PVP compromise idea

If the system were designed such that I never saw a PvP flagged player, I would be ok with that if that's what the PvP community as a whole wished.

Insufficient information available for me to make that determination. I would need to see what the details of the system were so I would know, at least in terms of the rules as defined by the system, and other factors such as forum posts and internet articles on what life was like in the alternate universe prior to jumping through the black hole into an alternate dimension. A trusted recommendation would certainly weigh heavily in my decision, of course.

 

Point of order.

I've seen you make this claim before, and think you may be working under old information. In earlier releases, they ran tests with a maximum of 64 characters per hex to test performance to explore the 'maximum concurrency' they could support in a hex. The tests with 64 were acceptable at the time, and they were convinced at the time that more could be supported without a degradation in server performance. Therefore I believe your 60 avatar limit for a hex instance is incorrect, or outdated. I don't believe they've announced what the concurrency will be.

 

Rufus, I got this from a recent video and haven't heard of any updates on it (do you have updated information you can cite?). They did note in the video that they could throttle it depending on performance, it was in the harmless guild interview and I think a couple others not that I'm lawyering them on it. Not sure if they would want to increase the number though cause besides some massive guild meetings, 60ish people in a hex is a comfortable number imo. The point remains though, be it 60, 64, 128 or 256, they'll be filtering us down to instances of a hex and not 1 continual version of a hex. Imagine how many players were in the local Brit sub-server in UO, across all the shards and facets, that's kind of what we are looking at for population though I think the hexes will probably cover less ground then sub servers in UO. King's Port could have 1,000s of players in the hex shopping for equipment.

Sorry I didn't call you this weekend, I was in Austin. Had a lot of fun.

 

Not directed at me, but...

What can get me to try something is full knowledge of the consequences before I even attempt it, coupled with full acceptance of the worst possible consequence that could happen if I were to try it. For example, if a game had a 0.1% chance of my character suffering perma-death when trying some content, I would only ever try it if I was ready to accept perma-death as if it was a guaranteed outcome.

But then, I'm a pessimist. I do any content in a game expecting the very worst that could happen, despite the fact I'm usually doing my best to get the best outcome possible. By the same token, I choose what content I will do as if the worst possible outcome was the guaranteed one (and I choose which MMO to play as if the community was guaranteed to be the worst possible, which is the reason that, despite loving group play, I will only ever start playing a MMO if it's fully solo content is already enough to justify the asking price). It's not fully rational, but it prevents frustration.

 

Silent, that's a good rule of thumb in my opinion. Continueing my explorative nature today, what ruleset in PVP would scare you away? Any Loot, % Loot with Ransom system, Full Loot, Perma Death for murderers (not that you would play that), unbalanced pvp (established players are just to powerful to compete (ie over powered weapons/armor compared to normally available items), a confusing combat system.

 

Add in a filter that permanently removes someone once you have killed them. Pair this up with a good moral system and unprovoked attacks are not much of an issue.

(perma death for victims as far as the attacker is concerned at least)

Edit: tie it in with a bounty system maybe. The victim gets the option to report the murder. A bounty is issued. Once the bounty is collected the victim is once again unfiltered. If the victim chooses.

 

Are you proposing that there might be PKs in this PvP system. *GASPS*

 

Consensual PvP can have situations where people can be attacked without provocation. I bet more people would be willing to consent if that mechanic was instituted.

 

I've been an advocate of this since day one. However they need to have a murder/criminal system in place.

 

Ristra Said;
Add in a filter that permanently removes someone once you have killed them. Pair this up with a good moral system and unprovoked attacks are not much of an issue.
..........................................................................................................................................................
~TL~
That's one of the finest ideas and it's been stated so many times it must be true and cannot be stated enough as a great idea!
............................................................................................................................................................

Talmanes Said;
Silent, that's a good rule of thumb in my opinion. Continueing my explorative nature today, what ruleset in PVP would scare you away? Any Loot, % Loot with Ransom system, Full Loot, Perma Death for murderers (not that you would play that), unbalanced pvp (established players are just to powerful to compete (ie over powered weapons/armor compared to normally available items), a confusing combat system.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~TL~
I think this has more to do with time to play the game when real life has a chance to take a player away from the key board or be called away at any moment.
In Real Life; Say if I were expecting to see someone, or do some business, then I may not want to have my playtime interrupted by an unforeseen risk.
~Time Lord~
XXX

 

Only problem with a perma-death like filter is you'll run out of consenting players...

 

Basically:

- Myself being looted: I can't completely separate game from reality when there is a real person behind my opponent's actions. Thus, being looted, for me, feels about as bad as being mugged in real life. Every time it has happened to me in a game I stopped playing that game permanently, no exceptions up to now. By the same token I will never do that to other players, so, in a game where players are expected to loot each other to stay competitive, I would be unacceptably behind because I would flat out refuse to loot other players.
This goes even for ransom.

In other words, I'm not playing any PvP mode where I can be looted, no matter how little or inconsequential the looted items, and even if I have a ransom option. And that will not change.

(Caveat: if, instead of player looting, the game had outright gear destruction — in other words, the defeated player loses the gear, but the winner does not get anything — it could be acceptable for me, depending on the tuning. It would bypass my psychological block. I still dislike punishments for losing in PvP, though.)

- Random systems: they make me less willing to try anything, because I will always consider the worst possible result for me when deciding what to try. Given the same average reward for winning, or punishment for failure, the less variability between the best random result and the worst one, the more inclined I'm to try the content. One of the reasons I stopped raiding in WoW; since the loot rewards are random, when deciding what to do I would look at raiding as if there was absolutely no loot rewards in raiding, and without the rewards just the content was not enough to hold my attention.

- Punishment for the aggressors and/or loser: Not only I don't really care about it, in a fully consensual PvP system I actually prefer when aggressors and/or losers aren't punished. I'm not competitive, and prefer when others aren't punished as a result of my actions; in fact, I'm just as likely to refrain from PvPing if I think I will force a penalty upon my opponent as if I think I will myself suffer a penalty. Thus, given the choice, I will always go for the PvP that has less consequences for the loser. Enjoyable PvP, for me, is more akin to a friendly sparring match than an actual conflict.

- Unbalanced PvP: I can only have fun with PvP if there's a roughly even chance of myself winning or being defeated. I'm actually prone to concede, or otherwise throw a fight, if I'm stomping my adversary so much he has no chance to defeat me. I play PvP to have fun, not to win, and any gross imbalance prevents me from having fun with the PvP.

 

I do not think that PvP issues should be treated the same as PK issues.
Te PvP issue is simple, "I wear a PvP uniform (in this case a flagged player) or I am a civilian". That's as easy as it gets and therefore PvP anywhere you like and everywhere while others watch the show.
But then there is the PK issue;
In this I like to think of Robin Hood whereby any area that is actively populated for a set waiting time, becomes a PK area for their hunting. Then if you are entering, you are then asked if you wish to enter and make your choice from there. This type of system creates only an area that reflects the over all PK population numbers in an active way. This dicourages loe PK and encourages gangs to form and stay active or be forced to infect an area again with actively being there for a set time with no other non PK players entering into it during that waiting time.
Contraband transporters can be engaged by everyone anywhere by flag and market trasporters can be engaged yet the flaggs the PK as a PK and thus must infect the area before blockading or causing the road to become a PK area. But if you are a non PK wishing o be a PK, then you can engage the traveling salesman and if you win, then you're a PK with all the rules that go along with them.
Time Lord

 

Silent, what are your thoughts on how the world should be broken down Consensual PVP vs Non-Consensual PVP? Would you be happy with Towns and Main Roadways through the story line with Consensual PVP, but the wilderness outside of those areas and some special remote locations in the Non-Consensual area? Where you had control on whether you entered the Non-Consensual areas and still experience 100% of the Story Online through the protected routes and towns?

 

This would be the point. Someone bent on killing off the world could do so. The consequences of killing someone carries some weight, it could be self segregating.

 

But what percentage would actually want that? It wouldn't likely be something you as a player can control...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

 

You've asked this question a lot so I'm assuming this is how you'd like to see it, so a question comes to mind. Sort of a "putting the shoe on the other foot" kinda question. (I know I already answered this one and you're asking Silent now, but I'm just in the mood this morning, and feeling a bit inquisitive myself.) What percentage would you be willing to live with? Would you be happy with some designated towns and maybe some roads being ok to pvp, and the rest of the map being no pvp at all with anyone under any circumstances? Rhetorical question. The reason I say no pvp at all is because that scenario would be the rough equivalent for a pvper as having to be open to pvp is to a non-pvper. I'm really curious how you would view that and whether you would be willing to play such a game.

 

Not sure what you mean by percentage.

If someone murders a fellow avatar they are dead in their eyes. This would filter them out permanently unless the victim chose to lift the filter. So many undesirable aspects of PvP would be removed with this kind of system.

The attacker must think about killing players in a different way. The victim can move on. If it's style that both sides wish then it's game on.

 

when i killed off players sometimes i just left them with all thier stuff, and the wandering orcs would take it instead of me I didnt loot all my opponents only one that were asses! (coming from an Avid PVP here)
and train yourself with friends so you can withstand a random attack by someone! (social aspect of game there as well)

 

This brings up an interesting idea in my mind. Im guessing this point has already been made though... If someone DOES slay someone in PvP mode, im thinking it would be best that these two players are no longer in each other's game. I feel like immersion is ruined when you have someone running back to their corpse in a death robe to loot their own body, this kind of creates a pretty cheesy looking scene in my opinion.
But I don't know wether or not it should be permanent removal of someone from their game, because it would eliminate the rivalry aspect of PvP. It would give the oppurtunity for vengence, either that or later on, the rivalry is broken and these two players end up playing together without attacking each other some point later.
Maybe anyone who gets killed is locked out of PvP for a certain amount of time. Im actually hoping that if there is a very strong justice system in this game that it wouldn't completely take away a "red", "murderer", or "criminal" type player's right to play SPO, FPO, or to do something completely PvM.