The PvP Enigma

Over the past few week (via the Forums and Chat), I have been following the debate involving PvP, PKing and Full Looting. My Views are intended to help guide the community and developers.

<strong>PvP</strong> : Conflict between 2 or more human participants. ( An early rendition of PvP was the game PONG)

<strong>PKing</strong> : Act of killing another live player in a non-consensual manner. Its a subdivision of PvP.

<strong>Full Looting</strong> : The act of taking all the items from the corpse of a human controlled avatar.

<em>Why should PvP exist in SotA?</em>

<strong>- Content</strong> : Its another play style for gamers to participate in.

<strong>- Diversity</strong> : Ai / Npc's will always be limited in their ability to challenge you. Live players are not as predictable.

<strong>- Competition</strong> : Introduces goals and rewards for the player base to pursue. Playing against other players is usually preferred in game, if available as an option.

<em>PvP will keep many people playing long after they have "beat the game" or exhausted their PvE goals. There are many variations of PvP in games. Its best if SotA implements multiple ways to participate in PvP to avoid stagnant gameplay.</em>

<strong>Examples</strong>: (Mechanics of implementation will not be discussed at this time)

<strong>- Arenas</strong> : Placed in habitable areas so 2 combatants can enter to compete.

<strong>- Instanced</strong> : Groups of 4 or 8 can enter as teams - Varying Maps and Games - Capture the Flag, Death Matches, King of the Hill, Steal the Bacon etc.

<strong>- Quests</strong> : As RG has outlined already, taking a quest that flags you for PvP. Whether its a delivery quest or in search of an item for retrieval in a PvP zone.

<strong>- Zona</strong>l : Certain areas, when entered would flag you for PvP. These areas could offer varying rewards but not game breaking (Perhaps nodes that allow you to extract resources more efficiently)

<strong>- Guild Waring</strong> : More direct and controlled (Perhaps with the option to flag select members of a guild for PvP, so the entire guild isn't flagged PvP - removing the all or nothing - and not restricting guilds to PvP only or PvE only)

<strong>- Faction Based</strong> : 2 or more sides (Chaos / Order) Always susceptible to the "Numbers game". One side could dominate by becoming an overwhelming force.

<strong>- Open World</strong> : Non-Consensual (PKing) With or without safe havens (towns). Very difficult to implement without griefing occurring. Can discourage part of the player base and divide the community.

<strong>- Switch</strong> : You are able to flag yourself open for PvP against like people.? Open World Consensual.

<em>** Most of these are examples of consensual PvP models but offer a great deal of content for PvPers to parake in, without impacting the game play of those who wish to have nothing to do with PvP. It may even get some PVEers to try them as well.</em>

<strong><em>Arguments FOR Non-Consensual Open World PvP:</em></strong>

<strong>- Excitement (FOR SOME)</strong> : When you encounter another live player in the world (while gathering resources, hunting or exploring), you will have to ask yourself, "is this friend or foe?" Activates fight-or-flight response.

<strong>- Realism</strong> : The element of free reign without restrictions is attractive to some.

<strong>- Anti-Pk Options</strong> : Role Playing, Formations of Guilds/Factions to counter PKers (Content)

<em><strong>Arguments Against Non-Consensual Open World PvP:</strong></em>

<strong>- Griefing</strong>

<strong>- Unfair</strong> : Most Attackers only initiate PVP if they are superior in gear or numbers.

<strong>- Interference</strong> : Disrupting players who just want to craft, fish, explore or Role Play.

<strong>- Divisions</strong> : More likely to create a rift between PVEers and PVPers.

<strong>- History</strong> : Non-consensual PVP games have never done extremely well in MMOPRGs.

<em><strong>Full Looting of Player Corpses</strong></em>

This is heavily dependent on the gear our characters will carry. If the items are basic, GM weapons and armor etc, then its more viable because they can be easily replaced.

Now in one live chat I asked RG if gear will be moddable. He answered that it would and he wanted your items to grow with you as you progressed in the game. If thats the case, how can you have full looting on items its taken players weeks to build or collect?

For full looting to work, the items must be very basic and easily replaceable. Otherwise nobody will be PvPing.

Instead of taking your foe's gear, I'm sure we could institute a different method for achieving the "spoils of war".
Perhaps some token to trade in for special PvP exclusive skins for your gear or titles / achievements. Maybe some random amount of gold.

How about the economy ? How will crafters stay in business without loss or looting of gear?

I am confident that the developers will implement methods to keep crafters viable/profitable without looting.

-repairs
-making mods for gear
-creating skins for weapons and armor
-engraving items

Another option, which i'm not sure could be implemented, is to have a separate tab in your avatar for your PvP gear. So one profile would have your PvE gear displayed (protected from looting) and the 2nd profile would have your PvP gear (open to looting)

So if you flagged for PvP from some method or entered a PvP zone or instance, your gear would switch over to the PvP Set.

This gear would be very simple and only crafted by other players. The stats on the weapons and armor would be capped but linked to the skill of the crafters. (Example: a GM Smith's sword may do 2 pts more damage than a Master Smith's at 90 skill).

This would create a slight gear gap early on but with a cap in place, it would make for a very fair and balanced system later. The top crafters would be sought after early in the game adding to their prestige.

Since it can be looted, it will keep crafters happy and you can smelt the gear down yourself into ingots for a profit.

This is just an example. Depending on the skill set, it may not work well for different combat styles. Mages might drop player crafted robes, staves or leather armor etc.

<strong>CONCLUSION: (hope you lasted this long)</strong>

PvP is at its best when its fair, but its fundamentals are not always compatible in MMO's. Fair PvP is best established within strong limitations.

- Instanced areas, arenas or war zones are used to keep numbers balanced.

- Gear gaps have to be eliminated.

- Consensual PvP helps to insure that those flagging for PvP are either more battle ready or experienced to handle a PvP encounter. (Adds balance and is more fair)

- You want PvP outcomes to be decided via skills and tactics not numbers and gear.

It is extremely difficult to make PvP fair in an MMO. Because of this reason, I feel that we must go the way of Consensual PvP.

If we can put our differences aside, more effort can be shifted towards developing the PvP content. I would like a multitude of ways to partake in PvP (to keep the content fresh) and feel Consensual PvP is better equipped to accomplished this.

I will continue to help in the creation of this World and hope most of you will continue with your ideas and feedback concerning all game issues. Having pledged at the developer level, I would like to continue submitting ideas and feedback, from those with less access, to the developer forums.

Thanks for Reading, Gunga Din

 

I disagree with your terminology a bit, or perhaps you should include an additional category.

- Open World : Non-Consensual (PKing) With or without safe havens (towns). Very difficult to implement without griefing occurring. Can discourage part of the player base and divide the community.

This mode of play, the devs tell us, will not be in SotA if by this you mean PvP against players that do not want to participate in PvP.

The PK style of PvP should better be describe as illegal PvP. Not illegal in that it is an exploit of a game feature, but illegal according to established laws that govern the world, to be described by Richard Garriott and Tracey Hickman. As a member of the KGB, for example, I will be in a guild that will be flagged for open PvP, but that does not mean that attacking me will be legal according to the fictional laws of the land. An unprovoked attack would be a crime, and a death that results from an unprovoked attack would make the attacker a murderer. These crimes would have consequences.

This mode of play is entirely consensual, so there is no problem with griefing, but it is a form of PvP that will tie in with the story of the land we will live in, and opens up role playing avenues for both PKs, Anti-PKs, and even non combatants who wish to recreate the dangerous environment that was common to early UO and to UO Siege Perilous.

 

The "Switch" or "Slider" Would be the Open PvP you are describing. Full Open Consensual.

 

PvP is about gating content. It's really about saying things like a solo player can experience 90% of the game but certain things will require skilled groups and certain other things will require skilled groups to overcome other groups. i.e. there's only one castle xyz in the world, if you want it, get a group to take and defend it.

Every person who buys the game should be able to experience all of the single player content. This is simply bonus, online content that exists to get people forming guilds, playing regularly, getting out of their comfort zones, getting friends to play, etc.

I have no interest in seeing PKing exist in the game. But I acknowledge the value of ambush/skirmish playstyles for solo and small group players. But these should be enemies to both sides with no negative karma associated with it. Guild, faction, whatever...both sides see eachother flagged as enemies.

The concept of full loot makes no sense to me at any level. If people want to have some dual where they bet their armor, fine. But the concept of two knights trying to strip eachother's plate mail off mid battle is just ludicrous.

 

@PrimeRib " But the concept of two knights trying to strip eachother?s plate mail off mid battle is just ludicrous. "

Hitler took people's teeth, eyeglasses, and every thing else his men could lay hands on ... right down to the under garments . I know it's not the Industrial Revolution, but spoils of war make sense. I think it's more ludicrous to think that when someone dies their belongings are magically protected.

Full Loot makes more sense than having German Brew houses IMHO, because Full Loot is as universal as pirates and bandits, both of which are known for killing specifically for loot. While German Brew houses are very culturally biased kind of like the Ninjas the devs said we would never see.

 

There's a rather large different between "sometime in history, someone once stole someone off a corpse" and "we should drive the whole economy off open loot, like UO did."

People in UO PKd because of the loot rules and stopped them because of the loot rules. People avoided PvP because of the loot rules. This was simply a whole dynamic we'd be better off without.

 

The OP is a good one. I disagree with one point, though:

<blockquote>- Competition : Introduces goals and rewards for the player base to pursue. Playing against other players is usually preferred in game, if available as an option.</blockquote>

1. This depends heavily on each individual player. Some players crave for competition, some are indifferent (my own case), some actively avoid competition in games.

2. Even among players that like competing, there's the risk of players leaving the game, or temporarily stopping, if they don' t feel like they will win. Many PvP games have problems with players that just leave the game as soon as they are at a slight disadvantage; in GW2, with it's week long World vs World matches, my own experience is that my server is either moping the floor with it's opponents, in which case there are long queues to get into the PvP; or else it's losing by a wide margin and players don't even bother to show up for the fight.

So, I believe that the competitive aspect should exist for those players that care about it, but never be required.

Apart from that, there are a few bits of information that might be worth remembering:

- The game will have an offline mode, obviously without PvP, but supposedly with all the PvE content intact.

- Even online there will be two game modes - single player online and friend play online - where PvP is either non-existent or completely consensual (a " friend" starting non-consensual PvP can be simply removed from the friends list).

- One of the stated objectives for the game is to get as many players as possible to move from offline play into single player online (and friends play online), from single player online into open play online, and from PvE open play online into the PvP.

To me, at least, this suggests the following circumstances:

- To attract the offline players, single player online should provide players with all, or very nearly all, the offline content. This means, among other things, not restricting solo players from entering parts of the map, no restriction on doing the best PvE content, no restriction on earning the best PvE rewards. Single player online should feel like a complete game, at least as complete as the offline mode, preferably even more complete.

- To get players to move from single player online to open play online the game will need to offer those players a degree of control over their experience: control over going back to single player or friends play, control over when they engage in PvP, etc. Ideally, open play should have no disadvantages over single player online.

- To get players in OPO to engage in PvP, the PvP should be more fun and engaging than frustrating. If PvP "newbies" are immediately put in stressful and frustrating situations they might just give up on the whole PvP aspect of the game, and the attempt to draw new players into PvP will have failed.

- Going in the opposite direction - from PvP to PvE, from open play to single player, from online to offline - is always possible, and actually likely if there is something in the "upper" model that the player actively dislikes. Even if you look at the extremes, a player going from full PvP into offline is just giving up on interacting with other players, and in exchange gains the ability to engage in all PvE activities without interference. If this is actually enticing to players, the game will have failed in one of it's objectives.

 

I also wanted this post to be a introduction to the terminology and concepts behind PvP. Helpful to backers of SotA that may have less experience participating in PvP on a grander scale.

 

<blockquote>The OP is a good one. I disagree with one point, though:
- Competition : Introduces goals and rewards for the player base to pursue. Playing against other players is usually preferred in game, if available as an option.

1. This depends heavily on each individual player. Some players crave for competition, some are indifferent (my own case), some actively avoid competition in games.

2. Even among players that like competing, there?s the risk of players leaving the game, or temporarily stopping, if they don? t feel like they will win. Many PvP games have problems with players that just leave the game as soon as they are at a slight disadvantage; in GW2, with it?s week long World vs World matches, my own experience is that my server is either moping the floor with it?s opponents, in which case there are long queues to get into the PvP; or else it?s losing by a wide margin and players don?t even bother to show up for the fight.</blockquote>

A game requires competition of some sort in order to maintain balance. If we can get everything we want in the single-player world without competition, why bother with the multi-player world? I would say you dislike a lack of consent rather than competition, and who doesn't? A game by definition does not require consent, per se--you could force two players into a "game," as Hitler might, if some people really want to go there--yet players will expect a game to follow certain rules.

The vast majority of PvPers dislike "random" events which disrupt the continuity of the "game," as do crafters, PvErs, basically anyone. The key, I believe, is in finding universal truths. Imagine you are trying to sell your goods online, a form of competition, and a rat gets into your grain stock, or the like. Imagine the same rat appearing randomly in a PvP situation, mutated, magic enhanced, and focused only on you. Neither situation would be favorable to the individual, even if LB employed the same unfavorable RNG rat chance in every form of competition within the world.

My point is PvP should remain simple, yet enjoyable. PKs disrupt that theory. They're third party interlopers. It's more enjoyable, I feel, for people to be able to know what side is which and stand for that side. In my opinion, anything other than special event items or rares should remain with you when you die, and I believe PvP should be consensual only. I do, however, strongly encourage a system in which everyone is able to join a fight.

One of the best ways to encourage people to PvP is to make the fight be about more than the fight itself, something <i>Ultima Online</i> has failed to do. The Factions fiction goes nowhere in game right now, for example, and the leaders are never talked about, addressed, nor do they appear in the game world in any meaningful way. I would hope <i>Shroud</i> would attempt to write strong fiction and keep up with its Factions, if the game will indeed have Factions (and if so, there should only be two sides).

A PK, while his/her acts can be morally judged and subject to penalty--and are, if we look at the <i>Ultima</i> series and <i>Ultima Online</i> especially--is still operating within the game world. LB experienced this dilemma when his avatar was killed in UO, when he tried to stop a thief, et cetera. Therefore--and from what I've read--I doubt LB would support open world, non-consensual, full loot PvP, but I would not refuse or be surprised to see a certain area--like an arena--open to such open PvP. As a global system, however, I feel the system will fail since the economy cannot be mitigated due to single player progress.

In the context of a video game in which the players will want to actively pursue PvP or not pursue PvP, actively pursue PKing, or actively avoid a game world which encourages PKing, I believe full loot is a bad idea, while strong fiction to encourage legit PvP is a great idea. Not all incentives should be based on items.

 

Please leave any suggestions you have for any of the above models.

Isaiah left me a great recommendation on the Moongate Travelers 470 Guild Page (Enjin) about Guild Waring. It has been added above and described below.

He suggested that if guild members wanted to participate in PvP, perhaps we could have the option to flag only those interested and not have to set the entire guild as PvP. This would remove (PvP only or PvE only) restrictions for guilds and allow the guilds to be more open to potential members.

In some games you may start off interested in PvE aspects of a game, but later change your focus to PvP. This option would prevent the loss of members because you could designate them for Guild Waring PvP without impacting the rest of the guild.

 

The problem I have seen in the past with allowing some players to flag for PvP while others in the same group is not: The non-PvPers, if allowed, will heal and cast buffs and do what they can to benefit the PvPers.


One of the big problems in early UO was evil blue characters that would heal murderers while they were murdering people. The "blue healers" were untouchable unless you wanted a murder count, yet they were just as evil as the murderers.

 

@Acrylic 300
That's why I don't expect to have flagging. There's just 100 ways to exploit it.

If a hex loads up, it either loads for PvP or not. If there's no PvP, there's no PvP. If there is, sides have been determined. So everyone is flagged.

Flagging systems just don't work: You can have no PvP. You can have free for all PvP. You can have teams.

 

I have not read through the 15+ page long PvP thread, but the debate is a familiar one. I've never been a huge PK'er (defined as non-consensual involvement of another in PvP) because I just feel kinda bad about killing people. In fact, in my years in UO, I probably committed less than a dozen murders total.

That said, I think PK'ing and full looting bring essential elements of risk and realism to the game for which there are no substitutes. They give a large subset of players a reason to exist (both murderers and anti-murderers get to role play) and add variety once players have reached the "end" of the game.

I think the goal should be to find a way to incorporate PK'ing and full looting in such a way that they do not become rampant and drive off new players. This can be accomplished by addressing both the cause and the effect of the problem. On the causal side, make PK'ing trigger some sort of penalty (stat / skill loss, economic loss, something) to deter indiscriminate, mass killing. On the effect side, allow players to designate one item as "blessed" so that dying to a PK'er does not mean you're starting over.

Games that do not allow PK'ing and full looting tend to be pretty dull. That's just my opinion, as a non-PK'er.

 

"Full Looting of Player Corpses - This is heavily dependent on the gear our characters will carry. If the items are basic, GM weapons and armor etc, then its more viable because they can be easily replaced."

"For full looting to work, the items must be very basic and easily replaceable. Otherwise nobody will be PvPing."

This is exactly why I am lobbying against SotA implementing too much beyond basic weapons and amour. I have no interest in playing a game with magically protected gear, alternative rewards, multiple profiles, or artificial means of balancing people of different levels and with different gear. By the same token, I have no interest in playing another MMO that boils down to nothing more than leveling and collecting rare items. I don't care about stuff, I want a real roleplaying game with real danger from other players and death with consequences. Full loot is a big part of that equation and without it SotA will only be a shadow of the game it should have been.

It is very much my hope that Portalarium successfully utilizes selective multi-player to effectively separate those interested in full loot PvP from those that are not without nerfing the game. If they can't or won't do that than my only hope is for some resourceful hackers to eventually develop a full loot PvP server. Failing that, I will play through the quest portion of SotA but otherwise continue playing UO:SA on one of the free servers.

 

@Acrylic 300: I really don't think that "The Nazis fully looted the Jews they massacred so we should be able to do so in game" is going to convince anyone. It did actually help convince me that full-loot has no place in any decent game, so good work. I'm not going to play this game so I can pretend to be as bad as Hitler, and I have no interest in being fodder for other Hitler wannabes. (And really, bringing up an instance of industrial mass factory slaughter as the ideal for a fantasy game? That's disgusting.)

Never mind that you didn't generally see actual soldiers in the field stripping the pants off of dead soldiers so they could sell them for scrap. And if there are any cases of dead soldiers fillings being pulled out of their mouths in the middle of a battle, I'd sure like to hear about it.

By the way, if we're talking about realism in looting, would you favor a system where it takes a few minutes to pull gear off of dead people? It's hardly realistic to allow people to swipe a piece of plate mail into their bags in half a second, is it? And don't forget the realistic encumbrance in which carrying that piece of plate mail (and the greaves, gauntlets, helm and whatever) slows down the carrier and requires extra bags that must be dragged or carried by hand.

 

@Gunga Din - How can you ask me to put my differencies aside when i dont agree with most you say? Your ideas would be a gamebreaker for me and to so many others. None in my guild would play your version of PvP. Arenas? Warzones? Only consensual PvP? No PK:ing? No full loot?

@ND3G - Well said and i agree with it all. Only basic weapons and the best ones should be the ones crafted by crafters.

OP- If there isnt non-consensual, full loot, open PvP and PK:ing as a playstyle of choice then i see little reason for the old UO felucca players to continue follow this game.

Instanced areas, arenas or war zones without full loot is WoW, and WoW is probably the game i dislike the most.

PvP can be decided with even more skills if you win with 2 persons against 6, happened alot for me in felucca UO. Numbers will just about always be different but that just add to the challenge.

 

@Seneth Somed

The WWII reference was just one example and the looting of the dead and the taking of trophies has been the common practice after battles throughout history. You generally DID see soldiers stripping the dead of their valuables, whether it be money, weapons, armor, insignia, etc. For example more than a few American soldiers fighting in the Pacific during WWII would extract the gold fillings from dead Japanese soldiers and on the German front a Luger was a highly prized trophy. In more ancient times people would have basically striped a body bare and would not even think to leave valuable resources behind if there was any reasonable means of taking it with them.

I agree that the instantaneous looting of a body is unrealistic and so is carrying around multiple sets of plate armor on your person but the looting itself most certain is not.

 

@ND3G: I'm not opposed to partial loot. Ammo, money, potions, reagents, and things like that should drop, in my opinion. I would have included weapons in that list before Acrylic 300 convinced me otherwise with his utterly disgusting example. However, the whole notion of "full loot" where the winner takes everything from the loser down to the underwear is just silly. Highwaymen were out to steal money and valuables, not used skivvies. And highwaymen would often not kill anyone, but take the goods through a show of force.

You know what, I'm still mad about the Nazi reference. So we need to be able to role-play as pure evil, eh? Should we also add **** into the game? I'm sure lots of sociopaths out there would like the realism of a game that lets you **** people before murdering them! How about torture? You capture a person, tie them down, and inflict (make-believe) agonies on them, forcing the other player to stay logged in as you do horrific things to them, and when all is said and done the victim has permanent disabilities and mental problems (which would be permanent stat and skill reductions, naturally). Wow, that sure sounds fun, right? Well who cares about fun; what's important is realism!

If this is the mentality of the full loot no safe spaces pvp crowd, then I won't cry if they play another game.

 

woah .. *backs away slowly*

 

PvP should simply never be about killing people. And the "loot the corpses" mechanic in UO fed this. Somehow people got convinced that killing people for their cloths makes sense.

PvP should be about capturing things that matter. A castle, a bridge, a hill, a mine, a supply caravan.

There can be some kind of loot / salvage tokens on bodies. There can be some kind of quest reward for collecting bounties on bandits.