PVP & Death: Current Thinking Megapost

Ignorance is bliss... sorry for posting about WoW having a very complex pvp flagging system and using this argument to make my point.

I'll shut up.

 

Took me a minute to figure out what you were talking about. Fortunately NRaas quoted the post that got deleted. I think the problem is more likely with the insult and less about the point you were making.

This is the post I believe Ahuaeynkgkxs is talking about

Sometimes I really sit back and chose not to ignore the stupid things thats been said in the defense of the anti-social who's world has no random interaction with any player... sometimes its so pathetic and false that I chose not to speak.

Don't know if you meant that to be insulting, but it certainly reads that way. Why not remake your post minus the insult, I'm sure people want to hear your views. They just don't want to be insulted while doing it.

 

An excerpt from a whole page describing what Richard Garriott's vision was. Fictitious or not, PvE-Only players are the ones who have twisted and nerfed the game into something that is far removed from how Richard thought it would play out.

It's not a coincidence that one of the largest jumps in pledges came during the week immediately following how HE thought it would "play out". My point is that everyone who is fed up with all the complaining about PvP would not have a game without all those pledges that were drummed up in favor of it.

The people who jump in and comment on how they feel about other people are not doing anything constructive for the game whatsoever. Complaining about other peoples valid complaints is bordering red on the troll meter

 

When i heard that thought that if first one that looted a player would be the one that got the item i thinked.
What if was a kind of pvp skill 'Dying curse' i.e some kind of skill you could activate once when you die that do some aoe damage/effect.
So everyone rushes in and you curse them with your dying words casing everyone within 5 meter to suffer.

 

Ah you're right... I'm not natively english speaking so sometimes syntax still gets in the way even if my vocabulary is quite extensive.

I meant that the arguments (like WoW has no pvp flag, people wont wear their best gear, blah) were pathetic and false, not the people uttering it ! It's as if they were paid to come here and influx zizany. As I said : I'm all for consensual interactions, to me they all should be unconditionally governed by roleplay. So I certainly don't think people that PvE are stupid... I love PvE too especially coming from a master's hand. But on its own its not enough...

And remember most of us have accepted already that we won't have any meaningful change until many years in the future. We're only asking about how "it will play out" exactly that.

'cause I certainly won't put as much effort in a game where the story has no tie with the community, and where a new player that comes in and purchase gear from an online vendor with real money would be allowed to insult one of our great lords or knights in all impunity cause they don't care about roleplay.

This makes no sense and I'd rather have a fully single player game. I don't get online for more of the same pain, if I play online its because I seek a certain level of social interaction... and social interaction as proposed without any nuance is shallow at best.

Don't get me wrong I played siege perilous for a long time so I know all about "making your own roleplay" and using my imagination... its just not the same here.

We were told for so long EA does this EA prevents us from doing that ; we get a real expectation out of it, we old school players have been biting our nails for so long now, hoping... you see the expectation is not about "I want all this and this NOW or I won't play"

The expectation is about what our great Lord Gariott thinks, deep down his soul. Cause we can be patient, very patient and we PROVED that without a doubt in so many games. Does he think a good game is closer to WoW than old school UO ?

We need to know where we stand !

 

Actually, I don't think so. This is a quote from a post by Chris four days after the one you quoted:

Also, an interesting bit from the post you quoted:

My guess is that Richard Garriott was talking about what he wanted for players that are flagged for PvP. About how he wants to make playing in PvP mode acceptable even for PvE players and new players. After all, one thing that he was saying from the start is that, while PvP is by consent only, he wants to entice players to consent to be part of the PvP; for that enticing to actually happen, the PvP mode has to be acceptable to such players.

Those posts were from the middle of April, BTW. There are previous interviews and hangouts where PvP is clearly said to be consensual, such as this hangout from early April where it's said more than once that PvP is by consent only.

Like I said in another thread, back then I was watching every single hangout, reading every single dev post or interview. I was even making sure to read every single line written in the chat by the devs. I only pledged after I was absolutely sure that PvP was promised to be by consent only since, in a game where the devs want actual consequences for death, non-consensual PvP is a complete deal breaker for me.

 

I just don't get it I guess...you can flag open pvp anywhere and have your combat with like minded individuals. It doesn't mean everyone will be doing it, but you should never expeceted everyone too. The game was never sold as a open pvp world. Even that qoute from RG doesn't say that. This constant slaming on players interested in PVE isn't helpful and is pretty much against all the rules of the forum as well.

I know my primary interest is in teh story and PVE world(I hate calling it that because it sounds really silly...I am mostly interested in the non player vs player game) but, the way they laid out the volcanoes and meteor strikes it makes me want to play them. So, like it or not we all get a say in what we think is good etc.

 

Because I have a things for quoting in context, here is the full quote for those too lazy to follow the arrow to the original post. This is the thing that gets me is how 1/3rd of a post is considered a type of promise which people take to losing something. Personally, I try never to expect anything and I never take promises. Maybe its because I have lived with dyslexia long enough to know that things I hear or read aren't always what I think that are: especially when I am passionate or opinionated on the issue. In looking at the whole picture, listening to the whole team, what has been told is right on par with the things they have been saying. Instead many pick someone out that might think like they do and take short statements as gospel. Maybe LB's word should be taken above all others, but this statement is hardly a promise. In fact, I can even see this statement working within the context of the current thinking Starr posted.

We just all need to leave emotion and expectations behind. No matter the outcome our opinions will be more part of this game than any other.

 

I didn't say it was a promise. If Richard saw the game playing out with Role players, Newbies, and PvP-Only players having limited safe zones in towns and paths between towns. Then that was his vision.

Go ahead and hit the arrow and read that thread to the end. Then come back and tell me who was complaining and why Chris stepped in with a box of tissues 4 days later.

 

I am very excited about the PvP that was on today's deep dive!! I cannot wait to try SotAs PvP with how it is being implemented. Awesome!

The last time I was excited about PvP was in SWTOR.

 

Today's Deep Dive: PvP and death, RG goes into his "fictitious example" again. An area that is normally safe that gets over run and made less safe for a period of time. His desire for that to be in game has not changed, he points out that their ability to pull it off and for it to be fun is the limiting factor.

You are making it sound like it's out cries from the masses that gets things like this removed. When it is more vocal internal discussion with his team on their likes/dislikes and viability of the systems.

Tracy Hickman wants perma death, wonder how long lived that discussion is with the team...

 

Can you give a recap for someone who can't watch the vids? What was said?

 

I enjoyed everything said during the PVP chat. It is definitely worth watching. They even sounded positive about a type of voluntary full loot system. PVP will something that evolves as we test it and I believe it will turn out great.

@rune_74 I am sure there will be a transcript in a day or two.

 

Ok, maybe I should wait for the Deep Dive of tomorrow, but there are somethings I'd like to say about this, considering how much discussion about this is going on. Also, I would like to add that I don't have much experience with MMOs in particular, just with gaming in general.

I think the core of the issue is trying to balance very different game experiences in a common setting of rules. Adding to that, the desires of humans are instinctive by nature and often conflicting with themselves.

In particular, setting up what the death penalty will be has started a long debate on why "full corpse loot" isn't an option. Normally, I'm not a PvP person, but the passion of the PvP people really interested me.
To start, let's think about death itself. The first problem I see is that death is an event present both in PvE and PvP, but plays a rather different game design function in this two different game sets.
The purpose of death in PvE is to punish player from reckless playstyle and to add a risk factor into the gameplay. The player is controlling the occurrence of combat, and I assume it is very possible for players to plan their actions for no death or minimum death occurring. While we see combat happening in the screen, this dynamic is much more of farming and grinding. Any competition aspect from it is probably who can kill more monsters in less time, so I guess it is more of a race game for leveling than a conflict game. The monsters are just decoys, a way for players to convert gaming time into game resources, gated by the appropriated player gear/skill. To be honest, I don't think the way PvE death is handled is such a core feature as death on PvP, so whatever works, works.

On PvP however, death is much more frequent, and the dynamic is completely different. When two players enter a game of PvP, one wins, one dies. Everyone can die, and if some player never die, something is probably wrong in the design side. This makes PvP a much more competitive game in nature. This is reflected on the player base, who seem to enjoy taking more risks in exchange for greater rewards. Note that in theory, you could have PvP without looting the defeated players, but the PvP player base does not seem to like this option. They say they want greater risks, but I would argue that what they really want is a greater reward for taking that risk. It is important to understand the game design function of death in this setting.
I think that what the PvP players really expect is a game more like poker (sorry, I don't know many gambling games, there is probably a better analogy somewhere) - you make an initial bet, and the winner takes all the money in the pool. PvP players seem to be more predatory in nature, and while some people think of themselves when they think of death penalties, they think about what happens to their prey when the hunt is successful. Death of the other players means you have won the game (or rather won this round of the game), and now the pvp player feels like they deserve a reward. Full corpse loot means you get the greatest possible reward, and it also adds pain to the one who just died (In this case, I think there is also a griefing aspect in the reward - the other player pain is a reward of its on). Also, the player gear is the price it pays to enter the competition - the bet made to be part of the gambling. Better gear increases the chance of success, but also increases the cost of entering the battle.

But wait, it gets worse correct me if I'm wrong, but the current PvP setting allows battles where each side can have varying numbers of players. Much harder to balance now, and very possibly a group of players with weak gear would me much more powerful than a single player with good gear, even if that player gear is greatly more expensive than the gear of the 4 players combined (and often that is the case, right?). From a gambling perspective, the problem here is that the winning strategy is to play with junk gear and gank people up, so to speak.

So, the current approach is to have only a small part of inventory to be used as the bet, and you can make the bet with gold instead. Only thing is that the bet is decided only when you die, and there is still risk you will loose your main gear.

This brings the third element of the equation that is item rarity. When you are using and item as bet, or the entire inventory as bet, what matters is how much investment the player had in order to get that amount. If I loose my entire gear, and I can get new gear that is just as good after an entire afternoon of grinding, that is something I can live with. If I loose a rare sword, and it will take me 10-30 days of grinding every afternoon to find another sword of similar rarity, I say loosing that sword is much, much worse. Also, loosing a lot of items you see on a hourly basis feels better I think than loosing an item you may never see again - probably why the gold choice was brought.

As a player, I don't want to see my rare sword on the betting table, period. There is some chance that I get curious about PvP, and I'm willing to pay the initial bet price if I have enough spare money. But the ransom factor adds too many doubts into the equation, for the little it accomplishes. Also, the ransom system is not a very good resource sink, as it will mostly only sink money, not consumables/crafted items.

Now, problem is, I don't really know how to fix this. I know the ransom system feels weird, but I'm not sure what I would change other than flagging rare items as non-lootable and increasing the ransom to several items (maybe).



(also, do the devs continue to look at this thread? It is getting so gigantic and chaotic... I put some thought in this stuff I've written, but in the end it is really hard to say that in a concise way - it always sound much clearer inside he head - I just wish I wouldn't be ignored because there is so much people talking at the same time, with similar conclusions...)

 

Nice post !

I'm starting to feel at home now, good ideas are being totally ignored and theres still people claiming that stating what we would love to see is a threat to the PvE player (even tho we ALL know pvp will be consensual).

Wow... this is another level... twist of fate...

 

Nicley written altho some of your speculations I dont agree with, nonetheless nice thought out post

And again to the devs, why isnt this thread closed yet? After reading a hundred pages or so I cant stop.. Yet i dont want to keep reading the same arguments over and over... Dilemmas.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

Thanks guys, to be honest I put some thought before writing this, but it was still very hard to try to get my ideas across without extending myself too much. I think it is normal that we don't agree about everything, most of what we are doing is speculation anyway, but I find this debate to be very interesting.
While I don't like griefing at all, or even loosing gear is a pain to me that has to be considered very carefully, I do like the idea of having risk involved, that the pvp community seem to care so much. I would add that while most MMORPGs have sailed away from the gambling dynamic and invested in the grinding model, I think that there is a niche of gamers that want a more complex experience that the current MMO model does not have (MMO has been evolved from a pure profit standpoint, not a gaming one), hopefully SotA can change that.

 

Actually, I doubt SotA can change that (or even Star Citizen, which would be a more likely source of such change due to it's larger backer base and that PvP won't be optional in it).

The reason is the fact that the game has not only a single player online mode, but also an offline mode. So, if I find out that I can't do the content I want without the "gambling" aspect of PvP and looting intruding in my gameplay, I will stick to single player online mode and, if that doesn't work, just sell my larger pledge to someone else and use my Digital Explorer one to play the game offline; I believe something similar would happen with many other players that prefer to avoid PvP, so if the game tries to force them into accepting PvP and it's inherent risk, they might just leave behind all interaction with other players by playing offline while still being able to play the story.

Heck, I'm sincerely not even sure if SotA will have enough PvP-enabled players online to spark up open world PvP. Look at EVE, for example, where close to 80% of the player base avoid leaving high-sec, and that one is a game where players have to accept the risk of PvP anywhere just to play. With as large a map as SotA will have, and assuming the kind of willingness to take part in PvP I tend to see in other games, I wouldn't be surprised if PvP ends mostly dead except for dev-promoted events.

 

Yes, that links into PrimeRib's comments regarding what over-arching *purpose* there is to PvP.

There will be the game promoted events of meteorite and volcanic hexes to draw PvPers together. In addition to those PvP enforced quest elements that Richard is interested in adding to the game.

Beyond that, what is there to draw PvPers together ? Guild warfare is hopefully going to be a large incentive.

However, if those end up not being sufficiently enticing : PvPers may simply choose a particular town/region and centralize their efforts, to ensure a large enough population of like-minded players.

 

+1.Just close the topic.Its pretty clear that the path of what the game is gonna be is pre-defined.I can go even one step further and say that devs keep up these kind of topics to keep the hype up for the game.Close the topic and do whatever you want since its also clear that this game will not offer something new.In my eyes i see an RPG Theme Hospital with a cloud and a multiplayer option.
I will be astonished if this game accomplish anything since it mixes too many playstyles and gameplays while not offering something new at any aspect.Now if you call offline mode an innovation i can say to you that gamers had offline mode since the dawn of pc gaming and if i wanted an offline game i would play a game that is focused on that and does it better than any game around.What we get here?
PVE:WoW > all (and you cant do nothing about it)
PVP:??!?
Offline mode:I would rather play Daggerfall anytime anywhere and with more options opened to my char.
So close this topic and continue your pre-defined path and dont give people the illusion that can shape up their story.They can but they should pay a good amount of real money to do it as people have said in this topic and in other topics in here and in various rpg forums