PvP: System limiting and self banning other players

The dev team has alluded to the fact that all players will reside on "one" server and play in one world, not on various shards like UO. This allows for some interesting opportunities for PvP.

I enjoy playing PvP, but since I have a busy life I am more of a casual player. I hate playing MMOs where I'm thrown in with elite players who can assassinate and loot me in seconds. I like the thrill of PVP, but I like playing in a fair fight. Here are a few of my thoughts...

1) Have options within the game to select the levels of "seen" players. The game can provide max and min levels that I'd like to see. So, assume that I am level 10, and I want some PvP challenge but I don't want to get annihilated, I can select a minimum level of 8 and a maximum level of 15. Then, other than those on my preselected friend list, I would only come across those levels of players.

For those who like the challenge of full PvP, they could just set the PvP level to infinite. They will come across players of all levels.

As a caveat to the above, the level selections would be disregarded in some areas because of special valuable elements. That way, it is risky for everyone, and if I want a particular valuable item in a PvP area I have to risk the possibility of going against some challenging players.

2) Self-banning other players. If I can have a friend list, where I can see all of my friends and guild members whenever I'm online, I would like to see a banned list as well. If I come across an annoying, rude, or aggressive player that I would prefer not to play with, I can add them to my banned list and I will never see them again.

For example, if I come across a player who consistently hides in a particular area to kill and loot passers-by, I can add that player to my banned list. I may get killed once, but I don't have to again.

 

I am not in favor of a ban list where you prevent yourself from being paired with another player by the server, because that could be abused in that you could prevent another player from being able to attack you, and you may have given them a very good reason to attack you. On the other hand, a 'mute' list would be fine. That way you don't have to listen to idiots.

 

1) My hope is that levels don't matter by the time you really experience PvP. You can level up over the coarse of a story (days to weeks). You may face some very easily avoidable PvP just for a taste. But for the most part, you'll hit the "end game" and people are more or less on equal footing.

2) For most normal walking around, I see no reason why anyone cannot choose to ignore anyone else. With two basic exceptions. First I think that there are some areas of the game that a group of players should be able to lock down and control. e.g. if a group holds a bridge, no amount of banning and changing your settings takes away the fact that they hold that bridge. You can deal with them or leave. Second I like the idea that goods from a certain region of the world may be contraband in others. If carrying said goods implys that you're asking for a PvP encounter, you can't ban it away. (If a PvE alternative for hunting you is implemented, that's perfectly fine. But you shouldn't get credit for taking a PvP risk and then effectively banning your way out of one.)

 

@Owain - Ha! Good point. I can just imagine pickpocketing another player then quickly banning them to prevent retaliation. Just as the victim starts to attack, they quickly fade from existence... However, there could be ways to prevent some of the abuse by having a lag time between a ban request and the player's removal - perhaps a day or a week.

@PrimeRib - Yes, good point about the specific locations. I think that it would add excitement to the game to have areas where the user selected settings do not apply. It could be as small as a strategic bridge across a deep canyon, or it could be a castle and the surrounding areas, or even a larger area like a black market trade route between two cities.

But even with the possibility of abuse and the necessity of full PvP areas, selective player interactions would allow for users to customize the level of engagement with others. I just know from other MMOs I've played on, there are some players that I would prefer never to have to deal with. It isn't just that it makes the game harder, it makes it less fun.

 

The network infrastructure of SOTA is a little different. The world will be persistent and have some central hubs. However, every client will technically be a server. There will be some p2p type communication and an instance-like mechanism they are calling "scenes". At least that is how I have understood it to be.

As for a blacklist, I am in favor of one, but the issues are complicated. There is a couple page thread about some similar things here:

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/?topic=black-list&paged=1