PvP should never hinder or disencourage exploring

@redfish:

<blockquote>To me, the ideal is to make PvP work so its no more of a nuisance to the player than monsters and beasts or brigands that may get in your way. If that were possible, then shutting off PvP in these areas would be as silly as shutting off monsters in the game.</blockquote>

I see this as the opposite: if the NPCs are just as hard and annoying as PvP, then there is absolutely no reason, no excuse, to require players to engage in PvP.

Making PvE as hard as PvP means there is no challenge imbalance, no progression imbalance, in allowing the players to completely opt out of PvP while retaining the same rewards and access to all content. In that situation all excuses for giving any kind of increased reward, access, whatever, to PvP players becomes invalid.

Which is exactly what I want: make PvE as hard as PvP. I want a challenge, it's just the non-consensual PvP that I won't accept in any shape or way.

 

Exactly, the game should be able to run exactly the same using co-op as it can PVP. If it CANT then the designers have failed

 

@Riot:

You seem to fail to grasp the concept that lack of safety can be provided both by PvP and PvE.

I haven't seen any PvE player asking for easy mode yet; I haven't seen any PvE player asking for PvE versions of the map to not have roving enemies, random encounters, or other ways to provide random PvE risk. What they are asking to not be subject to PvP, which is a completely different thing.

Ways to compensate, and increase the PvE risk for those that refuse to engage in PvP, can be developed. An easy one is to increase the PvE difficulty of any instance that only has PvE players, without increasing the rewards, to make up for any decrease in risk from not accepting PvP - but that should be tuned; the PvP risk has to be the effective one, taking into account not only encounters with good, or more numerous, PvP players, but also the encounters with PvP players that aren't actually good, or those where you outnumber the opponent and so don't offer any challenge.

 

@SilentStrider,

Why does it have to end up being hard and annoying, though?

My focus on this subject is on balancing the game to prevent players from getting overpowered against other players, making there less of an incentive to just do random attacks on players by forcing them to role-play, and on offering players ways to protect themselves from attacks or other ways for the game to protect players like guards patrolling roads.

So my ideal involves keeping the freedom in but finding ways to reduce the nuisance.

 

if the game is designed well there actually should be no need for PVP to get the most out of the game, the only "need" for PVP would be griefing inexperienced players to steal there stuff which supposedly was going to be stopped. If the difficulty is there (in fact Chris i believe or maybe B said the difficulty isn't making monsters hard to kill, its making them vulnerable) and the AI and Design is good so they don't do stupid things like get stuck in a wall, then you shouldn't ever NEED PVP to get a challange

 

Silent, I am not the one who doesn't understand that danger won't be present with PVE, it's coming from others in this thread. I'm saying that there will be plenty of stuff to do for strictly PVE players, but there should be certain areas with high rewards that encourage player interaction (for better or worse). Do I think it should be totally equal? Nah, probably not. BUT, that means there has to be significant risk for PKs/PVPers to counterbalance.

The point is it's all about balance like I've been saying, NOT being spoonfed rewards. You need to encourage reluctant players to train, think, and eventually participate in fun PVP (not unbalanced zerg/surprise fests like UO boiled down to a lot of times). The reality is that most of the time, PVE content/endgame gets figured out and farmed and it hurts the economy. The player-element will keep things a little fresher and the economy a little more balanced.

 

It seems people are mixing two concepts.

1) There's a game and story to play through. PvP won't "ruin" this for anyone. You can play the whole story. Go anywhere you're supposed to be able to go. There may be area in the world which are dynamic such as NPC x moves into a different location or gives a different quest based on other things happening in the world.

2) Once the story is done, the game basically gets handed over to the players. The general setting is there but the plot more or less in the hands of player controlled factions. These players don't have to make the game "fair" any more. In fact, we all hope they don't. That will encourage the nearby locals to rise up and throw them out of their castles. Once the game has progresses this point changing your play more or changing your PvP flag does not change who owns a castle (unless you're completely off line). If they have a high tax rate, or they make holding magic reagents punishable by death, you need to live with it or get a group together to toss them out.

 

Because they offer every thing in SPO; you get get your wish. Not even WoW can be explored 100% without PVP so why would a real PVP game even consider it? Oh! But they did, it's called SPO.

I'm sure you will also be able to explore as a ghost. You could even sneak and hide and run around avoiding PVP.

As far as not having certain materials..Who Cares? why would anyone want to collect everything in the game by themselves? It's an economy not an eco system of do it your selfers.

Become good at something and then trade goods with other players. You don't have to join PVP or explore every hex in the world to fully enjoy the game. Find your place in the world and enjoy being PART! of it.

 

This was never marketed as a full "real" pvp game Acrylic. People want to be able to play online with whoever they want and that is the issue. They didn't sign on to amuse people that wan't to ruin their day. And that's where it gets murky. There really is no middle ground for you guys though, you want it all, full open pvp with full loot...nothing inbetween due to realism....but then the realism shouldn't count towards punishments...

 

I don't care if there's full loot at all. Perfectly happy if there's no loot or reward for killing anyone, ever. The only reason I'd want any death penalty is so that people can't keep tapping respawn and endlessly zerging. This can be solved in a dozen ways. Any rewards for killing can be objective based. You lead the bandits to raid the caravan, you get rewarded. It simply doesn't matter to me how rewards work for accomplishing objectives. A soldier doesn't fight battle to loot his enemies, he's looking at the bigger picture (or following someone else who is).

I don't want anyone forced into a button mashing contest. If you don't want to fight another player, don't. You should be able to complete the single player part of the game without this. You should have a great deal of freedom to make the game enjoyable without this.

But castle and territory control needs to mean something. People aren't fighting to prove their button mashing skills. The are fighting for economics and control. Opting out of the PvP, lets you own out of the button mashing. But it doesn't let you opt out of the economics or control. It's still there. Ultimately it will be a player controlling a castle controlling a territory controlling resources and a player who takes it away from them. You're welcome to support either side however you please.

 

@Isaiah - " However in real life there are certain gettos and bad areas that it doesn?t matter who you?re with YOUR IN DANGER IF YOU GO THERE. It?s true to life."

There are certain elements of life that I don't describe as fun, going into ghetto areas and being mugged is one of them. I don't want any game to replicate those elements, no matter how realistic it supposedly makes it. I'm not interested in a simulation of life as we know it. I want to play a *game*. I want to have *fun*.

 

@rune_74 There have been posts about punishments for murder, supported by people who want PvP. RG has mentioned that he wants new players protected from PKs and griefing, and I haven't seen anyone disagree with that. I think what most PvP players don't want is a troll running around with a PvE force field on.

@Sirinan Not everyone has the same idea of fun, otherwise Grand Theft Auto would never have been made.

I have faith that the developers will make a game that appeals to many different styles of play. Just because I'm probably not going to be a blacksmith, doesn't mean that I won't be able to get a sword. An online game like this will be almost impossible to do 100% of everything, I don't know why that should be a goal.

 

@Rune

I want everyone to be good at something and then contribute to society. If there is a special resource deep in an ancient shrine that only the truest of true Paladins will ever have access to. Great! I'm sure I will find something of equal value to trade.

Yes I want a real world where everyone's role is important to them and to society in general.

Believe it or not I will be a fisher/bard/painter character and only PVP if attacked. Bards suck at PVP! I will sell fish and maybe hunt monsters once in a while for gold.

Anything else I need I will get from society. Otherwise how would other player's roles have any meaning to me other than to listen to fishing stories?

I'm willing to be selfless for the good of this game.

 

@Caledor - Sure, everyone has their idea of fun. There's plenty of fun to be had in GTA, and I'm not sure why you raise that in comparison to being mugged. I'm afraid I can't see any context where being mugged could be fun, in real life or in a game.

As for being impossible to do 100% of everything, why *shouldn't* it be possible? I will surely explore as much of the game as I possibly can, and I won't be happy if important areas are blocked off because "Guild X controls this area - trespassers will be ganked." That's true to real life as well - important resources get hogged by powerful people - but I don't particularly like that aspect of real life either. And again, I don't see why I should be subjected to unfun stuff in a game just because it's supposedly realistic.

 

Full open PvP can be a lot of fun, but, it takes a certain style and mindset to play in this way. This is the type PvP I will always prefer. The following may be a moot point, and I feel lousy for bringing it up, however it should be one that is kept in some form of consideration:

-Now here is my concern, I know PKers or rather a sub section of this group will treat the None PvPers like a steady flow of "victims" or "sheep" or whatever other term would apply, if, "opt out" players are Forced into the PKer world by stunting regular progression or severely limiting their exploring options. With some exceptions, Forced PvP should be limited.

-"Cross over" players will most likely happen naturally when not Forced, it may take time, but is there any reason why it should be pushed and rushed?

 

@Xandra7
"-?Cross over? players will most likely happen naturally when not Forced, it may take time, but is there any reason why it should be pushed and rushed? "



Lords who fail to do this, who hesitate in their ruthlessness, find that their problems mushroom over time and they are forced to commit wicked deeds throughout their reign. Thus they continuously mar their reputations and alienate their people. --Machiavelli

 

@Acrylic300
-A prudent prince should have a select group of wise counselors to advise him truthfully on matters all the time. All their opinions should be taken into account. Ultimately, the decision should be made by the counselors and carried out absolutely. If a prince is given to changing his mind, his reputation will suffer. A prince must have the wisdom to recognize good advice from bad. -Machiavelli

 

Let me first say that I am a huge proponent of PvP. I enjoyed the days of early Ultima Online more than anything. I would love completely open, unrestricted PvP. I think a game like that would perform well, probably even better than the market of 1997 considering the increased number of gamers today. But, if there is a way SoTA can be even better and provide some more features for safety to those players who absolutely detest open PvP then so be it.

I really don't think we're going to have a watered-down PvP system. There are innovative ways to satisfy both groups. The slider feature is something that will give PvP players an option to be full PvP, all the time. This also applies to massive guild wars where PvP can take place anywhere on the continent. So, we'll get to relive some of the glory days of Ultima Online I'm sure.

 

@PrimeRib:

Castle and territory control can be meaningful without simply preventing PvE-only players from entering.

As one example, suppose whenever a player group control a castle or other such map space, guard NPCs spawn in the corresponding PvE version of the map. Those guards would be friendly to the controlling player group, and any other group allowed (through in-game tools) to enter that space, but would challenge and fight other players. What's more, they could scale with the number of PvE players, so no matter how many players group together to go take the "rewards" of the claimed spot, it's always challenging.

This would make controlling the area rewarding (the players that control that spot would be the only ones capable of exploring the "rewards" in relative peace, while everyone else is constantly harassed in PvE or PvP) without preventing PvE players from fighting their way through the map and seeing the content.

 

@Silent Strider
OK. But the point is that it's virtually impossible to come out ahead without removing the castle.

Again, I don't care about the button mashing aspect of PvP at all. It's the strategy that matters. If I just wanted to shoot my friends, I wouldn't play an RPG. Only an RPG can provide the kinds of strategic conquest linked to character development.