Bracketed non-consensual PvP in open world - a compromise

I know that the devs have spoken and stated that "Rest assured that no matter what we do, players who wish to avoid PVP will never be forced to participate in PVP nor will there ever be non-consensual PVP" but some of the best times I've EVER had in an MMO were because of the random unpredictable nature of non-consensual PvP. In Ultima Online I remember my Felucca only playtime as the best ever, dread days for example... I haven't felt that much thrill from a game in 15+ years now. In DAoC all RvR was non-consensual, including the amazing relic runs and keep battles.

I agree that if I am out mining it stinks to have a player killer run up and kill me. The fact that I can do the same to others is no consolation when it's happening to you so I propose a compromise.

Compromise: A system in which towns are safe and areas outside town are also safe UNLESS your fight skill is within range of the skills of an opposing player. A "fair fight" so to speak. Player killers would no longer be able to kill the crafters and would find no glory in killing the weak but would need to prove their metal when around others of similar skill, if either party chooses to fight. The "safety barrier" would be removed and players would know that they are similar in skill points and kill record. There would be some honor involved in hanging around with players of equal caliber, even if no fighting occurs.

I 100% believe that the excitement of this type of game is enhanced when a healthy sense of awareness and fear are present when out in the open world. Players are forced to remain vigilant, to pay attention to their surroundings and to make friends as there is safety in numbers. Besides, how boring will the tales be at the local pub if all of the victory stories are of fights filled with restrictions and rules ?? Besides, death means nothing in a virtual world, you get to learn from the experience and improve your skills so that you can rise to the challenge, eventually. Now that's fun!

 

For me your suggestion is no fun, dear OverLord. Following the story is the reason why I play SotA and I don't like to be disturbed when I'm doing this. I would prefer to do what I like and not what other people like to do with me. And I would like to be a mighty character too. And - maybe - I will play the game with some friends, so the single player mode is no escape from avoiding non-consensual PvP. Therefore PvP should stay consensual.

 

SotA has permanently shrink-wrapped pvp, got it, my apologies. I pledged yesterday and haven't seen this fabled anti-pvp thread as of yet. I did read the dev posts, which I quoted, and hoped that discussion was not closed, or closed minded. MY SUGGESTION WAS VALID, yet apparently NO suggestion can be heard anymore so I'm off to read this thread, and hope it convinces me that my REAL, EARNED and LIVED experiences are wrong.

I just remembered my time roleplaying a pirate on a ship north of Minoc in UO, if you haven't experienced that it's a shame. I also roleplayed a pirate hunter, virtual worlds let you roleplay both sides... until one side closes the discussion. Hopefully some of the best items in game become gated inside PvP areas and dungeons, otherwise SotA is ignoring a large part of the potential community. MANY games already exist where PvP is only available with strict rules, you don't hear about those being known as "the best at PvP". DAoC was non-consensual, if you stepped out into the frontier you were fair game, and it is widely known as having gotten RvR right! Ask anyone who remembers the frontier before Emain was made more friendly. Ask anyone who enjoyed Bucs Den in UO, unscripted PvP definitely has a potential audience!

I didn't know PvP was such a touchy subject in SotA. My personal opinion however is hopefully known now, I do not enjoy reward as much without risk from an online virtual game.

P.S. Ever wonder why people love movies like Pirates of the Caribbean? They love danger and conflict more than they think!

 

Please note the pronouns used: I, me, my, my, and I.

Your experiences and views are your own, and insofar as they are your own, they are valid. Furthermore, you have a right to express them as your own.

However, do not commit the fallacy of solipsism, which is to say: do not assume that your experiences and views comport with, or map onto, the views of others. What you enjoy, others may not. What you do not enjoy, others may. And they, like you, have their own experiences and views that are valid to the same extent that your own experiences and views are. Equally, they too have a right to express their views as their own. And neither they, nor you, possesses the right to shut or shout down the other.

It's one thing to enjoy watching feats of derring do on the big screen (or to read about feats of heroism in books and comics). It's quite another to enjoy engaging in repeated combat against human opponents, either live and in person (in, say, a dojo) or in a game whilst playing online or over a LAN. Do not assume that enjoyment of the former maps, 100%, onto enjoyment of the latter.

 

I apologize, it was not my intent to stir trouble. I felt that the first response to my post was quite rude and so my response to that was probably out of line. I see that the response has now been moderated/removed as well so case closed, hopefully. I'm sorry.

 

There has certainly been a lot of discussion about Open PVP on the forums, and a number of proposals have been put forward as to how it might be implemented in-game.

Your suggestion -- using player stats to determine "on the fly" whether a player can be engaged by another -- is not one I can recall seeing before now. As such, I'm game to allow the discussion to continue for the time being.

 

People should be free to have discussions and debates about what's fun and what's not fun, and, based on their own experiences, argue that people (in general) will have less fun if a game design choice is made, and will have more fun if another choice is made. If others disagree that something is fun, that can be easily pointed out and discussed, too.

There was nothing wrong with OverLord's original post, excepting that it would have helped start the conversation better if he'd read previous threads on this.

 

The best solution would be to create an open pvp server. Portalarium won't do this because their revenue model depends on monetizing persistent housing.

Aside from that, you're never going to get hardcore pvp. This is more arcade style with no consequences.

 

dont like your suggestion everyone in pvp world should be able to get murdered , especially crafters to prevent botting or it wont be a functional player driven economy.

i can just say serparate pvp and pve only players in different instances so pvp players are not forced to play with pve players. i would not like that we get forced there rules. if it will be like this and 1 item random loot system get implemented, i just wont buy or could recommend this game it to my friends because it differs from ultima in every single aspect which made ultima online great for me.

defenetly no spiritual succesoor from ultima !!!

-speels with cooldowns , instead of precharged spells which are only limited by your mana (more like in wow then ultima)
-tab target
no open world pvp at least till now in the alpha
no full loot
no player driven economy
forced quests ?? not sure about that instead of ultima onlines system where you had only roleplaying and pve/pvp events

 

As I noted above, albeit not to you personally, what made UO great for you may not necessarily be the same thing that made it great for someone else. Indeed, what made it great for you might be what made it unbearable for them (and vice versa). Don't presume to speak for all players in all situations; you do not.

Well, that's debatable. Which Ultima? There were something like 14 single-player Ultimas, after all, in addition to UO, U4E, LoU, and a bunch of other games that never saw the light of day.

Okay, here I agree with you to some degree; I would prefer a spell system that is more classically Ultima in nature (that is: spellbook & reagents, a la U6 or U7).

This is kind of a spurious objection, seeing as how "tab target" is a relatively new control convention in games, whereas the Ultima games pretty much all predate its becoming mainstream. Just because it wasn't a feature in any Ultima doesn't mean it necessarily conflicts with what an Ultima is; I'll note that WASD movement controls were only ever used in Ultima 9, for example.

While it's somewhat pedantic to observe that open world PVP was only ever a feature of UO (it wasn't in the 14ish single-player Ultimas, nor was it part of LoU or U4E), it's worth noting that even UO didn't retain truly open, unrestricted PVP across all its servers for all that long. And one notes too that UO saw its best sales and highest subscriberships after the Tram/Fel split and its attendant separation of PvE and PvP.

So how core of a feature is this to an Ultima, really?

Now, if you want to talk about every NPC in the game being available as a target...and how SotA doesn't do this...well, then I am quite willing to agree with you.

It's way too early to know this with certainty.

Except that this isn't only an online game in the vein of UO. It is as much a spiritual successor to Ultima 4 and Ultima 7 (and the rest of that series, to varying degrees) as it is a successor to UO. It is game with a set plot and narrative, a story to explore and an end point to reach. So the inclusion of formal quests in the game makes sense, since these are what one would expect to see in a single-player RPG, and so need to be included to facilitate that aspect of SotA.[/quote]

 

I'd be down for a 'Sota Perilous' server
All PvP Flagged, whilst outside of town, unless in a 'Bucs Den' type place.
You could appease the Pro-PvP and the Pro-PvE.

No 'butt-hurt' if you willingly consent at character creation.

 

Once again I just disagree with a lot of what you say here.

I do agree with spells(not speels)
Don't care about the open world pvp, like the current idea since I don't have to deal with people unless I choose too, PVP is also made more frustrating when you play with a lot of non english speaking people where you can't actually have a conversation with them...they move in kill and move on...not fun.
Full loot? brings more problems then it solves...makes all items simple. Simplifies the game.
Player driven economy? remains to be seen to soon.
Forced quests? Ultima online had nothing...at all...it was up to the players to do something if they wanted...didn't like it at all...I found the only thing it shared with the ultima's I loved was names of cities and some minimalistic mechanics....virtue wheel? say what?
Look ultima 7(I know you have said no one has ever played it, but trust me they have.) it had quests and they were very fluid in the fact they weren't a WoW style pop up window where you look at requirements and rewards. I think if you haven't played ultima 7 you should give it a go to see what so many of us like.

 

Yea, though I think the original UO design was in the spirit of the single player games. The single player games had a lot of freedom of action, and being able to kill any player was just an extension of the idea of being able to kill any NPCs.

Some things just didn't work out as designed. Including a lot of other things in the original UO plans, including the food-chain ecology, etc., etc.

 

The problem with 2 different servers is you have 2 different demands of game play. They might as well have 2 different dev teams and 2 different titles with 2 different rule sets.

Or they could go the route they are going by making a game that is not tied down by some preconceptions on how things should be done.