The PvP Thread

@flashburn:

You described quite well why that flattening of the skill level happens in most successful games focused on PvP; devs can make the game for the top few percent of players that are, pardon the expression, "competitive M***** F****s", or else make the game for the bottom 90% of the player base that only want to shoot at things and feel like they are good even when they aren't. First option is a niche game that won't sell many copies even if it's great, second option has a shot at being a blockbuster even if the game is not that good.

The alternative that can allow a game to still have skill matter while not being instantly labeled a niche game is to find a way to prevent newbs, and other players not interested in harsh competition, from being slaughtered by much better players. Systems that match players roughly according to their performance, so everyone has a good fight because they are fighting only other similarly skilled players, and the really good players almost never gets to destroy the noobs because the matching system does it's best to keep them apart, are one answer; a way to opt out of PvP (or a system that requires players to opt in in order to engage in PvP) is another one that is particularly useful for games that also have a PvE element. This kind of system to prevent pros from slaughtering everyone else allows the game to reach a much wider audience without requiring the game being dumbed down.

Also: PvP is not the only source of challenge. There are players out there that like a good challenge but dislike either PvP as a whole, or else dislike specific kinds of PvP. Those players can still have a quite competitive drive, can work to better themselves and achieve great skill, even if they limit their PvP engagement or avoid it altogether. The amount of PvE-focused challenging games out there - which, BTW, includes every challenging single player game - is ample proof that it's possible to challenge players quite adequately using just PvE.

Besides, why should competitiveness, a desire to be the best, even factor in who is allowed to play? Many people play games to wind off, to relax, and aren't really interested in putting great effort into the game or in competing with anyone else, and I do believe SotA is being designed to also be fun to those players.

 

It's not just that. If you want a game with all killers, don't play an MMO. Play LoL.

An MMO only works with all kinds of players. People have vastly different goals vastly different skills.

 

How is PVP going to work in terms of this whole dual-scale map? I really do NOT like the idea of a world map where you zone into areas as it kills the idea of an open, sandbox world and makes it seem like a hub-based console style RPG.

So if there ARE PKs or flagged PVP targets, what's to stop them from camping the entrance of these instanced areas on the world map and killing people as they load into the area? If I walk around the world map, zone into some cool-looking ruins, and before I can even finish my loadscreen, I am getting 12 Corp Pors thrown at me, it seems like that's pretty unfair. On the same token, assuming there's some kind of invulnerability timer or something, it also doesn't seem that fair that at the first hint of danger I can just zone right back out. This seems like it'll be an abusable tactic for players who are losing in a fight with another player or monster.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE reconsider the idea of the world map and make an open explorable world. People are going to abuse the world map, instantly travel around and lose a lot of potential exploration, and it's going to shrink the feel of the size of the world. I want to place a house out in the wilderness or on some abandoned island, or just run across other players/monsters in the woods without having to zone into a bunch of little areas all the time. It just won't feel like a world, just a series of small rooms to zone into.

 

@Flashburn Thank you for so perfectly explaining why all PvP games FAIL to make a massive impact on any sort of gaming stage.

The sociopathic, aggressive, cruel, nasty, abusive tendencies of the hardcore few ruin the experience for so many people that, ultimately, their own inability to self-regulate the cowardly need to dominate and abuse those labeled as "sheep" causes the game to fail. PvPers are fine - but like anything else, the extremist few that take it too far ruin any potential for truly ground-breaking avenues when tied to any sort of revenue system.

It's because of YOU, Flashburn, that we'll be able to enjoy a PvP-free game. So, from the bottom of my heart, THANK YOU!

 

BTW, @Abydos:
"""RPG = FREEDOM
Sandbox = FREEDOM

How can u think ur in a RPG if poeple cant attaque u ?? heuuuu ?.."""

One of the central tenets of "real", pen and paper RPGs is that there is no competition. The players and the GM/DM (or whatever the system calls him) work together to create a single story and, ideally, have a lot of fun in the process.

The core aspect of RPGs is, as the name implies, the roleplay; the creation of shared stories between the participants, where each is roleplaying one or more characters, to make something that is greater than the sum of the parts. Everything else is optional; levels, stats, even combat systems. Those are merely useful systems to make it easier to roleplay a character that might have different strengths and weaknesses than the player himself.

As for freedom, it's there to allow each player to make the game more fun to everyone else in unexpected ways. It's not to be interpreted as carte blanche to make the game frustrating for other players.

In other words, other people being able to attack me against my wishes is not quite related to a game being an RPG. Even more, being allowed to arbitrarily ruin other player's fun is as distant to what makes an RPG as it comes.

 

Hear hear Strider

 

How is being attacked by player characters any different than a D&D randon encounter?

 

I would like to see open world PvP.

Starting area's for new players wouldn't hurt.

 

@Orwain:

The differences I can readily think of are:


1. A random encounter is basically PvE, even though the opponents are being controlled by a person (the DM).

2. The DM's objective isn't to defeat the players, but to make the game engaging and fun (at least if the DM is a good one). Defeat may happen, of course, but it isn't uncommon to find the DM "breaking the rules" to make sure the encounter is fair and balanced, not too easy nor too hard.

On the other hand, when being attacked by another player character in a computer game, the other player's objective is usually to win, and often to the point the player is willing to use every resource he can in order to not give the attacked player any chance to fight back (which is a legitimate attitude, BTW, as long as the player is respecting the game's rules; it's just that, as often as not, it's plain not fun for the attacked player). And I'm not even talking about griefing here (which I define as intentionally trying to prevent others from having fun), but merely unwanted PvP.

3. While it's hard to classify a random encounter as consensual or non-consensual, it seems to be closer to the consensual end of the scale for the same reason I consider PvP to be always fully consensual in any game without PvE: it's the reason, or a good part of the reason, the players are actually playing. After all, in a pen and paper RPG, the DM always has the option to remove random encounters if the players effectively dislike them. Your mileage may vary, though, depending on the players and the DM.

In any computer game with both PvP and PvE components, though, it's not so clear cut. Players might be drawn by just one aspect of the game - the questing, the history, collecting rare items, crafting, organizing guilds, etc - and not actually like other aspects of the game. When those aspects don't impose on the player there is no problem; the fact a game has raids doesn't mean I'm forced to do them, for example. Non-consensual PvP tends to impose on all players, whether they want to participate or not, though.



I have nothing against open PvP as long as everyone involved has effectively consented with it, without undue pressure (pressure that can happen, for example, by preventing PvErs from experiencing part of the PvE content). As soon as players can be involved against their wishes, though, I'm ardently against it.

 

"I have nothing against open PvP as long as everyone involved has effectively consented with it"

I agree, which is why I have proposed a separate Siege Perilous mode, but in the dev chats, they always seem to duck the question when I ask if they have considered it. That makes me think they have, and they rejected it, since they seem to not even want to discuss it.

 

The fact is all of this has huge implications.

If gear drops in PvP, that had a huge effect on how items are viewed and how gear progression works. It would be very, very different from nearly any post WoW MMO. Most game bind items to you so they're not even tradeable, let alone dropable. I'm a huge fan of the "no gear progression" mentality and it seems to fit with what UO people have come to expect. But it really is totally unlike the other games out there.

They were clearly trying to duck out of the flagging rules where two people meet and their calculating their advantage as to whether to attack and what nearby NPCs (or PCs) do to intervene. Couple this with the fact that people actually want PK to be risky but potentially profitable.

If they do the guild style PvP (e.g. the $2 million goal) there's no getting around the fact that they now have an MMO on their hands. All of the difficult problems they were hoping to avoid synching dozens of machines with very low latency are right back in play.

 

@PrimeRib:

AFAIK, most of the current breed of MMOs make gear so important because the devs can't think of other ways to keep the players playing apart from the eternal gearing hamster wheel. Reduce the importance of gear and new ways to make players want to play need to be provided.

There's few things I would like as much as lowering the gear importance, BTW; most MMOs have taken that to a truly ridiculous level. As far as I'm concerned it's the pen and paper RPGs, as well as a few MMOs like UO and EVE, that have the gear importance at a "sane" level.

 

I dont wanna be a gear whit a Name, but a AVATAR whit a Name.

 

Gear should just age. Lose magical abilities and end up a bag of rust. Problem solved

 

Open pvp is the way to go for this game definitely, if you don't want to go into pvp stay in the Friends/Solo only allowable zones.

I sincerely hope around 80% of the content is open pvp. Without it it just turns into grinding with 0 risk, and some pvp if you happen to be in the mood for some lolz. There needs to be risks for rewards, and consequence for actions. This should be coupled with full loot to keep the economy alive or irreparable damage to your equipped gear and full loot of your inventory.

 

I am a veteran of Ultima Online since 1998. I began playing a few months prior to the release of The Second Age. I witnessed the beauty and excitement that Ultima Online had to offer. I also was a victim to EA's abuse of the game with the release of Age of Shadows. Ultima Online simulated a real world and developed strong communities. People banded together to fight off PK's who would constantly raid popular locations of the map. This added an element to the game which has not been seen since in my opinion and I would be tragically disappointed if SoTA did not replicate this feeling in every way possible. This may not be Ultima Online, but it quite clearly is being created in its image.

Player Versus Player (pvp) combat is absolutely essential in Shroud of the Avatar. I spent several Summers while I grew up playing Ultima Online. One of the most powerful elements of the game was the constant fear lurking behind the next corner. You never knew what to expect, you could be deep in a dungeon somewhere and in the thick of combat with a balron when suddenly a red name appears at the top of your screen. The rush of adrenaline this created has not been paralleled since in any MMORPG. This is a fact.

The mechanics for pvp in World of Warcraft where it is required that you raise your pvp "flag" to participate is a disgrace. PvP should not be required to be consensual, this is ridiculous. Did a bandit ask for the train conductor's permission prior to hijacking a train and robbing it of it's goods? No, people were required to think and take precautions to ensure they were well protected. This adds entire layers to a game.

There needs to be a consequence to death and the ideal is full loot. This provides a purpose to pvp and increases the excitement ten fold. Players eager to make large scores will get excitement by slaying a rich adventurer. The adventurer himself, possibly unbeknownst to him at the time due to other hand holding MMORGPS experiences excitement too due to the fear of death with so many valuable goods. SoTA should not hold a player's hand, this is an online MMORPG similar to Dungeons and Dragons (where anything is possible). A player who is interested in an amusement park or a carnival ride should feel free to go to their nearest Six Flags.

I know there are many people who are not capable of being proficient in player versus player combat, however their lack of ability in this area should not alienate an entire group of players. I am not entirely sure whether SoTA will have multiple servers or all of the aspects of the architecture, but if there are there should be servers with pvp INCLUDING full loot and servers without it. This creates a place for both groups of players. There is a large enough group of players who are interested in pvp that this server will flourish.

 

@Ultima Aficionado

Just to be clear, in WoW unless you're playing on a strictly PvE server, you can kill another play from another faction in any zone that is contested or owned by your faction at any time. The only place someone need to be flagged is in their own main cities or starting areas. I dislike factions because they limit player choice, but they have the simplest rules for flagging and moral consequences for killing. (It's assumed that the other faction is considered evil and kill on sight.)

In a non faction game, killing someone who's not fighting back is likely to set you as some kind of murder. You might even lose an eighth for it.

 

Just to add my $0.02 worth...
I'm not much of a PvPer, I took my risks in UO, I occasionally participated in WoW, in UO there was a sense of risk and reward, in WoW the most I'd lose was a few gold due to repairs.

My concept of how an ideal PvP system should work is similar to every other system to be designed, risk vs reward.

Example...
So someone wants to be blacksmith and repair some armor, and lets say there's a chance that the armor gets destroyed, and that the worse the condition of the armor needing repair, the greater the risk of destroying it is. So an adventurer doesn't keep his armor in well repair and in the process of repairing it, it goes poof.
The same concept works for PvP, if there is to be open PvP make it so that in certain areas (cities, towns, "safe" other areas patrolled by guards) it's still possible to PK but make the risk(punishment) outweigh the reward. If they get caught they go poof and have to live as a chicken for 36 hours or so...(ok maybe not the best of example...)

Sure you'll get some people who will attempt it to antagonize others, however if the consequences of the act are severe enough it will dissuade all but the most belligerent of fools. And you still end up with the possibility of danger, as no matter the risk there are still some extremely insane people out there.

 

PrimeRib,

Now that I think of it Ultima Online did have a flagging mechanism. A person who committed a crime deemed to be unacceptable such as stealing or attacking another player rendered him shaded grey when moused over in war mode. A person who attacked a grey player would not be penalized in any way for doing so. However, people were able to manipulate the system to turn people grey against their wishes.

The only form of PvP I would enjoy in SoTA is open world PvP, but I acknowledge there are concerns for many players regarding this type of PvP. As such, there should be safe areas similar to Ultima Online such as towns where players cannot be attacked without guards instantly appearing. Needless to say, it was almost always futile to attack someone within the vicinity of town. I would be happy to see a similar system in SoTA.

There should be severe consequences for a person who is considered a murderer. The player should not be permitted to enter towns without being attacked on sight. The way to balance such a system could be to create harsher penalties for murderers than UO. The penalties could be different, but they should not be so great that murderers cannot enjoy the game. There would be quite a bit of work necessary to balance such a system.

A method for eliminating the possibility of PK's targeting low level miners could be to create mines within a town zone; where a would-be PK is killed upon attacking a miner. In high resource areas the reward is too great and PK's should be able to attack miners there, who presumably are not newbies and belong to guilds who can help a miner defend himself. One of the problems and great things about UO was that the system did not facilitate anti-pk's or reward them really. These were just ordinary people who were opposed to actions take by evil murderers. This created a fun dynamic between the two groups, but there were very few anti-pk's.

I am a strong proponent for consequences for PK's that are not so great they destroy the pleasure of the game for them. The game could adjust its consequences in some way based on an individual's skills or some other factor. Anyway, I am glad to have something created by the same man who created Ultima; which comprised a big part of my youth. I am of the mind that PvP and PK's will be handled in a unique and innovative way. I am really looking forward to this game, lets just hope it is the oasis many long time Ultima fans are looking for.

 

Good points Geden, I always hated PK's that repeatedly res-killed, which coincidentally was a big problem when factions came out. The act of "griefing" should not really be permitted, but realistic consequences and some sort of "prize" to be obtained via full loot should make the consequences worthwhile for a PK. PK's in no way should be the majority of the player base. Players who have played for a long time and have built their skills to satisfactory levels should be the only ones able to participate in that type of behavior.

I think many players simply gave up without giving an open world a real shot. This is unfortunate because it really is a lot of fun.