Open PvP Justice System

Because the victim was roaming in dangerous lands. Think it about the criminal's perspective, everywhere is now dangerous for him. This is what you call justice. Also, calling the players as victims is a completely biased implication. Who is going to balance your infinite farm at dungeons? Believe me, AI will not. You should learn to take risks to advance further, exponential growth in earning money or magic items will totally break and inflate the economy. Then what is the fun of playing while everybody has top tier items and there is no source for goldsinks. You are trying to turn an online game into a single player game, some kind of co-op mode. These discussions remind me of how UO community died and UO Stratics became a community of smartass, conservative people who constantly turned into an annoying community by using fait accompli to get what they want done. What a dramatic death of the best MMORPG ever created.

 

You are constantly comparing player killing with UO and this leds you into fallacies, UO had a bad justice system to be honest, it was still really fun but people were crying unfortunately. A player killer did not have to suffer any punishments, there was a statloss system but it was removed later. There was nothing to discourage a player killer from being a player killer. PKs could have houses where they can stay safe, refresh their supplies, logout, run into etc.. I think a PK shouldn't be able to own a house or have any relationships with houses and any safe places, they should always have to camp, travel oftenly, "run" from the justice, use the empty buildings on the map to stay alive. If you are a murderer IRL, you would probably hide and run as far as you can. This is what should be implemented and I am sure it will dramatically decrease so called "griefing" and constant slaughtering of newbies. But I don't understand your mindset, if something is bad for you, instead of negotiating for fixes, you completely want it to be removed, separated from your game. No, this is not your game and people want to play with everyone with the cost of their gameplay style. You are not even trying to negotiate in a common point, all suggestions are like "put a slider", "remove PvP", "separate worlds", all are white and black, there is no grey.

 

Well put!

 

Are you a only PvE player?

If so i have to ask you why do you even care about how PvP turn out to be?

PvP will be consensual so if you dont consent to enter PvP then nothing of what is discussed on PvP will ever affect you.

And i must say i have a hard time understanding what selfish personal interest you are talking about since PvP never will affect you if you are a only PvE player?

 

A difficult question to answer.
Historically, I've preferred PvE by disposition and willingness to commit time to what essentially a pursuit with very little tangible worth (and I speak of computer games in general, not PvP in specific, before you get your dander up). However, I was a PvP player in Ultima Online as I was forced to be, and departed prior to the introduction of Trammel, returning briefly to find that all I had built was now in a wasteland. I've played First Person Shooters... Battlefield, and recently Titanfall, though I'm very bad at them, and have often threatened to restart on a new gamertag: "corpseonthecorner." I also played Eve for a long time, moving to LoSec with a large guild... but even there I was not a fan of the combat. I was a Miner, and a Scout flying an Anathema wired with a set of Implants that cost around 2B and a covert cyno... I was a PvP player, but specialized in avoiding PvP. I was only podded Once. I also had no interest in the regimentation or time commitments required of those involved in fleet actions. So, no, if you're speaking in general terms. I am not a PvE only player.
If you are speaking of Shroud of the Avatar, strictly speaking, no one is yet a PvP player, and all are PvE only players as PvP has not yet been implemented and will not be for another 4 months.
If you are speaking of Shroud of the Avatar as it will be, then the answer is "I don't yet know." My intention is to see what PvP becomes and answer that question after seeing what systems are put in place and what community grows up around those systems. Currently, seeing only the current intentions of the developers as outlined in the PvP and Death Current Thinking Megapost, and the PvP Community that has been present on the forums, I am leaning currently toward the PvE only side, but can and will give no definitive answer.

Because I would like the answer to your first question to be "No, I [sometimes|often] participate in PvP activities." There is more answer to this question below, as it's wrapped up in your next question.

Unless PvP is segregated into its own server then your statement is untrue. PvP will affect everyone that plays and is part of the economy and PvP will most certainly affect the economy. Some on the PvP side argue that the economy cannot function without them even. The final form of PvP will affect this.

1) As stated, I'm not a PvE only player and would prefer not to be led to choose that path, though I will, happily, should PvP in its final form turn out not to be something I wish to participate in.
2) The selfish personal interest I protect is my ability to not participate in PvP save in times, and places of my choosing. While you will doubtless state that PvP will be by consent only as if this were chiseled in stone and encased in carbonite, until the game is launched, and the decision final, I cannot and will not take this for granted and will fight against those that would have Shroud of the Avatar be a recreation of Pre-Trammel UO. I will be here to defend my $2000.00+ investment and do what I can to insure I will want to make use of it.

I have stated many times that I will not, as long as my option to opt-out of PvP is preserved, state an opinion on the final form of PvP in Shroud of the Avatar. Please design what you want. Whether or not I participate depends on what is produced, both the system and the community.

 

If people were crying then it is very likely that it wasn't fun for them.

I've nothing really to say about this passage other than currently PvP will be consentual, and it is the stated intention of the developers that it will remain consensual. This will dramatically decrease the slaughtering of newbies and other who don't wish to be attacked. The affect on volume of griefing is not known. It may simply change form. In any event, "Murder" whatever that means in a consensual system, corpse camping, the slinging of invective at a defeated opponent, etc., will be contained to those that have consented to be so treated. I will offer no opinion on justice systems or any of the rest so long as I am promised the ability to not participate.

I have to ask if you're speaking to Me, or to the population that prefers PvE in general? I have to assume that you're speaking directly to me, judging from the placement of this article in this thread.
My mindset comes from a distrust of any automated, game adjudicated justice system. Any system that is sufficiently complex will be exploitable, and until such time as whatever system is developed for PvP in Shroud of the Avatar is proven, and the community that grows up around it is known, I will not participate in PvP specifically because of my personal experiences with UO and the PvP community that grew up around that system. If that to you is a separate game, then yes. You're correct. I wish to be protected from predation. I wish to have the ability to choose the time and place where I participate in PvP. I wish to have assurance that should I, with my limited gaming time, decide to enter the game with some specific purpose in mind that I will be able to reasonably do what I set out to do in the time I have without another player interfering with my plans by pulling me into their game. If not being able to attack whomever you want, wherever you want, for any reason or no reason at all destroys your play-style then so be it. You getting what you want destroys my play-style. On that point, you're correct. There is no compromise, there is no negotiation. Go build whatever you wish to within the limits of that one restriction. I'll decide whether I wish to participate once I see what grows from it.

A couple of additional points... If you are speaking to me specifically, I've never called for the removal of PvP. I want there to be PvP in the game. Also, the Only proponents of "Separate Worlds" beyond the consent mechanism that I recall seeing are PvP advocates who wish to have a recreation of Siege Perilous either virtually by use of the instance matchmaking such that PvP flagged players never have to suffer the presence of a non-Flagged player, or by having a completely separate non-virtual server. Either of these choices would be, in my opinion, a detriment to the game at large. Fortunately, like the removal of the consent mechanism, this appears to be something the development team is disinclined to do.

 

Sorry but the person who has flagged for PvP did so willingly. Every game has moments where you mess up and say AH $h!^ and you have to come up with a new strategy next time. The people who sign up for PvP are playing a riskier game.

Just because a PK attacks a guy doesn't mean the guy's fun is ruined either. The victem might be looking for trouble in the first place so he can have a reason to fight back. Or the person just wants a sense of realism that PvE doesn't have.

*********************

However since PvP is optional in SotA how can you be looking out for "your" interests when you said many times you are a PvE player? You come into the PvP threads and Hem and haw about how PvP ruins people's fun, while the rest of us want PvP because of the very reasons you say it isn't fun. What some people think is miserable is fun for others. Please respect that here, especially since the PvP portion of the game really doesn't apply to you.

Some people don't like RPGs. I'm not going to force them to play SotA if they don't like it. However if they don't like the game, or RPGs in general, what good is it to listen to them Hem and Haw about how bad the game is going to be. That doesn't mean you can't have an opinion, but I'm pointing out why your opinion isn't appreciated at all since it is not relevant to these discussions.

 

Moderators please do something. Firelotus did say the trolls were very cunning, and keep within the rules.

Seems like Rufus is well meaning, but he really does have the tendency to spark strife. I'm beginning to think it's intentional.

 

So to make a long story short... in SotA you will be a PvE player. Thank you.


So now... tell me... Why are you here?

 

If you feel his post is trolling hit the report button or ignore and move on. That being said, his voice should not be shut down simply because you feel it's not his place to speak. If his posts are within the forum rules he is fine.

 

I've reported him each time. If I didn't post what I did some others might not be aware that he is a PvE player, and it might have caused a big debate about PKing is not equal to grief.

This has happened in other threads before. So, I felt like exposing it this time so people remember it now and for the future.

*********************

I would like to see PvP justice come from other PvPers who role play peace keepers/PK hunters.

 

I don't see why someone that does not PvP can't have a view point on PvP systems but hey that's your choice.

If you don't agree with his input or perspective there is plenty of opportunity to express your reasoning for it. If it was me posting ideas or discussing views with people I would invite outside perspectives. If the person with the dissenting view can't communicate within the forum rules then there is an issue but I don't think that is a problem here.

 

I know I will be pvping IF it is regulated by the game and the company. If it's left to the players I'm out. Players are not consistent, reliable or fair in all instances which is unfortunate but true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

He likes to troll, request facts and create issues among community members at his own personal selfish requests as he states. He isn't worth the time to argue with cause in his mind he's right and everyone is wrong. Just ignore him.

 

Simplest solution, /ignore

 

It could actually work if it's truly FFA without the karma/murder/justice system. The problem is that having that actually makes it much worse, because it's so exploitable. As I've said before, these systems create an "only outlaws have guns" environment, like existed in UO.

 

Well, FFA without karma is roughly what DayZ and Rust are, though in a smaller scale than most MMOs.I don't think player regulation actually works there.

 

I should have emphasized could. It's a long shot and really hard to do. EvE would be an example. My point is that wrapping more layers around it doesn't make it better, it just makes it worse. The "we should allow PKs and have murder flags and have bounty hunters, etc." just leads to swallowing spiders to catch flies.

I don't want any of this. I'd rather see some kind of faction system where you have say 3 sides and you visit can visit the Oracle and switch. (With cooldowns, atonement quests, whatever.)

 

Are we speaking of a Justice system inside Open PvP in which we are assuming people have opt into? If so, why have one at all. What is a thief among thieves, a murder among murderers? I would put forward that if you're in Open PvP there is no Justice system required.

How you would allow those people to interact with places of Virtue such as cities and shrines as well as players who are playing the role of good in the land is a different story and I believe that should and will be handled by the Karma system.

 

"Thief Among Thiefs?" What you are saying has a definition tied to it that describes the term as "lacking knowledge or awareness in general". You can quote it in Google to find out the word. Unfortunately, in these forums, I cant tell you the word for some bizar reason even though, by definition you are doing it.

To basically say that anyone that is in favor of Open PvP, isn't interested in role playing a innocent miner or a farmer is wrong on so many levels. Its labeling for another. Open PvP isn't about what you want to DO it about HOW you want to play. How you want to interact with other players.

If I'm online... I want people to be able to attack me if that is their characters nature. WHY THE HECK ELSE BE ONLINE? Just go into a play with friends mode, or single player. But point is... Open PvP isn't getting the RIGHT attention it needs. SotA is getting some half-a** consensual PvP system and I am gravely concerned the view point you expressed is how the team may feel and development on Open PvP may be.. again... half-a**.