PVP & Death: Current Thinking Megapost

I'm not confusing anything, despite the fact that you continue to attempt to demean me with your provocative comments about me. I won't bite, trust me, so stop flaming me with every post you make. You want to comment on my posts, feel free, but stop attacking my character or intelligence.

Now back to the discussion.

I don't expect the game to mimic real life, I mean there's going to be elves and creatures, we all get that. What I don't expect though is a game world that is so different from reality that its unplayable without a high probability of getting murderered.

If there was a limit of say less than .1% of people can elect to be murderers, then we can keep some kind of sanity. Without that, murdering has to be consensual since there are no real consequences to being a murderer. Putting a bounty on them doesn't fix the fact that a person who pve's and has no interest whatsoever in PvP just got ganked for the 900th time.

Consensual PvP is the solution. That IS the compromise.

 

Not speaking directly to Innessa's comment. However, I think the hitch in these types of conversations is that the open gameplay style you are championing was not intended by the UO developers either. What happened in UO was emergence gameplay that came out of the Open World, and I think UO would have been a VERY different game if the developers saw that happening.

This is why many say that the environment UO had will never happen again. MMO's were not only unknown they did not even have a name back then. How this Open World would be used by players was non-predicable at that point. RG has even made comments several times talking about the awe and horror they saw once people got into the game. If they had known that prior to designing UO I think our conversations would be different, and the game would have been different.

Then there is the Life Imitates Art and vice versa. You are right that there is a different between games and real life, but that doesn't mean they live in separate universes with their own rules of physics. True in real life crimes cause real harm and need penalties where as in a game there are mechanics that "may" allow people to "play" criminals. However, crimes in-game can still have psychological affects, and this is why there are the 2 extremes of PVPers and PVEer. Some get addicted to the high off the adrenaline rush and some are scarred by feeling of loss. The goal is to create rules that might allow criminals, but not allow them to overwhelm the game play of others. Most good players will modify their behavior themselves, but others won't and will assume that because something can happen that they are allowed to do it.

This is the main reason we are seeing the mechanics Portalarium is proposing. Even if they decide to ultimately shard the world into PVP and PVE, both sides will still have rules to govern bad behaviors and discourage people from activities that would drive players away.

 

One other thing that doesn’t sound all that great is the easily replaced gear. By making gear just something you can get and dispose of and not care it takes away another aspect of the game that may not be important to you, but important to others. People like to collect gear as part of their gaming experience, it adds another aspect to gameplay. How it is handled, ie not a new sword everytime you go up a level etc, it has to be more organic then that.

 

One other thing that doesn’t sound all that great is the easily replaced gear. By making gear just something you can get and dispose of and not care it takes away another aspect of the game that may not be important to you, but important to others. People like to collect gear as part of their gaming experience, it adds another aspect to gameplay. How it is handled, ie not a new sword everytime you go up a level etc, it has to be more organic then that.

 

One other thing that doesn’t sound all that great is the easily replaced gear. By making gear just something you can get and dispose of and not care it takes away another aspect of the game that may not be important to you, but important to others. People like to collect gear as part of their gaming experience, it adds another aspect to gameplay. How it is handled, ie not a new sword everytime you go up a level etc, it has to be more organic then that.

 

One other thing that doesn’t sound all that great is the easily replaced gear. By making gear just something you can get and dispose of and not care it takes away another aspect of the game that may not be important to you, but important to others. People like to collect gear as part of their gaming experience, it adds another aspect to gameplay. How it is handled, ie not a new sword everytime you go up a level etc, it has to be more organic then that.

 

Considering the game mechanic does not really kill anyone, isn't calling PvP Players Murderers just as bad as Calling PvE players Carebears?

Murderer is a derogatory stereotype, and it has a more slanderous nature than ********. Considering no one actually dies.


Does it strike anyone else as funny that only words pertaining to PvE have been stricken from our vocabulary? I got a warning for saying that players whine the other day, the funny thing is ....once I changed it to PvP players whine it was allowed to pass.


I think the people who are hinting that there may be some double standards going on ...have every right to believe so.

 

Well this is definitely something that is needed to make Full Loot work, and is reminiscent of medieval warfare. People might have had their favorite weapons, but on the battlefield you used what was available. Personally, I like collecting stuff so I don't mind having gear I am attached too. I do like Loot-Porn games like Borderlands which is almost like disposable gear since every time you open a box or kill and enemy there are tons more stuff to replace what you had. Basically you never get too attached.

I think SOTA will be gear-centric only due to weapon history and cosmetics. I doubt we are going to have an item we are attached to because of its power or abilities. It will be more like something we are attached to because of how we got it, how long we have had it, how it looks, etc.

However, most concerns about easily replace gear is that you need this for Full Loot mechanics otherwise dying and loosing your stuff become crippling and emotionally damaging.

 

One main difference comes in self-identification. Most PVE players, if any, self-identify as cuddle bears; however, many hard-core PKers would wear "Murderer" proudly. Otherwise I agree with you. Really any term meant as an insult is in fact an insult.

 

sorry for multipost...bad military connection.

 

First up, I really think you should have split this into two separate posts. While they are related, they are two different discussions.

For PVP, whatever, in general I don't like the outline for PvP and most likely will not participate. There is very little incentive to participate, many many reasons to avoid it. No penalty ganking only promotes the worst in PvP IMO. People who think, "hmm, I'll try this out", will get ganked and never do it again. Guaranteed. PvP centric gear / skills makes this also sound like we're leaning toward a gear driven system, which is essentially levels when it comes down to it. I've got better gear/skills thus I have more power, and bam you're dead, "lulz pwnd u noob". Players coming into the game late will have problems engaging in PvP because they won't have the gear/skills to compete. Separate skills/stats is a bad idea IMO. Logically it makes no sense. So yeah, I don't see myself doing any PvP in this game.

Overall, each penalty listed doesn't seem that bad. Add them all together, and it has the potential to be extremely annoying. Sting is one thing, irritating and annoying are another.

What we are looking at is potentially a huge time penalty essentially. I get all three ideas, and while they sound nifty, balance is going to be a huge issue.

Equipment damage (two time factors for this penalty):
Cost to repair (variable, depends on your crafter source, guilds will essentially be free (minus materials)) Funds take time to gather.
Time to find someone to do repairs. (part of a guild, still might be a problem, if players are required for repairs, time to find an available crafter to do the work)

Experience Debt (time factor hard to determine without more info)
Sounds good in wording, still a time penalty. This isn't really that bad overall, IMO.
Does this stack with multiple deaths, is there a cap, how long does it take to work off this debt. Does time itself reduce this as well, or just experience gaining activities.

Ransom System: (1 time factor, spend a lot of time doing easy stuff to build up a bank account to support paying ransoms. OR two time factor if trying to get a replacement; Money + locating a crafter)
Cost to pay ransom. (variable, unknown)
Time and cost to replace item, probably much worse than just paying the ransom. If you don't have enough for the ransom, then you won't be able to replace the item theoretically. Lost your sword, well, guess you better have decent unarmed skill to work your way back to another sword.

Problematic issues:

Equipment Damage:
How often is it required, how much does it cost to repair. If it doesn't cost enough, why would a crafter bother. If that drives up the cost for repair, eventually you end up with just buying replacement gear, getting rid of the desire to get repairs. If repairs are immediately required to be effective, then the time and cost penalty is huge.
How will repairs be handled that keeps your gear secure and not lost to the unscrupulous crafter who takes your breastplate of awesomeness and doesn't hand it back. Yes, I assume secure repair of some sort, but how will that work.
NPCs doing repairs negates crafters, so that can't be an option, however, if population is low when I'm on, and I need repairs, I guess I just need to have another set of gear or 20, just in case.

Experience Debt:
A capped level of debt, with time decay as well might be a good idea. Time decay would have to be based on activity of some sort, not sitting around your house afk. Otherwise, the player who isn't that great at games just gets deeper and deeper in debt, and essentially it either becomes meaningless because they've just got a fixed slower penalty for not being a skilled player or they give up.

Ransom System:
In PvE however, while it sounds nifty, this stacked with equipment repair has the potential to be a huge money/time sink. In a PvE death, I'd almost recommend one or the other chance.

 

There are insults flying everywhere here....a few have gone on and on about how pvers are ruining the game if youw ant to get specific...instead of looking at it as everyones game it is either pvp or pver. Silly.

 

The pvpers Ive spoken to like that term, but if its offensive to you, we can stop using it, your the first to complain that Ive heard.

 

I don't really think it was offensive to him.

 

Beyond that, the different personality types probably have an effect, in that one side is more likely to report posts with offensive terms than the other. That might explain a lack of response from the mods.

At any rate, an insult is an insult and should be avoided in civil discourse.

 

If it's worth anything I've already been spoken to and had some of my posts deleted (which I'm sure were reported) and PvP is one of my secondary modes of play. I'm not complaining about getting into trouble - I'll admit I was pushing the envelope - but not nearly as much as those who deserved what was said about them

Stones, glass houses, etc. Best just to avoid it.

 

I think what many casual pvpers really want, has more to do with trust.
When you have to trust the person behind the screen but game design makes it impossible to trust ANYONE other then those you know, then it is not fun anymore.
The social game becomes antisocial. Player looting is very often the source.

This is one of the main reasons I am very much against players being able to loot anything that belongs to another player as reward for killing them. It can, if not well
implemented, create a toxic environment enabling small groups of griefers that will just end up hurting the business end of the game. Is it worth it?

 

I think allowing one standard but not the other has created a great defamation of character on anyone who enjoys the PvP play style.


So much so, that even the Mega Post is seething with an unconscionable Bias toward PvE. Look at Darkstarr's "IMPORTANT NOTICE" and then go down a few paragraphs and see Chris's "FULL LOOT OR GTFO!!1!" statement.

I don't see that any one side is more vile than the other, yet little innuendos in favor of PvE and against PvP slip off the developers tongues nearly every time they say something. I don't even think they realize how one sided they are being or why they hate PvPers so much....it's because they have let it slide over and over until they have started believing it themselves. While any defaming statements PvP players have made against PvE have been promptly handled every time.

PvP has been DEFAMED so much to this point that I'm giving up....it's doesn't matter how logical I try to be, I'm still considered stupid for being PvP.

To the Devs, I'm just easy money screaming "FULL LOOT OR GTFO!!1!" and being a nuisance.


When all I'm really trying to do is get PvP a few special resources. No matter how hard I try to explain why it needs to happen all that comes out of my mouth is "FULL LOOT OR GTFO!!1!"

 

Sorry, then. It's just that the fact PvP is by consent only seems to be commonly pointed as a compromise already.

Actually, what I really want is for both the PvP and PvE sides to have access to 100% of the content without leaving their preferred play style, within reason; some of the PvE content, such as solo-only parts of the story, will likely make no sense as PvP content, for example.

This does mean that I want players to never feel forced, or even strongly encouraged, to pick one of those play styles in order to do a specific piece of content. I don't want PvE players to be forced into PvP in order to experience part of the content, but at the same time I don't want PvP players to feel like they must go into PvE in order to increase their progression or farming efficiency.

My opinion about forcing, or even strongly encouraging, players to pick a specific play style is that the result is less satisfied players as a whole, as they play something they didn't want in the first place. So, you are right when you say that I don't want the differentiating bits used to encourage open PvP; I see that as making the players that are not really PvPers, but end lured into open PvP due to that differentiate content, less happy, making the game as a whole less entertaining, worse.

Players should engage in PvP because they want to engage in PvP. Because it's what they enjoy. In that light I welcome, and might even help promote, proposals to make sure players that want to engage in PvP aren't pushed away from it, ideas to make sure they don't feel like they ever have to leave PvP unless they legitimately desire to leave. I want every PvE reward, or something mechanically identical, to be somehow obtainable in PvP; I want PvP farmers/miners/etc to have, on average, the same efficiency as their PvE counterparts, so they don't feel like they need to go gather resources in PvE; I want PvP players to feel like the game welcome them with open arms. But I will never agree with any idea that achieves those by restricting PvE players or making part of the game inaccessible to them.

I don't see why it has to even be a compromise between PvP and PvE, really. And part of what is being seen as a "concession" towards PvE players might not even be that; for example, from the OP, the lack of full loot isn't because of PvE players, but rather because the devs want gear, and gear progression, to have a larger role than in early UO. What would need to change in order to revert that is not the balance between PvP and PvE, but rather the notion that gear should matter.

Also, unless I missed something, my second "request" is not met in any meaningful way. For reference, I love PvP, but only when it's fully consensual and there is no meaningful setback for the loser. That is why I would love to see some kind of optional, "novice" PvP mode that didn't have any kind of player looting, not even what is in the OP. It would serve both to satisfy players like myself, that will skip the PvP as proposed due to the consequences of losing, and also serve as a stepping stone for new PvPers to take the plunge. I'm not going to push for that - it would be a nice side activity, but I wasn't expecting much in that front from the start - but I do believe that it would be a great help in making PvE players willing to try PvP, allowing them to determine if they enjoy PvP or not in a more controlled environment.

 

IMO, you are not someone who has been saying "FULL LOOT OR GTFO!!1!" but there HAVE been more than a couple who have basically said exactly that. I'd think those are the people Chris is referring to, not PvP players in general.