PVP. One Language. One Voice.

I think we should rid of PK's.
Instead we will have: murderers! Either NPC or PC antagonists. They have no mercy and do evil deeds all day long in the "story" of SotA.

 

Devs spilling the beans wont stop it. People will discuss the topic so long as video games exist.
Just like people will discuss football, basketball, volleyball so long as these sports exist. Its not gonna stop, ever.

 

Discussing it is one thing. 239408394 threads about the same exact thing is another. It's spamming the forums.

 

Sounds like you fit into the term PvP.

 

Perhaps don't read this sub forum then?

Umbrae is trying to do something constructive for the debate, and threads like this should be encouraged not discouraged.

@Abydos: Feel free to post your take on what 'PK' means, but like others in this thread have said already I firmly believe it ties to consent. In a game where PvP is by consent only, there cannot be 'PKers' by the old UO definition.

 

If they can manage to spill the beans without at least one person rage quitting, I will boost my pledge to Citizen. Talking in Circles and avoiding the issue does not count...I'm talking SPILL THE BEANS.

 

The upcoming PvP Mega Post is likely going to generate many more threads and posts the likes of which this forum has never seen. There will likely be more questions than answers as previous Mega Posts have shown.

 

I would prefer to use the design to describe something and let the terms develop from there. Just in the way SotA is not an MMO it's a selective multiplayer game.
Now image if we had no idea that SPO/FPO/OPO was the design. Would the term selective multiplayer ever be used to describe SotA?

Terms are a good thing, it saves time when sharing thoughts and ideas. We do not need to describe an entire system each time we post. We just need to be all on the same page with the terms so they match the system.

That and know what the PvP system actually looks like...

Aye, specially since I don't think the mega post is going to have tons of answers. More that it will have plans with areas of concern.

 

Combatants (PvP participants)
Mercenaries (Bounty Hunters, PvP Guilds)
Brigands (Criminals, Murderers)

• If PvP conflict is by consent - combatants seems to fit the bill - I like this approach because it's fairly neutral
• Mercenaries - encompass a wide spectrum of activities

 

Just a quick opinion One doesn't have to be a PK to grief *shrugs*

 

In the current set of terms, you would be a PVPer since you enjoy the thrill of Players as Opponents. Its up to discussion though.

Do you think the definition of PVPer would properly your playstyle? Note that you can belong to more than one group, but the main term should represent the playstyle you like/prefer the most.

 

Just the same as when referring to PK as a method of griefing does not mean every PK is a griefer.

How do you distinguish between the two, PK griefer and PK non griefer?

 

Combatants (PvP participants)
Mercenaries (Bounty Hunters, PvP Guilds)
Brigands (Criminals, Murderers)
Barbarian/Warmonger (Pillager)

• If PvP conflict is by consent - combatants seems to fit the bill - I like this approach because it's fairly neutral
• Mercenaries - encompass a wide spectrum of activities

Barbarian/Warmonger (Pillager)

If we focus our discussions to roles and actions within those roles - we could possibly have a decent talk in the context of a Brigand (PK) and a Warmonger (PK) ... we can easily retain intended/prefer play actions and discuss how in game actions can be curved, restrained or modified to allow for actions within the scope of each role.

For me the main difference or distaste for free for all PvP is simply frequency of attack (without the griefing) - so I would prefer to be around brigands more than warmonger/pillagers.

 

First, there are many good comments in this port. Congratulations Umbrae for the initiative.


To make it simple Pk is a Player Killer.

There are two types of Pk to our situation.

The first in a World Free for All. I mean non- consensual - ( in a game like Ultima Online, Shadow Bane, Dark Fall , Age of Conan , Mortal Online etc.).
It may (not necessarily ) can definitely break the gaming experience of other players who are more RP, PvE or ******** style . It can be really boring. Like many other types of players.
On the other hand, it can also be like the second style that I will present.


The second type is in a World Consensual PvP : (eg Seige perilous , games that offer server PvE and PvP, player chosen voluntarily put his life in danger in a world Open PvP. )
Pk is a murderer. It may just love the competition. He may want to play a Chaotic / Evil character (like Lord Soth / Vader / Iuz / Red Wizards of Thay in The Forgotten Realms etc). It may be the bastard without honor, the serial murderer, the conqueror of evil, the evil cleric, the necromancer, the psychopaths, the jester of madness etc.
In a world Consensual PvP, there will always be the Anti- Pk (Paladin and courageous adventurer adapted to hunt evil).
There will also be the person who just wants to play with more risk.

People have the erroneous idea that all players attack all players in a world Open PvP. This is ridiculous.

For me, the Pks gives a lot of depth to a universe.
It is the ultimate enemy.
The Pk is a monstrer with great intelligence.
Portalarium can never create complete creature as a Pk.
An incredible evil wealth for any Role-Playing Game.
For me and many others, Pk is an essential element to role play.


In short, yes we can be Pk in an open world PvP.

 

Personally, and I've been in UO since beta, still there, I don't. PK's like to kill players, it's why they play, they like the challenge. Griefers just want to interfere with your play whatever it takes. I'll take the PK any day over a greifer. PK's I can understand. Greifing in a game is beyond me.

 

Thank you everyone for your comments. My bat sense is tingling so I feel we will get some information on PVP in the not to distant future. I am going to hold off updating anything in the main post until the PVP Mega Post comes out. That way anything it portrays may be included in the discussion and represented in our definitions.

Please continue the conversations and thank you to everyone for your involvement and keeping this thread civil.

 

Then you're not understanding the issue; let's use the obvious, and likely contentious, real world parallel. The "N" Word. For all the good of taking ownership of the word back from racists and defanging it from re-contextualising it... it's all completely pointless when a vocal and aggressive minority of the group it applies too actually wants to claim all of the negative associations of said word, because of the "glamour" of being "gangsta". Until that's dropped, how can you possibly say the "N" word has been rehabilitated, against the expressed wishes of some who use it as a label for themselves? With the result then that most decent, liberal people of all colour don't actually want ownership of that word, or are interested in labels of any kind, because they long ago understood they're irrelevant compared to personal actions, and how those are expressed.

So it is here. It's all very well claiming you want to detoxify the term "PK", but the most vocal of the posters here are quite, quite insistent that no, they actually want to cause fear, hatred and upset. They embrace the negative stereotype. And you can't escape the logical consequences of that; were PvP here to be totally consensual, a large portion of those who want to be known as "PKers" would still want the supposed sense of being bad ass all the same. It's written into the self image that appropriating the term involves. Which means... well, look at Abydos' profile picture; A dark, "evil" ******** holding the severed head of another, on a pile of dead carebears; even if someone says, "Oh it's just an image, how can that hurt?", at least have the honesty to admit to what the image was chosen to express; "I'm better than you, and lots of you must die to prove it".

You're treating it as if it's an issue of language, rather than an issue of personality type (or at least, the kind of personality someone sitting on a chair shoving a mouse around wishes they had); and following too far down that path lies not a utopia of tolerance for terms, but 4Chan and Encyclopaedia Dramatica which embrace all the worst possible terms and calls it rebellion and independence. The "PKer" who kills you, but gives you your things back and some tips on how to fight isn't going to be labelled, you'd treat them as a person... the "PKer" who slaps satanic/occult imagery on their posts (and really guys? I had my teen wicca phase too, but the Devil is just as much an invention of Christianity as God is; read some comparative theology for goodness sake!) and talks about "carebears" and "full loot" has a clear ideological/personality preference. And someone is expected to be killed and looted to satisfy that personality type. And they were and always will be.

So call them "Grand Tuftees" if you wish. Call them "Sociable Snugglepuffs" if you prefer. Within a few weeks or months those terms will become toxic too as they get appropriated to claim all of the past history of everyone who ever did dirty deeds as Shrouds' most well known Snugglepuff.

Just like Starfleet Dental.
Or The Goons; used to be a famous UK radio comedy troop. Now?
Or even the decades old l33t d3\/\/d stereotype. Words can never hurt you. But they're an easy path to infamy too, so people will shout them as loud as they can. And fume when the actual behaviour that allows you to toxify a word and claim bad-ass status is prevented in the first place.

Which is why people like myself are so condescending to PvP threads. Most of us can see what they are actually arguing for. I'm not against PvP; heck at one time I was one of the top 100 world wide in grim-dark RTS Dawn of War. But I also didn't lose the use of my units after every match and have to start the next one with a deathrobe and not much else. Starting "Full Looted" as the arguments now would call it. Ahem, but we do actually know how you're using that word. Keep changing to today's latest buzzword doesn't make us forget the older ones... and ahh hello, I see a brief return of last decade's fan favourite elsewhere on the forums, welcome back "Risk V Reward" old friend, how goes taking few risks by killing crafter characters trying to chop wood, stealing all his reward, but claiming you're still a Wolf on a pile of dead sheep, but that's as good as killing a pile of other wolves really? Ahh sorry, I didn't see the ring (and Mrs Crafter would have so loved that ring, but now it's yours) on the finger, you're respectable "Mrs Fulloot" now eh? Of course you are, of course you are...

Come on. Maybe the players behind the avatars are absolute softies in real life; but if you're going to just roleplay as "evil", or argue for it's freedom to do as you will, at least stand by the meaning of the words eh? Someone has to be in that pile of carebears, and has to be insulted as a "********", for that scene to be even vaguely true. Which means the word you use to describe the bear on top is going to be toxic for all the other bears, unless you've found one whose fetish is to be decapitated I suppose.

Everything else is just semantics, sorry.

 

Wut? Abydos is an "n" word standing on a pile of snugglebunnies?

That probably makes me a Banhamer swallower then. (troll, greifer, whatever). I prefer anger management tester.

 

Effectively.

This is very interesting as thought.

Thank you for sharing it here.

 

Interesting but lacking in knowledge of how much everyone loves Abydos, regardless of play style.