PVP & Death: Current Thinking Megapost

Depends if you are referring to the character or the player.

Calling a player a murderer is certainly (I hope) a slander, worse even than a mere insult. Calling a character a murderer might be appropriate if the character is acting, in-game, as a murderer; heck, from the posts in this thread, seems like it's not that rare for the player himself to see his character as a murderer.

 

Um, if all you want is a few special resources/PvP benefits, you were already granted it, so what else are you looking for?

Facts that have been provided that I'm aware of :
1) You can PvP everywhere, even in town with little consequence.
2) You get special hexes only accessible to those who consent to PvP
3) You get increased levels of the rarest resources in those hexes
4) You get PvP exclusive events
5) You get access to all the stealing/thiefy skills
6) You get exclusive PvP gear

Trying to understand how you are getting shortchanged, and how your wish for "a few special resources" is not being listened to?

 

There was no character attack, and I don't think there's a reasonable interpretation of what I've said as demeaning or rude. I don't want your extreme world/game view to be brought to fruition in this game - I want a more nuanced balance - so I will draw attention when I see points made which are based on logical fallacies and false comparisons. That's entirely legitimate.

On your other points, the consensuality of pvp has already been agreed - it's the detail of what world areas and systems allow characters to attack one-another, and what looting is allowed in what circumstances which is under debate. Is there anyone who, having read Darkstarr's post, thinks there is even a glimmer of a chance that on release there will be hordes of rampaging pks killing whenever and wherever they like? I think it's been made clear that that's not going to happen, or come anywhere near to happening.

 

My usage of the word murderer is as a verb, not an adjective.

Lol, not sure if I could find a way to use the word ******** as a verb.

I describe an action of unprovoked attack, nothing derogatory, it's a play style some choose to play and desire to have in SotA. I support that desire, but I acknowledge that it's a play style that takes away the freedom of the victim.

So if there is no system to protect everyone's freedom from other people's freedom, a consensual PvP is a must.

 

Don't drop looting from PVP!! This is one of the main objectives that make PVP fun. I know this isn't the old UO but this is what separates this game from EQ and the rest of them (as far as PVP goes). There is a large population of players that stopped playing those EQ, WOW based games because they are boring and dry. I need some REAL PVP and I am fine with the consequences of being a PVP KILLER!

 

I'm not a huge PVP far nor am I very good at it. However, this post got me excited again - I'm actually very happy for the suggestions and hope to test these elements in the game.

I love challenge and elements that create sense of "real" danger when you have something to lose. I think the ideas really did represent that - they sting but won't kill your nerves and makes you try harder.

 

PvP players have allowed themselves to be called Killers, Greifers, and Murderers for so long no one gives it a second thought.

Calling one's self these things does not make it right. Chris is a self proclaimed ******** yet we are still not allowed to say it. I think that is the right choice.

How many times have you seen someone allowed to say, "PvP players are just angry because they can't run around Griefing and Killing other players?"

Over and Over, it has been allowed, but on the other hand anyone suggesting that a game was equally ruined by a change in game mechanics due to sniveling, whining, crying or unwarranted drama has been highly frowned upon and possibly ended with a banning.

This is how PvP has been defamed and PvE has not.

BTW it's a playstyle that in some cases may take the freedom of another player (victim). Unless a character is permanently deleted by the act of PvP on an unwilling player its not killing or murdering.

Edit: Even then, is it okay to call it murder or griefing when it's really just winning?

 

A brief warning for you, sir: PvP is addicting. The more you do it, the more you like it. My wife was scared to death to PvP in her first MMO. I eventually succeeded in convincing her to try. After she died a few hundred times she got pissed and did what any true PvPer would do - she adapted, perservered, and learned HOW to PVP. Subsequently, she became more proficient in time as that knowledge increased. It still brings proud tears to me eyes!

PvP is NOT for everyone. There is no predefined Boss NPC strategy. Every encounter is unique, random, spontaneous, maddening, frustrating FUN! So what if you lose your stuff. Learn from the experience that caused that loss!

For any game to draw talented PvPers it needs to have depth and involve skill. Bragging rights are earned, not given to the self-entitled crowd. However, if my wife can handle the ass-whoopings she got and become a convert, I'm sure you can too.

Just expect to die......a lot......

 

How are not every dungeon, every point of interest, every feature in the entire world other than what is going on the in PvP areas NOT PvE events of your very own?

What do you want, Richard Garriott to come to your house and spoon feed you?

 

I don't need to be politically correct, I have manners. That's all this is, any adjective you want to apply to someone can be used as an attack. I will not give up my adjectives to political correctness. I have manners.

If the person reading my posts imposes guilt onto themselves, so be it, that's their burden. The words I choose have nothing to do with that. I can't speak for others but I have no reason to attack someone's play style. Someone wants to attack other players, unprovoked, so be it, someone wants to abstain from such attacks, again, so be it. (just because I disagree that a playstyle fits into the game design intent does mean I am attacking a play style)

Someone wants to feign outrage from the usage of a word that defines such attacks, that's on them. But if someone uses those words as a personal attack, that's very different. Context and intent matters.

Laws are not created for the norm. They are created for the extreme so they do not become the norm.

 

Is there a pledge level for this? I'm going to go check the shady player market!

 

I already do like smart, meaningful, event rich PVP and with a right purpose, I could become addicted. What i do not like is when it becomes sport. I don't like arenas, ladders, leagues you know what i mean.

PS. Good job introducing your wife to PVP =)

 

From a role-player perspective:
A minder is someone that extracts ore.
A carpenter is someone that are making furniture.
A lumberjack are someone cutting down trees.
A Murderer are someone killing innocent.

And SotA are a story driven RPG not a sandbox action game.

 

DarkStarr's Important Notice was to pour water on the fire that would likely have sprung up if the disclaimer wasn't there. There had been lots of talking around in circles, and comments in threads, so to prevent the PvE players marching en masse with pitchforks and torches, they slipped in a bit about the PvE system. If it had been a PvE mega-post about hexes with better properties, I'm sure there would have been a flipped around version of the statement about the resources also being available in PvP.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that on Chris' part, that was a direct quote from multiple posts from some of the more extreme UO PvP players. I remember reading it being used by some PvP players (with far more !!!1111!!!) in the time leading up to the MegaPost, particularly after the forums all but exploded after some comments from Starr ingame during one of the recent releases.

He is? Really? Admittingly, I just came on the scene in December, but I picked him as the most pro-PvP member of the group going from the Multiplayer Dev Chat, between all the gushing and how enthusiastic he was with the blood moss idea.

 

Sota is now confirmed to be a risk adverse, gear based game. I'm not saying that to be insulting. It just is.

There are plenty of similar games that do well financially and make a lot of people happy.

Please stop pretending there was a compromise. Anti PvP got all the protection they asked for and all the PvP nerfs they asked for...even in areas that are supposed to be open PvP.

That is not compromise. That is a clear siding and a very clear message by the dev team on their thinking and game direction.

1 - World pvp. Consensual and no risk. You don't know what the consequences will be in towns.
2 - Special hexes - still not open PvP. Still not full loot.
3 - Resources. PVP hexes - few in number - higher in resources. PVE hexes - huge in number - lower in resources. = Absolutely no requirement or reason to go into PvP hexes.
4 - PvP mini games...still consensual..still no risk. You take all the food but leave a grape and call yourself generous. Stop it. No one is buying it.
5 - All kinds of thief/stealing skills - Really..and you know this how? Please show me where this has been stated in detail. You can't. Stop already.
6- Exclusive gear. - It is now a gear based game. Sorry, this is fail for anyone that didn't want a gear based game.

PvP = 0, Lady I = 6

Lady I and other extreme anti-pvp friends...you won. Why are you still carrying on?

These would have been real compromises:
- A portion of the world (even a small portion)that was full loot open pvp with Pks. Keep your resource levels, keep your non pvp zones etc.
- Either that or make the world open PvP with a perma death penalty or some other severe penalty.
- Make it so playing a thief or PK was much harder. Criminals get a 10-20% perm skill debuf. Make them much easier to kill.

Any of these would have resulted in a very small population of criminals but would have kept the thrill..the threat..the idea that at any time you could be attacked.

Lesson learned. Won't be jumping on the bandwagon and donating like that again.

Although the number of people that wanted an open, free choice world with both PvP and PvE is encouraging. Hopefully some developers pick up on this and make a real UO spiritual successor..soon.

 

Yes, but the character comes back to life a few minutes later. Calling it murder has become standard. It only happens sometimes. Sometimes PvE players kill innocent NPCs.

Words like Griefer, Killer, Murderer give PvP a bad name and it strikes fear into young players who have never tried it. They relate it to real world killing.

You could just as easily call us conquerors or winners or victors. It's a game!

 

DS did not exactly "slip" it in. He hit the caps lock there and nowhere else. Chris called himself a ******** during the kick starter.

What seems in good fun can be subconscious jab at someone (that's how drunken brawls start).

If you only look at the CAPS it appears PvE ideas are Important; PvP ideas are mostly spam.

 

You make a good point.

Given that there is no non-consensual PvP in the proposed system, you don’t really have a murderer.

I’ll be the first to admit that I’d been using killer/victim although that would still indicate a predatory one-sided scenario. Then again with the two posts in question I was using it, I was using emotive descriptive words to describe the situation to try and give the system being discussed more of a real feel to it rather than the needlessly positive terminology that had been used for a system that quite frankly disgusted me. ( And no, I'm not referring to PvP in general with my 'not naming the system'. I have no issues with the concept of PvP. )

I guess in court, even if someone attacks you and you kill them in self-defence, you’re still a killer and they’re still your victim. But some people could feel it gives unfortunate implications for their play style.

I’d say if going for more neutral terminology, it’s a toss up between winner/loser or victor/defeated (or vanquished). One on one, winner/loser works, but I wouldn’t call someone that got beaten by five guys to be a loser, more defeated/vanquished (or yes, even a victim of the odds XD)

 

From and Old School pre 1998 UO play.

I stopped playing UO when Trammel came out because MMO players generally fall into two categories.

(1) Those who need a sense of random uncertainy that can only happen as a result of the chance of getting PKed by other real players. Even pure craft like people can have the need for that uncertainty. Uncertainty adds realism.
(2) Those who do not want that and prefer to have no randomness, except that programmed into the game itself.

Those two personality types are incompatible. I have never seen a game placate both personality types, ever. At some point devs are going to have to decide what type of game they want. That doesn't mean that PKers should be able to kill any other player without penalties. It simply means that you cannot have and have not a sense of uncertainty. It also means that most of your combat will take place in cities--why venture out when only PvP flags can be attacked? That presents a whole new set of problems.

Caveat: There are, of course, degrees of those two personalities. EVE Online has a solution for those willing to put up with some uncertainty, but the personality will need to allow some uncertainty or we're back to page one.

The most successful games are those that divide themselves into two general categories:
(1) Uncertainty through chance PKing or ganking etc., rolling, etc.
(2) Those who are non player random.

In any event, taking away uncertainty by using a PvP flag only system is taking away uncertainty. There is no way around that.

 

Acrylic makes some accurate observations here and in his previous post. Over the seventeen years or so I’ve been playing online games, it’s been my observation as well that pvp type players tend to be more thick skinned, while pve type players are more likely to take offence. Case in point here, where one particular word which implies timidity and passivity has been banned, while posters have got away with repeatedly conflating pvper with pk with griefer, openly stating that others are bad people irl for adopting a playstyle in a game whose ruleset mandates that playstyle. It’s happened so many times that it’s not even given a second thought.
Stepping back a little, it’s clear which one of those is actually more insulting. But it doesn’t just cause an uneven playing field in the confines of these forums. It seems to me that it’s developed into the kind of unconscious bias Acrylic mentioned before, as demonstrated in the 'FULL LOOT OR GTFO!!!1!' comment, and that’s linked in with how much of a non-compromise these proposals currently are.

And it also contributes towards the postings we’ve seen here from some pvp type folks who have become obviously and genuinely frustrated, and then laughed at by posters who are a bit better at grammar and spelling. In fact I think there's quite a deep well of frustration building up, which is likely to adversely affect the spread of player types in the game, unless something is done about it fairly quickly.