are games where PvP is very much a team sport.

In a toxic PvP environment, I'd dislike PvP as much as anyone. Whereas in a team sport environment, it's not only the funnest part of the game for me but also incredible rewarding due to the shared experiences with other players.

We keep throwing around "consent." What's important to differentiate is "faction" or "karma." Faction means that in general you cannot attack those friendly to you, but suffer no punishment, and are in fact possibly rewarded for attacking the opposing side. Karma means you can more or less attack anyone, but will get some in game punishment for doing so. FFA (free for all) would be kill anyone with no factions or karma.

 

You are seriously in error. Seriously!

PS: If you need, by PM, for not wasting the time of others, i can explain u what is a Pk in a world PvP. It is relatively simplistic.

 

Ok, this one is harder to tackle. First remember there is no non-consensual PVP. This has to be a base understanding that is used in relation to the other terms. Second I do not want to have a standardized negative term.

This is why I label PK as a recalled term with a legal playstyle in SOTA. Griefing is a larger issue and well beyond PVP or Player Killing. It is true this has been lumped into the term PK in the past; however, not all PKs are or have been griefers so it is unfair to take this term away from them.

I think the term griefer is well established and recognizable. This can be used for any person that uses any feature or method for harassment, but it doesn't need to be targeted at a specific playstyle nor am I comfortable using it in our term list since by nature its a negative label when applied to an individual.

Also remember we need a simple list. If we start creating a bunch of sub-labels for main playstyles it will be the same as not having any standard at all. We need terms and definitions that are approachable.

 

I dont agree with this definition of griefing. Griefing is when a pk attacks and/or kills anyone non consensually. As this is PART of the playstyle of a pker, then a pker is by definition at least partially a griefer even though they may also attack pvpers.

Otherwise they would just be a pvper.

 

I don't usually chime in here... as it's like throwing dynamite in a burning pile of napalm on top of a crate of C4... but I just wanted to say: yes.

As an Anti-PK / PKK player I have found several that I not only respect, but enjoy playing with, that are PKers and they are NOT griefers... they'll kill you... take your stuff... and let you go on your way (for now). That's a properly played PK. Then the Anti-PK would attempt to avenge the death, return the goods (possibly with a "service fee" assessed) and monitor the actions of the PKer.

PK doesn't mean grief... it means PK. /bows

*runs and hide from the upcoming explosion*

 

Technically, 'player killer' can mean anyone who kills another player. But personally, I don't understand why people who do this in a role-playing fashion really care about owning the term 'player killer' and get upset when people complain about PKs.

Player killer suggests you're not role-playing, because the activity in the game that drives you and defines is 'player killing'. If you're a brigand, you don't give players an option to hand over their valuables or die, you just kill them every time. If you were to give them an option, you wouldn't be a 'player killer', you'd just be a brigand, since killing players isn't your main activity.. you'd be getting money from them most of the time, not killing them. If you're a bounty hunter, you're hunting people who have already established they're a valid target, because they non-consensually have killed others. You're seeking some kind of justice, not 'player killing.'

That's why I always associate the term 'player killer' with griefer. Of course, I guess some role-players could be role-playing deranged serial killers and psychopaths, too. Just my thoughts...

 

This is the trend I see with PvP threads. Every time someone enters a thread they use the term PK as either a positive or a negative. Then there are 10 pages of posts with battling over the term PK.

To some PK is a valid play style and to others it's a method of harassment. The term griefing carries over to a lot more than PvP so I am not sure it would be accepted as a replacement for PK in a negative connotation.

If someone was making a post in a PvP thread and used the term griefPK would someone that wishes to have rpPK feel the need to come to the defense of the rpPK style?

I understand the desire to keep it on a positive terminology basis but the community typically doesn't battle relentlessly over positive terms. I do understand you point though.

 

Let's try to keep to the intent of the post! Stick to term definition; if we can't to that they we are doomed to endless PvP/Pk fights...

Consent to me (in this game) may mean a checkbox that I tick off, or it may mean that I accept and execute a particular quest (pvp based) or that I willingly step into a PvP hex. It might also mean that I see a friend getting attacked so I jump in to help (thereby consenting to be a target myself)