The PvP Enigma

The first time I was PK'd was in battletoads.. it was a serious.. WTF? moment... while my friend laughed maniacally.

As someone who does a lot of both PVP and PVE, i find in most games (newer than UO) PVE content is harder and more challenging than PVP... I get tired of hearing the challenge brought up... it simply isn't always true.

I am very.. very bored of instanced and arena style pvp...

There is no longer a distinction between PVP and PK... either people play a game that allows PVP and thus are consenting, or they don't play it, therefore they are not consenting and don't play.

The difference people are talking about now a days is usually refereed to as Ganking... getting someone unsuspecting it.

 

Lets remove weapons entirely and provide every player with a padded smilyface patterned melting pot of friendship. Combat? Murder? Who needs it!

 

@Acrylic 300 wrote: "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. "

I think the way they have to handle this is that if you as a PvP player group with a non Pvp player, everyone in the group as a whole will adopt the most restrictive mode for that instance - everyone in this case will be treated as PvE players, so the server will only present you with other PvE players, so the problem you are seeing should never arise.

 

@Acrylic 300 : You bring up valid points. There would have to be a model that prevents the issues you are concerned with. The PvP encounter would have to be protected against a "blue" or PvEer from interrupting the battle. EX. If you qued up for a warzone with others, everyone in that warzone / instance is PvP only. Just a more controlled area.

@Ara : I hear ya, Felucca only was my choice as well. However, I don't see that type of system being implemented here. Perhaps the Devs will feel the system you prefer doesn't have a great track record in games of this nature.

I did mention above how looting could be incorporated with PvP gear set (not protected), but depends on how gear will be handled in the game.

I think we all would prefer a wide open PvP system, but to keep it fair and balanced is very difficult. Its gonna have to be more structured with controlled environments.

@PrimeRib : Objective based PvP is probably best, as you suggest. I'd like to find out how the Dev's would implement this.

@Owain : Agree. For any PvP encounter , steps would need to be taken to ensure all those involved are PvP ready.

@Sir Mishri : Yea, well what it comes down to is gaining an advantage. They aren't looking for a challenging encounter, only one in which they know they will be victorious.

 

@Primerib - So am i understanding you right?

Your want to remove a slider choice that would allow us UO oldtimers a felucca UO PvP gamesetting in SotA?

You see it as right not having such an option? Why should we that enjoyed felucca UO PvP play a game without features supporting our playstyle? PvE, crafting, housing and on and on will be supported to the fullest but we that enjoyed Richards UO felucca we should accept less?

If the slider ends before full loot, non-consensual PvP, PK:ing and all other features UO felucca PvP had then SotA will miss out on most of these felucca players.

RG have said he want to deliver a game that support all playstyles and the slider could give such an option.

 

@PrimeRib: "PvP should simply never be about killing people. "

Why not? In the dark ages, fighting was frequently about killing people. SotA is about a similar period, with magic thrown in as well. If you throw out the looting motive, you also throw out a historically accurate motive.

If that isn't the game you want, don't play that if it is offered. Just because you don't like it is an insufficient reason not to include it for those who wish to see that form of play.

 

@Ara
I'm OK with having a FFA zone are even a slider for it if you want it. But why the bizarre flagging/karma rules? Just let FFA be FFA. People who want it are opted in.

I don't really care is this mode is full loot. I don't expect many to play it, but those who do are welcome to it.

I'd just hate to have this mode distract from what I would consider the meaningful aspects of PvP. Fights over territory vs fights over looting someone's pants.

 

@Primerib, combat to the death isn't meaningful?

 

@Owain: No, when you can come right back to life combat to the death is not meaningful, at least not on its own.

 

@Seneth Somed: which is why full loot is necessary, to give at least annoyance to death, if not meaning.

From all the posts PvP arguing against PvP, it sure SEEMS like people are attaching a lot of meaning to death.

 

It's a video game, not real combat....it's as meaningful as entertainment is to you.

 

Meaningful from a role playing stand point, then. I though you were all about the role playing, @rune_74.

 

I think we need a bit more input from the Devs about how they plan to implement PvP into SotA ... LOL .

 

@owain I am about roleplaying, but just because you can have your combat doesn't mean people will use it in a roleplay way. At the end of the day it is just a game....I really can't think of anything I need to prove on it.

 

There is no guarantee that anyone will role play anything. Should the dev's just give up now?

 

"woah .. *backs away slowly*"

LOL, yeah that was my thought exactly. Seneth Somed, you are taking this full loot thing waaaaaaaaaaaay to seriously. If it makes you feel better even in UO players were able to keep their skivvies.....

Honestly, guys I really don't know why we keep having these conversations. Those of us who want full loot PvP (and I suspect there are many more people in that camp than PrimeRib thinks) are not going to settle for anything less than exactly that.

The only topics we should be discussing at this point are:

1) How best to protect and/or separate those who do not wish to partake in full loot pvp from those that do.
2) What penalties if any will PKs receive.
3) How will full loot pvp effect player progress, gear, crafting, and the economy.

 

@owain Not sure where you got that idea that I thought they should give up, not shocking that you jumped there, but no I don't think they should give up.

 

@Owain: Full loot is not the only way to make death meaningful, and you know it. There could be partial loot. There could be gear damage. There could be a time delay before playing again. Points or tokens could be gained or lost. Control of territories could shift. Control of resources could shift. Rankings could change. There could just be permadeath that immediately destroyed everything equipped. Lord British could personally call you a noob on the forums every time you die.

Please stop with the pretense that full loot is the one and only possible way to make death meaningful.

 

@ND3G, no need to get alarmed. I was just having a conversation (or trying to) with PrimeRib on his curious position that things like life and death, crime and punishment, were somehow not meaningful, at least from a game play perspective. In my opinion, Rune was the one to jump the shark first, saying (with no justification I can see) that even though there will be PvP, for some reason no one may use that in a role playing setting. My response was to demonstrate, reductio ad absurdum, that in that case, maybe the dev's should just give up.

That is a problem with reductio ad absurdum, someone may take your logical argument literally.

 

@ND3G: I'm not the one who brought up the Holocaust as a positive example of what PVP should be like. That was Acrylic 300. That's what angered me, not the fact that some people favor full loot.

Frankly, I'm a little amazed that everyone else just let that pass.