PVP & Death: Current Thinking Megapost

What i am saying is that, it is not because that i like pvp that i don't pve. And yes, i am what we call a 'power gamer'. I play alot, and i am not shy saying that i will out pve you for sure. I mean, you are annoyed by PvP, that tell alot about you.

Anyway, let's have a tea and let be friend dear sir. I prefer green tea, what about you ?

 

It's not PVP that annoys me, strangely enough...it's usually the people. Judging people by what annoys them seems very simplistic.

 

I think I get it now. So what you're saying is that by not having the game be open PVP and allowing PVErs to try out PVP, the Devs are inviting PVErs to dictate the rules concerning PVP and create a perpetual cycle of nerfing PVP to obsolescence because the PVErs won't be able to handle getting killed by other players? You're also saying that if there is to be PVP then it should play in the interest of PVP players wherever it might take place?Is that a correct interpretation?

If so, I think that's a legitimate concern. I used to play rogue type characters in WoW and Age of Conan and we constantly got nerfed because everyone said we were so overpowered.

 

Exactly. Finally someone gets it.

 

Well, forum PVP is a whole other matter. I see that you prefer flanking maneuvers, huh?

But back to topic:

So IF:

• Victors had choice of picking which items of limited loot they could pick i.e. any one weapon or armor piece
• Victors could take any gold, accessory items, resources from the opponents corpse
• Entering the PVP zone is an automatic flag for PVP
• No guards to kite
• No nerfing of PVP rules to appease PVErs or part-time PVPrs
• No conciliatory gains for losing a battle

Would this appease the PVPrs to some degree barring full open loot? Is there more to be added?

I still think it's a good idea to let PVErs in not as "carebears" but as opponents or comrades and not prejudge or judge them for not being 100% "RAWR" PVPrs. I think the divide is artificial. The compromise can work but PVP zones have to work for protecting the interests of PVP players without chasing off PVErs or partime PVPrs. If a spirit of cooperation can exist in both camps to hammer something out, then work on it because this forum PVP isn't working out so well.

 

I dont think it will keep ppl from keeping their best gear in the bank on partial loot. They will either use it on no loot or not use it on partial loot. Even one peice of good gear will keep me from using it unless i have multiple peices i can afford to lose

 

It just hit me a little funny. In the long run we are all just people. We have no idea how we are going to relate to much of anything in this game since it will be different that anything out there.

Fighting back and fourth is crazy. I so don't know what I will enjoy or try out in this game at this point. It's all assumptions, especially since we aren't there playing it. We may surprise ourselves. I wouldn't say anyone is trying to make this an either or game.

I think it is being made as a fun for all game. That is the goal. So what if it is something you totally can't imagine or compare to anything else? The only thing we can do at this point is accept that we have no idea of how it will take shape.

We can only give our thoughts of what we like and don't like and trust in the developers to be listening. Fighting amongst ourselves is getting nothing done, and plus the fact that it is just giving off bad vibes and isn't a true definition of who anyone really is. Let's get to work.

 

But that's their loss isn't it? What good is having the best gear gathering dust in a bank. Which is why I'd want the same kind of rules to apply when it comes to PVE monsters defeating players: take their stuff (including the one item which obviously would either be random or the one in the best shape) and damage the rest for a certain percentage of durability. That way, PVErs can expect the same consequences of losing in PVE as in PVP. By doing so, those players might say "Screw it. I'm wearing the good stuff and am going to win this time!" At least that would be ideal. The random nature of combat skills might help assure a fair fight even when going up against the most skillful PVPr. At least that's where I can see it work.

 

A reminder to all:

 

People get your point, just not why you expected it do be the way you want when you knew about consensual PvP from the start. Plus, the constant blasting away at the choices made by the dev team without any compromise. It's your way or the game is fail.

 

Yeah your right. Why shouldnt pvers habe the same consequences as pvpers since we are all about equality its only fair, right? In tera you lose a crystal from your weapon or armor everytime you die. Of course this game will likely not have such cool things as sockets or talents but im all for it. And as long as they refuse to answer the biggest question at the heart of the matter ill support equality and punishmet of pvers just like the pvpers suffer for no reason which is. Why do they keep insistig on forcing pvpers the play their way when no such demands are ever placed on them when they can always avoid pvp by usong an alternate game mode that was made for such circumstances?

If i were portalarium i would ask why the game modes were even created if they refuse to use them for the exact purpose as is being discussed. Its actually not a discussion as that would entail both sides getting equally weighted arguments while pvpers ard only getting lip service and then bent over while pvers cry foul and immediately get what they want.

 

I fully am capable of compromise when its actually being made, im not a fool and can clearly see one side has made all the consessions so why even bother if you know nothing you say will matter, its nit my way its the way the pvpers have asked since day one.

 

Again, we are back to this question, and you have never answer the response. Do you think the difference between SPO/FPO and OPO is only PvP? If it was then switching to SPO/FPO if you don't want PvP would be the way to go. OPO brings a lot more to the table than just PvP.

 

Such as? If its that big of a deal then switch over when neccesary then switch back. Sure you cant do some things in friend mode but whatever you have to do in online mode im sure will be pvp blocked such as story content. And i dont even think its that big of a deal as it has been stated you could play the vast majority of the game in single player ao somehow its okay to completely wreck pvp in order for pve players to have the comfort of non pvp for a few minutes they have to play online. Sounds like equality to me

Why is it pvpers get their whole game play style rear ended in order to make it appeasing to the pvers few moments of forced online play when our whole game is forced into where we dont want it so its okay for pvers to force pvpers into certain gameplay situations but not vice versa.

 

I think some should read about the different modes of the game.

 

Luckily, the entire team of the Developers, AND almost all of the Dev+ Backers isn't thinking on your terms.

There are , and have been, plenty of games " on your terms " , they all failed horribly.
Successfull games have a little bit of everything, but have PvP as a side thing. We are all glad that this is the way Sota is heading aswell

 

Yes, and this is why they will not allow a PvP exclusive set of resources. They can later delete PvP without notice.

At least that's what the voices in my tin foil hat are telling me.

 

Better stick to UO and UO T2A balance.The majority of the items should come from the player crafters and they should be obtained at normal prices (like the gm blacksmith weapons in UO).Good magical items should be found in dungeons that should be PVP areas for all irrelevant of your char being pve or pvp flagged.Having risk when a crafter collects his/her resources should be vital part of the game economy and how much the gm items will cost
PVP must be open approx in all areas UO had pvp.Whole gaming community is around items nowdays and how to make them impossible to lose.Ultimas beauty and unique element till now was the freedom that the player had.Nothing can beat the feeling of a full open pvp that you lose or win everything the other has.This game has a great opportunity to let the gameplay back to players.Full open pvp and loot like ultima please...

 

I don't know what it is about anything I've said anywhere ever always makes people think that I want nonconsensual PvP everywhere. The truth is that I don't really care about it. Sure I think that people are making too big of a deal and am happy that backers need to put on their bigboy pants and realize that going into the volcanic geyser/meteor strike zone is giving consent as I remember many in the nonPvP camp saying they didn't want that. I would prefer open PvP everywhere (I planned on doing a lot of running) but I like the story behind the special zones. (I really hope that they flip all over the place so that it doesn't get stale and you don't have people camping the PvP zones forever.)
I feel that it is watered down because the number that seems to be thrown around that the percentage of the world with openPvP would be like 5%. That is tiny. I know that the 5% covers a whole lot of area but proportionally it's practically dismissing that playstyle. I feel that the ransom and loot proposal as stated are pretty stingy and their offerings should have more teeth to them. A 50% PvP/PvE zone split would be interesting but regardless of what both sides say, I am not sure how happy that would make everyone. If you want us to be equally unhappy you could probably start from there and tweak it until people stop screaming so much but that sounds like a horrible business model. I can admit that I really don't know how much of the world should be mirroring Hell on Earth with lava everywhere and people at each others' throats but I think 5% is kinda low.

I never played UO, so I really have only a tiny idea of what you guys are talking about with those death penalties. I've heard of spawn camping, corpse dragging (in EQ1) and ninja-looting. Those things aren't really possible in anything I've played regularly. In EQ2 when you die, you suffer equipment damage, have a temporary debuff and incur XP debt (which sounds a lot like what they're proposing.) I can tell you right now, this is how my game plays and it is L A M E. Over 9 years ago when EQ2 launched, the punishment was the same but if you went and got your body, the debuff was dispelled and the XPdebt was cut in half. The debt also went away over time. After many years the debt is only a fraction of what it was and the debuff only lasts a minute. The repair costs have been reduced to a quarter of what they were and things are a joke. I really don't want this game to be a joke in PvP or PvE. I've dealt with mechanics similar to what they are proposing and unless they are super careful that system will end up like EQ2. I love that game but why would I play a new game that wasn't much different? There are many things like the moral system that you mentioned that they really need to talk to us about. That should directly affect PvP, too.

A lot needs to be ironed out. If there are guild wars do you have to declare a certain guild as your enemy or does the guild just flag for PvP and are they KoS to all guilds or just the one? If you kill a guild flagged person from a rival guild but they never defended themselves, are you a murderer? Would you be if they had defended themselves? I think the answers to those questions would greatly influence the reception of the mechanics for some of us.

 

This is your impasse.

You got a mental picture of the modes and staked claim on OPO. Yes, the story will be playable offline, single player or with friends and family, but OPO is the mode for full access to the story.

The details on how the story will traverse the player through the modes has not been covered much. But you can see the intent that OPO is the mode for the full effect of the journey RG has planned.

You are expecting this to be a sandbox game, it's not, it's a story driven game. The sandbox is there and they are giving as much access to it as they can, but the story comes first.

Until you accept that the story comes first, before PvP AND PvE, this is Richard Garriott not the PvEers, as RG wasn't people to PvP to see some portions of the story. You will be fighting with one person.

Richard Garriott, as he has plans to deliver a story.