For all the PvP players, what (if anything) would make you explore PvE?

Because that means you take joy in the pain of others. Countless others have done the same, and my opinion of them is the same.
You pose the same argument as Lord British's griefer thief, which convinced him at the time to let the fellow go. Being afforded the freedom to do something in a game does not make it right or proper. All things not forbidden are not compulsory. Fortunately, Lord British learned from his mistakes, and will not be repeating them here.

From the article:
"After some thought… I agreed with him. So instead of banning him, I teleported him to the far side of the world. Then I gave the items back to the woman who could finally go about her business. After that, I began to think more carefully about the rules we ourselves put in the game, and the inevitable play styles that would come of it." - Lord British

 

That's good for you and all, but what does it have to do with this thread at all?

 

Not all, of course. Hard to say how many of each kind exist, though.

Heck, it's hard to say how many PvP and PvE players exist.

There is a bias in there. You seem to see the required interaction, both the competitive (fighting against others) and the cooperative (joining others in groups), as either easy, pleasant, or both.

There are some players for whom this is false. And by some, in this case, I mean an unspecified number of players that might actually be the majority of MMO players; if I'm not mistaken, Bioware did some research as it was developing TOR and found that players that desired to play the MMO solo were actually the majority.

It's why current MMOs are so keen on being playable as a solo game; it's a large part of why organized raiding in WoW is done by a relatively small number of players, and most WoW "raiders" don't even attempt to graduate from LFR — which doesn't require actually communicating or coordinating with others — to organized raiding. It's likely a large part of why, of the new EVE players that actually purchase the game, 50% never subscribe and leave within the first month, and a further 40% settle for mostly safe and solo gameplay (those numbers are recent and given by CCP).

In other words, what for you was a good experience, for many players wouldn't have been a good experience. The same way I likely have hobbies that you would dislike but I find insanely fun, being a nerdy math-loving person that often finds more fun reverse engineering games than playing them and all.

In other words, plenty of players using the openness of the old UO rules to have fun, while disregarding if others were also having fun, is likely why the rules are now less open, both in current UO and in many games developed since.

It has been quoted plenty of times to justify why other MMOs developed after UO are less open, BTW. Many UO devs went to work developing other MMOs, taking with them the experience about what worked and what didn't work — and, from a player retention point of view, it seems that allowing players to harm the experience of others was nearly universally seen as something that didn't work.

 

Silent Strider said,

There is a bias in there. You seem to see the required interaction, both the competitive (fighting against others) and the cooperative (joining others in groups), as either easy, pleasant, or both.
There are some players for whom this is false. And by some, in this case, I mean an unspecified number of players that might actually be the majority of MMO players; if I'm not mistaken, Bioware did some research as it was developing TOR and found that players that desired to play the MMO solo were actually the majority.
It's why current MMOs are so keen on being playable as a solo game; it's a large part of why organized raiding in WoW is done by a relatively small number of players, and most WoW "raiders" don't even attempt to graduate from LFR — which doesn't require actually communicating or coordinating with others — to organized raiding. It's likely a large part of why, of the new EVE players that actually purchase the game, 50% never subscribe and leave within the first month, and a further 40% settle for mostly safe and solo gameplay (those numbers are recent and given by CCP).
In other words, what for you was a good experience, for many players wouldn't have been a good experience. The same way I likely have hobbies that you would dislike but I find insanely fun, being a nerdy math-loving person that often finds more fun reverse engineering games than playing them and all.

For me the fact that i was PKd all the time beginning UO (i almost quit myself) drew my friends and i together, we teamed up and went after them. Also we teamed up for quests and worked together on mining and resource hunting, so the social aspect was there and intact, yes we had Pkrs trying to ruin our fun, but we died together and we adventured together as well as hunted together, when a majority of friends were not on i crafted bows, and fletching arrows.
I have found the best way to make friends is to find a common ground, once you do that, you have a party all the time, and good times, many of us were different, as far as hobbies some were lawyers, others blue collar, and others nerds, some unemployed, but we found a common ground and had a great time in UO, until WoW came out then we moved over there and had fun. Most people stayed, I also played WoW, and didn't become PVP until i was 35th level a point where survival wasn't too much of a worry. During the time leveling, there were places we had to go to complete quests and those area were pvp. "Darkwood" i believe was one of them you were in from 10 to 12 level, but again we were ganked a few times but running together mostly kept the pesky PKrs away most of the time. Even in these forms we have made alliances and enemies and that seems to be pretty even numbers, all of my friends will know what name ill be under when i do start playing so im already forming party groups and not all of them are pvp. I am also a firm supporter of choice when it comes to PVP, and i dont think anyone should be forced into it.

 

Rufus, I'm very disappointed that you resorted to name calling like that. It is the same anonymity that allows a griefer to grief that allows you to talk to a person like that. And I see the issues that arose in UO as a sign that technology and some changes in game mechanics could make a system help players better understand that there bad behavior has consequences. Will this be easy? No, we can't even do it in our public schools. Can it be done? Of course it can, to say otherwise would be selling everyone short (They put a man on the moon).

On this topic of PVP players exploring PVE. As a PVP player I typically explore all areas cause I need to know the surroundings as it is typically beneficial to pvp. If Monster drops give good equipment or the AI is advanced and challenging I would engage, other than that the only reason I would engage is if the system requires me to for character advancement. The grind in Lineage 2 was so bad that I quite during the first month, very little pvp in the area I was in due to game mechanics so I had a little fun in the last couple days. The players hunting the elf mage never thought to look for me traveling between areas via the water ways.

 

The desire to be able to attack anyone you choose is very different than wishing for a system that provides unwilling victims.

It does absolutely no good to design a game around drawing in players to provide soft targets for the long term players. The people that stick around are willing victims or they would leave. Those that leave are unwilling and cut out of the game due to the full open PvP. - many have tried this but new player retention eventually kills the game.

The current model of open PvP allows for both play styles to exist together. There will be plenty of targets for you to attack or not attack. It's those people that have opted to engage themselves in some other content that will be unattackable.

Simply put, why would you want to attack those players that wish to engage in something besides PvP. They choose to step out of PvP and there is no reason worth forcing them back in.

In this case, they are keeping PvP visible to all and it's a living entity that evolves with the story. (at least that is how I am interpreting it) Open PvP is for those that want to get right to PvP. The story driven PvP will have a side effect, beyond PvP with a purpose. It will put PvP out in the open, even if they do not normally PvP, lessening player segregation.

PvP segregation creates 2 games within 1 world. Story driven PvP that migrates through out the hexes will put PvP out there and relevant. This will go a long way to bring in more players to the PvP side. Other wise the longer the player plays the deeper entrenched into their style they become.

 

Good morning.
I agree there was a back-story, and it was rich in lore, but UO had no storyline. It wasn't a story driven role playing game. There was no beginning of story with character progression through the story to it's end like the Ultima series and like SotA will be. UO was a sandbox game, plain and simple. SotA is not. Not saying either style is better or worse, just that they're different. RG himself says in a couple different interviews that UO had no actual storyline and was a sandbox from the start.

So I still have to wonder. What is it that attracts someone with no interest in a story driven role playing, pve experience, to a story driven role playing game with a beginning & end, and then insist that the game focus be changed to accommodate their non-interest?

edit: only the first paragraph was directed at you blaquerogue. The question is just a general question regarding the OP

 

Hey crossbowsoda,

I play a single-player game (which would be considered PvE I guess) where there's permadeath, and a single blow from a bear can kill you instantly, or leave you bleeding and kill you slowly. If you come across a hostile NPC, you better be prepared for a fight or run. You can also talk to them and convince them to leave you alone. They're much smarter than a bear and their weapons are lethal. You can also die from catching the flu, drowning, and starving if you can't find food. Anti-PvE arguments are generally based on clichés -- which are often are the case, but not always.

I also enjoy open PvP, and I like the idea of a world without arbitrary restrictions on what players can do. I like the idea of players role-playing brigands and thieves. What frustrates, though, me is the fact that a lot of old school UO fans don't think there isn't anything that the game did wrong. Yes, there is non-consensual PvP -- just because you log onto a server where there's open PvP doesn't mean you want to fight every encounter. I don't find a problem with non-consensual PvP. But PKs have to admit what it is, or else they won't play the game in a way that makes it fun for other players. If they kill miners who are AFK for a couple of seconds because of real life issues interfering with the game, they're being jerks, for instance. They're playing according to the game rules, but that doesn't make them good sports.

A lot of PvE isn't made to be as much rooted in role-playing as I think it should be -- with encounters with brigands, you usually can't talk them out of the fight, this is true. But, the same is true for most PK encounters -- most PKs can't be talked out of a fight either, because they're not interested in role-playing themselves. The only difference in these cases tends to be that NPCs don't overkill -- they don't hunt you down and don't follow you all the way to the next town, trying to kill you until the very last second. NPCs are more about defending their turf and leave you alone when you're successfully driven from their territory. This isn't necessarily the ideal, but its also not a huge problem that ruins a role-playing experience.

 

Ask me again and I'll tell you the same.
I require no anonymity. What other information would you like to know? (Within Reason. I won't tell you my back account information or social security number. )
Ask me and I'll tell you.
Ping me next time you're in Austin and you can come over and we'll discuss it.
I won't say anything here that I won't say to someone's face.
I won't do anything in game that someone else might not want me to do.

I live my life online as I live it in the real world, with consideration for others.

 

A Dinner invite? Sounds nice, I live in Texas. Maybe we can have a Shroud of the Avatar Tex Ren Fest day. We can all dress up esc. (I've never done that before, but sounds like fun)

 

While I'd like to be able to attack anyone that I please, I know that I'll have to settle. I'd prefer a filter that makes all non-pvp eligible players invisible.

Story-driven PvP that involves PvE would likely be one of the few things to get me to actively PvE. Anything else would be the plain old grind.

This game sounds cool.

Sorry that I wasn't clear earlier: I was referring specifically to PvE found in MMOs, which is usually far more streamlined than what's found in single player games, some of which I enjoy.

The way you describe it is close to how I'd envisioned it. However, I still think non-consensual PvP is a crutch.

I don't think that UO was perfect. I think the system was innovative and really good for its time, but it needed more flavor. I wish that more had been done to refine Felucca to make it more playable, rather than creating Trammel and ruining or otherwise damaging the game for many.

As far as killing someone who doesn't want to be killed, that's a toughie. Playing any game, to me, is to give consent to whatever happens within the boundaries of that game. If you don't want to PvP, you're making it sort of hard on yourself by leaving the initiative to do well to those who would attack you. While griefing had become common toward Felucca's end, equally common was the pity res.

Killing AFKers is just lame. Accidents happen, of course, but to do so intentionally is ruthless. Gotta have tact.

That's a good point. Few characters would put themselves at risk like that, only to kill a random person. Makes no sense. There could be mitigating factors (like witnessing the occult or something), but I can't say I remember having given marathon chase to many randoms.

As far as yielding, well, I've done it. And I've yielded to others. For non-RPers, yeah, you can pretty much guarantee a fight to the death. Whether that's a problem: I don't think it is. I see the lack of roleplay as more of a problem.

NPCs, meh. I suppose my problem with them is their complete lack of unpredictability.

Sent from my EVA Unit-01 using Tapatalk

 

They could build yielding into a game. Something like attacking the player would hurt your karma and as the player takes damage they slow due to their injures (this would also discourage players from attacking cause any injures they sustain would slow them as well), defeat would cause the player to collapse (I would throw in a % chance for death resulting is a heavy murder penalty for the attacker) and the collapsed player would then either be banished back to town (maybe partial looting of non equipment items before banishment) or finished off with a death blow (which would have a heavy murder penalty for the attacker and a strong karma penalty for the defender. Just thinking out loud, yielding options could be good. There was really no option other than death in UO, I remember the old duels you'd have to stop just before what you thought would be the finishing blow and hope they had the sense to stop as well.

 

I used to be attacked by a Pkr a really good one! One day i just met up with him at the bank and asked if he could show me how to survive pk attacks and not only did he teach me he also made rare armor for me to wear that would help against certain quick death attacks, Ive also had conversations with Pk guild masters, outside of safe zones, and asked them not to avoid attacking my newbies because they need to learn what its like to get ganked in order to see it they wanted to play PVP or not, and i also worked out a deal with Pkrs to use their arenas to help me teach them how to fight a pvpr. So i think that if you approach them in a certain way they may not just kill you and laugh at you. Dont get me wrong there are still those that did it! In turn the Pkrs that taught my members how to fight against them, took them on a journy to the guy that kept killing the newb and ganked that pkr with the help of the trainee. so there are some you can talk to or talk your way out of getting killed based on reasoning and respect for them in general. I dont support the PKr killing off newbies, id rather have them try to kill of me instead so in turn they realize they are not invincible, sometimes that same guildmaster would ask us to attack thier new guys for the same reasons, and we played together, as Victim and Victimizer! My guild was dominate PVP PKK. We would kill off people for reasons and not just randoms.

 

Did not read OP post, but in response to thread's title...

90% of PvPlayers like PvE and explore it all the time.
The only question is...am I going to farm some dragons BEFORE or AFTER I gut you and take your head as a trophy?

Peace.

 

mostly pvp players are pve players aswell i think, if the dungeons are nicly done and you can find power weapons and maybe rare drops you could put in your house. as a pvp player i would like challanging pve with good loot, that would like me to do pve

 

Almost every scenario you outline above requires little to no combat.... No PVP needed, just RP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Thank you Crossbowsoda, i thought i was the only one who see's his constant posts as a one sided view. I love to PVP, i am not the best PVPer but i find it fun to run around and challange other people because they are smarter and harder to fight then a monster. PVP is a great end game activity for huge amounts of players. And the fact that PVPer's don't mind non PVP areas, but PVEers only want PVP free zones is BS. I PVE for my gear, and skills and with buddies, but when i want to PVP i should have that choice, and you or anyone else should have no say if i want to PVP, and if you make all these horrible PVP rules no good PVPer will want to play, and it will start to fall apart.

 

LOL!

 

The Pot calling the Kettle black again. You guys do that a lot. lol. He is not the only one with constant posts with a one sided view. Seems to me both sides of the issue are doing exactly the same thing.

You say " but when i want to PVP i should have that choice, and you or anyone else should have no say if i want to PVP" Well, on that we agree. And when I DO NOT want to PVP, I should have that choice, and you or anyone else should have no say if I want to PVP. See how that goes both ways? If you have read the PVP Megapost, you already know that you will have that choice and that no one will stop you. Of course it will only be with others who have also made that choice. Is that where the problem lies?

Everyone will have a choice, not just a select group. Why is it ok for you to have all the choices and no one else? Why should other people be given no choice?

 

Crossbowsoda: Why? What did I do? Enjoy the game within the boundaries of its mechanics? Steal a boat or twelve? Stick a trapped crate on a dragon's corpse? Countless others have done the same.


Your answer:

Its quite likely that I was his victim a few times if we both happen to play the same free server. Im sure he took joy in it, and if he had time he probably trolled me and rubbed it in good.
Boy it sure got me mad...
And, if I knew that it was him who did it right now.... well..... ouch. I'd have to watch what I say because I could get moderated here for it.
Now, some of you who would never play in a full loot open pvp world would look at what I have just said and think, "well there you go, this is exactly the reason why you probably shouldn't be playing that kind of game. You aren't having fun."

As negative as that all sounded, and as angry and upset I may have been after having him blast my 100k gold in value ship off the water and looting it blind, stealing my loot on the ship, along with carving my corpse and spitting on it(or taunting and rubbing it in many other ways), I still will continue to play this game. I was a victim, no I did not go out and play the game to be a victim I did it to hopefully deliver this kind of punishment. But instead I received it, but thats the game, its hardcore rivalry and ego. I love it.
And if I did find out crossbowsoda did happen to be the pirate who sunk my ship... well the rivalry is still there. And, NO I will not expect to get it back just because here in the forums we are on the same side of the aisle on this PvP issue. I wouldn't care how much a "team" we are here, on that full loot PvP shard we are bitter enemies/rivals.
You have to really really be into this sort of thing to play in that game. And I think theres room for this sort of game in SotA, without dragging people who cannot comprehend how this sort of game could ever be fun. If not, well I guess ill just play SotA however it is presented. Just cuz the rivalry type PvP isnt in it dont mean it wont be fun for me. Trammel is cool too. Ill get my rivalry fix on private server games.