[Rant] A Generation Of Gamers That Dont Know What Role Play Is ? (Dev) Replied

>trilobites
>extract minerals

WE NEED MORE MINERALS!

 

I think the hope really lies in the shard system, where they can, and should, segregate shards with first priority being "flagged for PvP." They have already done well with the special PvP hot zone idea offering a quicker reward with higher danger method of getting certain materials.

With a segregated shard system, you still want to easily show players where hot zones are to encourage people interested in PvP to flag up. Otherwise, those meteorite PvP events and their like need to be rather frequent!

 

Doomgrin, we are playing in instances of 60 players per hex instance... that is the designed system... throw shards out of the window. This is effectively countless shards, all connected. All they have to do is add the pvp flag to the hex instance filter and BOOM Open PVP for everyone flagged for pvp.

 

Did you notice that you just gave a strong reason for combat to not be regarded as the most important element in a MMO?

Which means you took a non-consensual PvP situation and turned it into consensual roleplay. Good for you, but I don't see it happening nearly often enough to bet my enjoyment of the game (and the hundreds of dollars I've spent on it) on whether it will happen or not, and whenever it doesn't happen it would make the game worthless for me.

Not to mention I'm not willing to have my access to the PvE content constrained by other players, ever. While I love roleplay, for me full access to the PvE content takes precedence over any potential roleplay.

If you ever killed another player without making sure he wanted to engage in PvP, chances are good I don't want to interact with you in game, even on friendly terms. We are defined by both our light and dark sides, and I'm not going to ignore someone's dark side just because right now he is showing me his light side.

And with a beholder whether something is worthless or not isn't set in stone. For example, I regard any smartphone or tablet that I can't jailbreak and root as just a worthless paperweight, and if given one as a gift would sell or give it away at the first opportunity. I've also ridden my car of all indications of brand and model, both because I dislike feeling like a moving outdoor and because I find them ugly; the loss of resale value is, for me, worth my peace of mind.

Doesn't change the fact the result is decided before the fight is even started. The only difference is that the importance is shifted from the actually interesting part of the encounter to the boring bits beforehand, which for me is quite a disadvantage.

Besides, I find attacking anyone without making sure he wants to engage in PvP to be unethical. I simply don't do non-consensual PvP; never did, never will, ever. And if I'm attacked when I'm not in the mood for PvP I will not fight back; I will just suicide my character, denying my opponent the fight, and if that means I will be saddled with a penalty I don't find reasonable, I will just leave the game instead.

In other words, I will never fight in a non-consensual PvP battle. The closest thing to combat I could do is to go for mutually assured destruction, doing something that would guarantee that I will die with a good chance of taking out my attacker too (like the one time in WoW I suicided by jumping down a cliff, and my would-be ganker followed).

(Lol, in the Elite: Dangerous forums I was actually asking for a self-destruct system powerful enough to take an attacker's ship with my own. So, if a player pirate ever attacked me, I would just direct all the energy from the weapons towards shields and engine, ram him, and blow both of us up, instead of fighting back.)

Also, the day I beg something from another player is the day I leave the game for good, never to return.

 

LOL.




Couldn't force myself to read the rest cause I'm drunk.

 

I feel the same way about forcing PVP on people, and would prefer it if nobody was forced to engage in PVP against their will.

However, this opens the door for a potential exploit, whereby players can insult, abuse, openly threaten, or even attempt to steal from, other players with immunity. That's not fair either. Certain actions should automatically be seen as granting consent to PVP, because these actions should have consequences, and players should be expected to be mature enough to refrain from such actions unless they're willing to back their words up with...well, action.
Trouble is, I don't know how the game would enforce that.

 

Most games enforce rules against abusive behavior with /support functions, regardless of the ability to PVP. Letting players decide when another player has talked smack to them and needs punishment is a terrible idea. PVE/limited PVP does not equal a free for all where players can be nasty to each other and everyone has to take it.

 

Well, I wouldn't classify verbal insults and such under "exploits." Abusive, rude, obnoxious, and childish, yes. And easily solved with /ignore. There's a difference between that and being subject to pvp against your wishes.

However, if there was a way for the game to accurately identify rude, abusive behavior and insta-flag the offender as pvp, I think that would just be too, too funny. I heartily dislike that kind of griefing as much as the next person, and I do so love poetic justice. But, alas, I doubt any game could really do that and not end up subject to it's own style of griefing workarounds.

It's like I've always said, never underestimate the cunning and ingenuity of a dedicated griefer in finding new ways to make an intolerable nuisance of themselves at every opportunity, whether it be pvp or non-pvp.

 

True, but I was thinking more from an IC point of view, rather than behaviour that constitutes actual game offences. In real life, you wouldn't, for example, walk up to a group of Irish people in an Irish pub and start insulting the Irish, because you can expect to get hurt if you do. But with a non-PVP flag, players can do the equivalent with immunity. I consider it an exploit because it allows you to hide behind a game mechanic to circumvent the consequences of actions that would otherwise put you in danger.

The NWN2 server I play on has two simple rules regarding PVP: 1) don't be a ****, and 2) don't be a wuss. That basically means don't go around attacking, insulting, or generally forcing that kind of play on other players for no reason, but also, if you do something that's going to antagonise a character, be prepared to deal with the consequences. It works because we have a small player base, and we're all mature enough to be reasonable about it, and we have GMs who can resolve any disputes between players should it ever happen, but that might be more difficult with a larger player base that could well include professional nuisances.

 

Without a system that is harsh like permadeath or extended hex banishment being able to attack someone will not stop that kind of player from acting this way.

 

I'd like to assume that we are all adults and don't need the threat of imminent death to behave (and to ignore idiots), but I know that's not true. Your example though, doesn't fly in any fairly civilized society. Sure, you might get pounded for mouthing off, but likely there'd be some PVPolice to follow. Game worlds are not the real world anyway.

A mechanic that allowed a player to flag another player for nonconsensual PVP just sounds like a way for the 'hardcore' to force the '********' to PVP. (Not putting that on you, Squire, just saying that's how it looks). Being a jerk is not an exploit, just unfortunate. I'd support enhanced ignore features (like merchant blocking or a player-side mod that added a fluffy unicorn head to blocked toons) but not non-consensual PVP. Much like IRL, if somebody mouths off to you, you ignore them.

 

I played NWN and NWN2 (a LOT more NWN) and those games were a great model for PVP and multiplayer RPGs in general. Most features could be left open, and the small community had a lot to do with that. One big differences is the presence of DMs that could enforce and punish with a human's judgement. They might not be online often, but the possibility of them seeing something has a calming affect. DMs on some of the servers enforced the "no always running" rule many RP servers had. It was not something you wanted to get caught doing. DMs are something I will miss in SOTA. Their ability to add something unexpected in the world was really a thing of beauty: as was the decimation that rained from the heavens ripe with the gods displeasure.

However, I do consider that a good model that I hope SOTA can do. I think by simply filtering us like any social network it could really have that small community feel.

 

I know, and I'm not saying I want that - I certainly don't want it to be in the hands of other players because that can just as easily be abused ("Did that player character who can't see me look at me funny?? Time to teach him a lesson!"). I'm simply pointing out potential problems that could arise from being able to set non-PVP flags.

Ignoring could work. That way, abusive and disruptive players will eventually find themselves unable to interact with anyone, and will either change their conduct or stop playing.

Another option would be to have shards where all variations are run: Full PVP, PVP by consent only, and no PVP. My ideal situation would be an RP server with full PVP, but with a method of dealing with griefers/gankers (the idea being if you want to PVP somebody then you need a good IG reason - and even then you have to be ready to deal with the consequences). It'd be nice if they could cater to everybody's tastes, but I know for a fact that there will be people whose only aim is to disrupt the game for everyone else. It's a tough one, though...how do you deal with disruptive behaviour without ruining the game experience for everybody else? I don't think there's an easy answer, tbh.

True, actually. Even permadeath won't prevent it because they'll simply create new characters, rinse and repeat (sadly, some people really do get their kicks just by trolling and disrupting other players, as I've seen before in Mount and Blade games). Banishment might, but I'd be hesitant to advocate a system like that.

 

It isn't a non pvp flag...it's actually the opposite...a pvp flag.

 

Technically is it a flag either way, if we are correcting details like this. The default flag would be "No" and you'd have to active the "Yes", or 0,1 True,False I'm not a programmer.

 

If its like an HTML checkbox, you only get a value when its checked. If its unchecked you get not only no value, but no reference to the checkbox's existence at all. But I doubt how it works, or stores data, really matters in the long run for most practical purposes.

 

On Topic, I think players are use to being told what to do and they follow the dev designed path now adays (as fast as possible, he who eats the most content wins). Older games designed worlds that we played in and the focus was on the quality of the world (for the most part). You could do what you wanted. What the arguement looks like here is players don't want to adjust for the freedom it would allow other players as it could negatively effect gameplay. I say design a balanced world where karma and the virtues have effects and logical consequences. For those that would rather design away other players freedom to protect their own, tell big brother hello... He is probably listening.

 

It's not players taking away anyone's freedom. There are 475638252 other games with full 7334 super stabby PVP. Just not this one.

 

hehehehhehheheheeeee.....

Consequences... so, perhaps something like this?

the system assigns a basic number value to your 'build' and current equipment to that of your victims, and compares the two in ratio fashion. Ratio less than or equal to 1 means that (in general) you have been choosing fights that are more balanced against you. Greater than one means you have been choosing fights more balanced in your favor. Think of this as your "honor", if they choose to use that. Haven't really considered what kind of benefit being honorable would give you, but if you have proven to be more dishonorable, the higher that ratio gets, the greater a chance of random "gankings" by NPC's with no loot... the more dishonorable you are, the more often these attacks happen and the greater your number of adversaries.

Just an idea that sprang to mind when I read that
A quick and simple way to create a consequence for one of the most feared consequences of OWPvP and full loot.

 

Neenee, Yes it is. Players are actively pursuing dev restrictions on other player's freedom to perserve their game play in multiplayer mode, though your arguement against this is so solid.There are very few companies designing multiplayer WORLDS with the resources to make it happen. This game will have super stabby pvp, you just don't have to participate... Get out of my hex instance with your don't stab me bro logic.