What is PvP?

For all the discussion of PvP I've seen little in the way of definition. I'd will probably turn on my PvP flag because I want the ability to slap someone in the head for being stupid. I want an avowed enemy to be able to attack me and vice versa. I want to aid an army, if only to be cannon fodder.

On the other hand, I don't log in with the intention of getting in a fight. I intend my character to have a rounded life; crafting, socializing, hunting, exploring and occasionally PvP when appropriate.

Am I a PvPer? Do I have a business here in the PvP forum?

 

yep your a PVPr, i will probably play the same way! Only attack if provoked or if someone attacks my friends, i want to be able to heal them and help them! I do have a couple exceptions to that rule but they brought it upon themselves so i dont feel like im stepping too far out of character!

 

I'd only attack if provoked. Unless it was Captain Jack. Then I'd attack just out of principle.

 

That's funny. From all I've read of people trying to describe other peoples' playstyle I fit squarely into the "casual" or "********" category. PvP will not be the focus of my play but I do wish the freedom and responsibility of flagging myself for PvP (favorite quote: "Freedom without responsibility is mere license"). In general, I avoid conflict. I get the impression that many PvPers will be logging in with the primary purpose of fighting and looting - I am certainly outside of that camp.

Yet, it all gets lumped under a single label. Some wish SotA to turn into a PvP free-for-all that was early UO. Not my game at all, but if I'm a PvPer I get lumped into that category anyway in the Us vs Them conversations.

 

There is a kind of player that lumps anyone that doesn't want as hardcore a PvP experience as themselves as some variation of casual or ********. I've seen people that openly defend PvPers, that want PvP to be as rewarding as possible and plan to stay flagged for PvP all the time, called such things simply because they also defended that those that don't want to engage in PvP should be able to opt out.

The opposite — PvE players bundling together all kinds of PvPers — is something I rarely, if ever, see here, though I do agree that there are issues with the nomenclature; those that defend non-consensual PvP are often called simply "PvPers" or some variation by the PvE players, which creates confusion.

As for what is PvP, or a PvP player: there are lots of definitions. I myself greatly enjoy PvP, but only in controlled environments and free from PvE elements, so while I can happily spend hours playing some kinds of arena PvP, I will never engage in any kind of non-consensual PvP and avoid any PvP that mixes in PvE elements; does this make me a PvE player, a PvPer, both, or something else that defies definition?

 

Since you asked...you are a PvEer. The following is not meant to be hurtful or insulting, it's just a list of my personal beliefs.

Anything that boils PvP down to a simple death-match arena style game is not what i consider PvP. A PvPer seeks competition. A PvPer accepts risks, but also expects rewards (and not simply a silly k/d ratio). A PvPer spends the majority of their time honing their skills and developing their gear to further PvP. A PvPer would never have to ask others to define them. A PvPer cares about their reputation in combat. A PvPer has their own honor code. A PvPer wants to be part of a team of like-minded players in pursuit of a single goal (ie; sieges). A PvPer is not a part-timer that fiddles w/the oracle flag on a whim or doesn't expect to be attacked in certain scenarios. You either agree and practice these basic tenets or you're a PvEer.

 

Most PvPers thrive on meaningful conflict. The perfect solution would be for you to play on a server with like-minded individuals. If the gameplay is sorted on the premise that you'll be grouped in instances based on play-style...what's the difference? I never understood why opponents of a PvP server fight so hard to keep PvPers on their server when they argue against everything they believe in. Keep your flags and your duel requests, and let the PvPers have a different rule-set entirely. It doesn't "split the community like Trammel" (most common rationale used against a PvP server) because that was a divide within a server. I'll likely never game with the type of player you describe -- why do i need to be on your server? I would never demand that a player like you be included on my server.

 

That's just it, it does impact the other servers.

The most simple example is gear. If everyone wears cost effective gear for PvP there is no need for crafters to make high end gear. No one would wear high end gear for any other content. If there is a PvE element at all, PvP will want it tuned to the gear they wear.

Crafters get sub part crafting on the PvP server.
Even worsre than that, either the PvE is tuned to the PvP server gear or you have two separate levels of tuning. It doesn't take long for every aspect of the PvP server game is different from the PvE server. This would require a PvP dev team and a PvE dev team.

Keeping it the same server only affects 1 play style.

And you didn't cover this style in your description.

The player that wants easy targets. The PK. The player that would like 100% non consensual PvP so they have more sheep for the slaughter. A separate PvP server does not provide this type of play for them either.

 

I do not care much for labels, you play the way you want, and your actions in game will define who you are. Folks like starting a game at their own pace in their own unique style, as they progress they branch out, try different aspects in the game which can be a blend of both PvE and PvP.

This whole you are not a PvPer if you do not like x, y and z ... is, in my opinion, just a tactic to shut up folks who do not fit a certain rigid niche.
I may be wrong about that, but it is the impression I am getting.

 

I agree and in my opinion it is a tact of trying to label people in order to show that their opinion is not as important. I would rather have opinions on subjects, either good or bad not based on if you are open pvp and full loot excluively as being the guiding factor for PVP planing. I like to pvp when I feel like it...not all the time, because for me(this is strictly my feelings) it gets annoying to be harrassed to fight all the time...there are days that I really want to get involved and days I'm not so inclined.

The big factor that seems to get lost in the shuffle is that PVP decisions do have an affect on the rest of the game so their should be open discussion on that.

 

One server or two, I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make. It would however add a pressure to make SotA into something else and to appeal to a different sort.
I think Garriott and team are aiming at a well-rounded world where players can pursue any number of playstyles. Focusing on one aspect over all others would damage SotA and make many players apoplectic.

I believe the basic difference here is what one' intentions are when logging in. Some people play to get into a good PvP fight; the rest of the game is secondary. I would guess these are also the same people who decry Trammel as ruining UO. Some log in to decorate, or collect shineys, or all of the above. I intend to play my character as a real being in a real world, who eats and gets sleepy, pursues, perhaps finds love, has ambitions and deals with conflict in a world that is violent, chaotic and in need of some peace and stability.

A world where all effort went towards equipping and PvP sounds much less inviting.

 

So, two worlds. One that is varied and enriched by actors and bards, by preachers and subversives. Another one that exists to provide free-for-all PvP. As I've pointed out, I prefer a world where PvP can exist as part of a whole; I feel the same with full loot. As Owain often pointed out, part of looting the enemy is to drain his resources. It is an essential element of war.

But I'm afraid that one world cannot co-exist with the other. Each world's playstyle is irrelevant to the other.

edit: as a side note, EVE Online has the concept of Not Red, Don't Shoot, and Not Blue, Shoot It.

 

It's my opinion that they are breaking PvP down into the different play types and giving them what they want for their game play.

When you break PvP down into it's different styles, there is only 2 types that can not co-exist. The type that wishes to prey on players not willing to PvP and the type that wants PvP to be the center of everything.

All others can co-exist.

 

I suppose I'll throw my take in here since it's the first time I've seen anyone here actually ask about a definition. My own view is pretty literal but I understand there's a big difference here between literal and perceived meaning.

PvP.. Player vs Player.. essentially can be any situation where two or more players are in conflict. Said conflict does not have to be violent. I actually consider a lot of RP to be potential PvP in that regard. *feels a number of "PvPers" rolling their eyes*.

I realize my perspective is probably rarer than most and most "true PvPers" are those who actively seek combat with other players. This is just how I look at it. There is more than one form of conflict.

 

I agree, PvP is not an after thought. It is not a watered down arena system, that is thrown is an after thought. PvP is a play style, similar to players who choose to primarily PvE. Almost every game has included PvP as end of game bonus content. The last game that properly implemented PvP was Ultima Online prior to the addition of Trammel. Eve online also does an excellent job as including PvP as part of the game and not simply bonus content.

Ultima Online provided PvP players with the option to only play the role of a PvPer. There are very few games where it is possible to play the game entirely as a PvPer. The PvE community believes that they should have the option of casually engaging in PvE, while PvP should remain as an after thought. They also seem to think that it is acceptable to include PvP as some "extra" content and then let it be forgotten about. The PvP player feels that PvE should be "extra" bonus content and the game's central focus point should be PvP. The two ideologies are POLAR opposites. It is my opinion that it is impossible to completely satisfy both audiences.

Essentially, the PvP player wants to pursue the role of the barbarian or outcast. Ultima Online provided that opportunity and the immense freedom that came with it. A PK did not abide by society's laws, the laws were meaningless. PK's often lurked in the shadows waiting for the right moment strike, but others formed groups and coalitions to garner more strength. These players were the antithesis of the "good" guys. The responsibility was in the hands of the players to dictate how the game would evolve. It is both true and unfortunate many players did not have the fortitude or willingness to learn how to defend against a PK.

It seemed that in the early, wild west days of Ultima Online the PvE guys were on the sidelines. The people on the battlefield constantly really influenced the way societies in the game developed. This was also true for RP guild who engaged in war with one another. The ORC guild had no respect for human laws. A player who poached upon their territory without paying proper tribute was "dealt" with. Violence was not always the first act of retaliation, however it was used frequently with stubborn PvE players who felt entitled to hunt anywhere they desired. The orcs would "krimp" a player, blocking their movement due to their immense numbers and slaughter him/her. The ORC guild also waged war against other RP guilds according to the Rules of Engagement (ROE). The ROE mandated things such as looting and who was to be attacked.

I do not consider anyone who thinks of PvP as an after thought and not a central focus point of the game as a PvPer. It is like telling an RP player who speaks in "common tongue" that they are an RPer. There are very distinct groups and very distinct playstyles. A PvPer as far as I am concerned does not have to "flag" ones self to engage in act of PvP. These simple, silly, arbitrary rules only interfere with the game.

 

This is one specific type of PvP. Are you saying that someone that only enjoys PvP on completely even grounds, such as area and battle ground PvP, are not PvPers?

 

It sort of sounds like he believe PVE should be on the sidelines and the world should belong to the PVPers.....as was the case in early UO....according to what he wrote.

I could be wrong though....

However, this game was never announced as a PVP game with some PVE in it....matter of fact it was the opposite.

 

Ristra,

You stereotype PK's as those who prey upon the weak. This is simply untrue, it's akin to me saying that PvE players only want to get cool sandals to go show off at Brit bank. There are several types of PK's from my experience, just like there are several types of PvE players. I do not think a separate server is required, only a toggle to only see other PvP players and to have contested territories. This involves more risk and should also involve more reward. It really is a simple solution and can be rewarding to both players.

The PvP players will go to that territory and thrive there. The PvE players may seek adventure in those lands and contest the PvP players on their same turf. The PvP players should be attackable by anyone, even in the PvE lands. The PvE players should be able to consent to PvP and should not be attackable in the PvE lands, unless attacking a PvP player. This satisfies both sides and is a compromise worth considering.

 

Well I do agree with @ultima_aficionado about the polar opposites. It's important to know this because if there is a merging of the two worlds there must be a knowledge of what both side wants and what the Devs will not give.

This is the area the devs are talking about when they say both sides will be equally disappointed.

 

I did not see this game "announced" as anything other than a spiritual successor to Ultima, including Ultima Online.