Personal PvP Definition Poll

Training with other people that are well versed at PVP can make you just as good, everyone that pvps has some sort of weakness, just got to find it (or stay alive long enough to find it!) train with us Grasshoppper!

 

I say "give them Flags, I never want to see them", they can fight their own kind. Why do they want to "force" me into a fight I don't want anything to do with?

Seriously, this fight has been going on for 16 years now ever since UO started putting "controls" on Open PvP, and nothing worked. Finally UO seperated the players and look who screamed the loudest, the PvPers... Dang, you Guys just don't get it.

I am a "non-PvPer", so stop trying to change my mind, there is nothing you can do/say that can do that. So Please stop....

PS: The title of this Poll is misc leading, it infers that all pollers are "PvP", clearly some of the options are for "non-PvPers".

 

Thank you for your input, and I'm sorry you feel that way [that I was misleading]. Personally, I don't want all Players who PvP to get lumped together. They are not the same! I was trying to get other people to realize that, or to help me/us learn what other types of PvP/PK-er might exist.

I don't want the Players separated, if I had my way. I want a real, effective, and imaginative Justice system; one that punishes the Player character [not the RL person] in a fun way, and never robs the 'victim' of anything [so that 'victim' RL person doesn't get forced to participate in a playstyle that they hate]. Separating the RL people so that they never see the other person's character is what all MMOs do, and I'd like to see something better, something that has consequences to fit the 'crime'. [Some very creative Threads went over many options, but my Poll here is to let other people clarify PvP and PKers in their own way for everyone's benefit, to open all of our eyes a little.]

Non-PvPers are certainly encouraged to respond to my Poll here, as we all need to understand each other better. You're absolutely correct that when we are adults, and we've played various games, we eventually understand the playstyle we prefer. Personally, I agree with your statement:

If you think that I, as the OP, was trying to convert anyone to PvP, you are incorrect. Nor do I think the answer is to help train a Player who doesn't like to fight other Players. Nope, not ever, unless that Player actually has some interest in it on their own. Players who never want to engage in combat with another Player should never -- in my opinion -- have to do that, unless they intentionally go into an 'unsafe' area. In that case, what happens is on their own head.

My Poll is really to help us understand each other, and in that understanding, to perhaps gain support to acknowledge and address all play styles. I don't think it's good to just 'flag' and separate all the Players as 'PvP' or 'PvE'. The honorable duelist is not a 'murderer'/criminal. The vigilante may have some legitimate reasons in this 'wild' world of New Britannia. Why should they [and role-players etc] be lumped in with the Players who just like to see how many they can surprise, ambush, kill, and loot (perhaps over and over again)? Personally, I don't think they should all be tossed and categorized into the same pile.

No MMO out there has yet to figure this challenge out. The only solution is to separate them, or to 'flag' them, and I'm looking for some new and innovative answer to this. This Poll is to open some Players' minds up to the closed ideas we might have assumed.

*Note: This Thread is not to lay out all of the innovative ideas. As I said, there are already other Threads for that. This Poll is for the community to tell what your idea of a PvPer is, or a PKer is, and to learn how other Players define those as well.

 

I'm for open PVP with a good justice system. Seems like a slight majority of people are as well. I honestly believe that Shroud of the Avatar cannot succeed without the fun/drama that comes from this sort of system. It's the only reason I liked UO and the only thing that would keep me interested.

 

I also wanted to add that I believe that an entire group of players is probably under represented in this thread. The players who like to play as evil characters are, I think, less vocal and less likely to vote in this thread. Maybe they're antisocial. It's just a theory of mine. Tons of people complained about PvP in UO so they introduced Trammel and everyone quit. What does that really say? Again, just a theory.

 

If it turns into a quest only based pvp..you'll lose half the audience at least..I want the option to create a fresh character walk down the street and flag if I so desire..most definitely die, but the option is there...waiting till level 20 to join an arena, or gain access to a "quest" is just stupid and has been done..not as hardcore as Darkfall, and not as care bear as WoW I'll take something in the middle. UO had it "semi" right but instead of putting the work in and regulating pvp in felucca they mirrored it with trammel and eventually made trammel more appealing and a scripters paradise to farm/stock pile gold..killed the game IMO..hence the TONS of free shards that daily have 1-3k active players without the stupid restrictions..restrictions don't add immersion and excitement. It adds boredom and players looking to other games for their fix..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

If the entire Server design is for it to all be a single large server/world and we are instanced together according to some system that groups us with people we like/want to play with, that system design alone allows for all types of players to be happy together.

I imagine if the system they are suggesting of instancing us together based upon our preferences, why not make those personally customizeable?

If I want to only play with people who want to Open World PVP/PK kill anyone any time, full loot setting, then why not just let me click those check boxes and be instanced together with those type of people?

Then for all those who want to duel or have consenting PVP/PK they are instanced together.

Everyone is happy, everyone gets the feature they desire, and we all get to play the same game the way we all like to? That is the huge potential behind the server/instance/world design they are going for.

PS: Any type of justice system will only drive away PKers (maybe not PvP), but any system that says my play style is wrong and punishes me for it will only make me not want to play that system. But if it is the PLAYERS attempting to enforce some form of moral code, that is fine. Humans need to control what is acceptable, not some hardcoded unbeatable system. If I have 50 friends and we have put the time and effort into becoming the most fearsome PKers to walk SoTA, no programer typing in some code to throw us in jail should be able to stop us, the PLAYERs themselves should be the ones to raise to the occation. BUT all this would be useless and pointless IF the server instancing works well and I only get to play with people who want to PK/PVP like me, no need for a justice system.

 

Screwtape - Thanks for responding. If we're all separated into our little 'clicks', then in my opinion everyone is less happy, and everyone is robbed of experiencing the full adventure. And this [quoted below] jumps to assumptions and conclusions by mind-reading into it what you believe is 'between the lines', when it isn't there at all:

A Justice System must be a fun experience for your type of playstyle, or I certainly wouldn't propose it or back it. The intent is not to discourage or drive anyone away. That means having a blast in your 'criminal' choice. [On an aside, this is kind of funny to me, to be asking a PK/PvP Player not to be separated from the rest of us, as I've only been hearing in the past that PK/PvP Players hated being separated. It opens my eyes than someone with your playstyle actually wants separated into just your 'click', so thanks for the new viewpoint.] I restate that the so-called in-game punishment must be fun for you, not a 'punishment' to you, the actual person on the other end at your computer.

Personally, I'd rather walk around in New Britannia and see characters dueling, or view an Arena fight, or see a vigilante in action, or witness a 'crime', or be exposed to attack [and respond] in dangerous zones, etc. I've been -- in UO -- a part of a large guild that did enforce Justice, as you alluded to above. I'd like to be able to do that as well, but not have only that. Why?

• Because it didn't work in UO, didn't work even when there were some town guards helping out, and thus the separation of playstyles began. If we're not separated, we'll need a Justice system [game programmed], or it isn't going to work.
• There are not enough Players who want to enforce Justice as a playstyle, including me. Yes, I will join in sometimes for that, but as a regular playstyle? No. And as we all know by now, many Players never, ever want to battle with other Players.

*Note: I am not arguing, and don't like to argue. I'm just trying to clarify my ideas.

 

I'll jump in and add my two cents, what made UO that great mmo and in my opinion still the one to beat was the original way it did handle PVP. Firstly it's adventuring everyone, adventuring isn't being wrapped in cotton wool, its accepting the fact that there can be totally uncontrollable people and circumstances as well. Second I play the evil characters, the ones that rob and steal and yes murder, I'm not really interested in housing and making chairs, you do that, I'll steal it, thanks. Bring the justice system on by all means like it use to be, cruise into town and that's the end of you as it should be, but if you think it's all good to wander the wilderness thinking that nothing will happen, pfft!!! Leave it as one world no separate PVP and PVE stuff, use the original UO mechanics make it as it should be real adventuring!

 

That didn't work out. Maybe you missed this on the first page. http://brokentoys.org/2004/12/18/the-unbearable-darkness-of-ultima-online/ It's an article by Scott Jennings, aka 'Lum the Mad'. It's an excellent article, and should be read by anyone promoting what you just did, in my opinion.

*EDIT: I'm also going to add... as Richard Garriott has told and retold his first UO tale, 'Lord British' intervened betwixt a 'fair lady' and a thief in his first epiphany of what he'd actually created. The story goes, if you haven't heard it, that Lord British scolded the thief, the thief repented, and the fair lady's things were returned, only to have the same thief steal the lady's items again. This repeated three times, until the thief called Lord British by his RL name, and pointed out that RG had created this world that allowed a thief to steal, and that the thief was only fulfilling his role. That was when RG realized that the thief had a point.

Mr. Garriott hadn't realized that people would just ambush an 'innocent' player and do that. That was only stealing. I think it is safe to conclude that RG also had no idea -- at the time -- that a Player would ambush an innocent and 'murder' them. The programmers were trying ever after that to separate the 'criminals' from the ones who were closing their accounts [the non-PvP as a playstyle, as we call it now], until finally, Felucca and Trammel happened. UO still exists, but all any MMO does now is separate. I'm hoping for a better solution -- a new one -- not an old one that didn't work.

 

I totally understand that exactly and your job as well, maybe I didn't explain it to well. I'm not saying that all I do is wait to strike and kill other players, what I am saying is that there should be the option to play the "evil". Not all of us want to only fight and profit from NPC's, we do still craft things and add to the general community as well, we do still need to sell wares and the such. It's a huge task and I totally understand the dilemmas involved I just hope there can be a way to make it a little more worldly and less like a children's fantasy novel.

 

Maybe I did misc-interprate your title, reading it again I see you are asking for "anyones" opinion of the defenision of "PvP", Sorry for reading so fast.

So here's mine, "PvP is any rl player attacking (first strike) another rl player, and that player attacking(defending) the initial player". This is also know as "mutual combat" which a County Sheriff told me in rl.

PKing is either an "assault" or a "murder" when the attacking player Kills the other player without any defensive moves from the "Victum" or if the Victum should get away.

Group play is more than one rl player teaming with others to form "gangs" to either Attack or Defend against other gangs or single players. I'm sure no one likes the terms I am using, but facts are facts, weather it's in a "Game" or "Real Life", the behavior reflects the person playing. Most of you reading may disagree.

Theiving is another form of an attack against another player, you say you want a "justice" system, but they already tried that. Murderers were colored "Red" and thieves were "Grey" and no one wanted a "flag" tied to them so all could see what kind of player they truely were. They wanted no flagging, they wanted "secrecy", "annaminaty", they never wanted their "prey" to notice them at all, it's only far right? When there is no flagging, the game play is all that much more diffecult because the "Honest" player is now at a dis-advantage to the Dis-honest player (and that's exactly the way they like it too). The dis-honest player now has no pennelties.

The only way to have true justice is to let the "game" monitor your actions, let the game keep a record, let the game chase you down where ever your hidding. Let the players report a theft/murder and the game can verify it and place a bounty and send out guards to track you down and deliver you for judgement.

What should be the Penelties for Crimminal behaivor in a game? This is a Moral question, should Murderers be put to death? Should thieves & swindlers be thrown in Jail? For how long? Should they be allowed to return to society to continue their Evil ways? Some scream "let me play Evil", "let me be a Vigilante", "let me be a Bounty hunter", Dude, you just want a legal license to be a "nasty" indevidual, sorry I say NO, I don't want to play with you.

Trammel was too little, too late for UO to retain it's members, by the time it hit the scene most players had already quit (but didn't stop paying on their accounts, like I did, I tried to stick it out), eventualy even I stopped playing/paying.

SotA is approaching the problem slightly differently by using "instancing", and I don't think most posters know what it is, let allown understand it (they are old time UO players). To me it means seperate worlds, I will have an instance to my game style and other players with my style will be able to come in. PvPer will have their own intance and be with other PvPers. None of the map (World) will be restricted to me or you (a brilliant idea).

Just My Opinions, we'll all see when the game breaks out, and we can start playing...

 

SmokerKGB I agree with some of your aspects but honestly that's the fun of RPG if you don't want true PVP and total loot loss that's cool, play stand alone. I do RP as a thief/assassin and yes murderer as well and yes as you put it "evil", you like the reverse and I respect that aspect as well. However, the devs have said there will be PVP just not in what context, I agree have a justice system it adds to the fun, how long you can exist on the run how far you can push the "legal" extent of the game. Finally I agree on two things totally, if you don't want to play PVP then yes I don't want to play with you either, and yes let's just wait to see what the game does when it's released.

 

The server design that is being worked on will separate us into clicks, I believe Richard even said he wants the servers to group us with people who the server thinks we would enjoy playing with. Doesn't that mean they plan to separate us? Why not give us the players some control over the instance settings we would like? Because if I love to PK, and all I keep getting instanced with is people who want nothing to do with PKing, and I can't attack them, I would get bored.

 

An interesting thread, especially for a newb like me. IMHO, PvP should be allowed; it is an essential part of many people's experience. I would like the cities/towns to be safe zones however - you shouldn't be mugged or killed just for stepping out to buy a loaf of bread!! If you are roaming the countryside that's a whole different matter - just like in any game there are many creatures (and now people) that would like to kill you. You just need to be very cautious, and know when to attack and when to run...

I personally will never attack another player. It's just not my style, although I will despatch monsters without hesitation. I will try to regard PvPers as humanoid monsters - avoid when necessary, and if attacked I will defend myself to the death (well, somebody's death, anyway)

I can even live with the concept of full loot - I've lost a few good amounts to the brigands in UO; now discovered that insurance is a wonderful thing. With the ability to insure your valuable gear, the only stuff you really lose is cash and reagents etc - a bit like a trip to the casino!! Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Never carry around more than you are prepared to say goodbye to.
All I can say is that after a few weeks working on my character in UO I am running away a lot less. Maybe I'll be able to cope - the good thing is that there is always the SPO option if I can't.

 

And I was just starting to like you too.

Dude, this is the same old arguement you PvPers have been throwing at Us non-PvPers for 16 years now. If I can't stand the Heat, I should stay out of the kitchen, BS. Hey I don't want to be in your game space either, and what's "fun" is a matter of opinion. Why should I accept the "restriction" of stand alone only? That's like saying "why play online, that's for PvP Only" (what middle schooler thought of that One?), I beg to differ, there are many other things you can waste you're time doing besides PvP. There are many other interactions that could accure between players that doesn't involve "combat" or "war" , there is such a thing called "co-operative" play. Well, at least in theory (in UO they just stood there until the mod killed you, then they looted you themselves).

Somewhere it's been said that the "wilderness" should be dangerous, well, who said it wasn't? Why does "dangerous" always mean PvP to you PvPers? Some of you say Monster bashing is boring, now come on tell us the truth, it's boring to "you". It's not boring to "me", I have alot of "fun" bashing monsters. The wilderness IS dangerous, Doh, sorry that's a matter of opinion too.

Why should I be forced down to your play style? I bet you got offended by that, like my play style is better than your's, it's just a matter of opinion, I wanted to say something "stupid" to you, like you were saying to me. Sorry...

Some have suggested a bunch of "player choses" like:
PvP y/n No, check
Full Loot y/n No, check
Perma Death y/n No, check
Theivery y/n No, check
Dueling y/n No, check
PKing y/n No, check

I'm sure the Dev's can code anything we want, but I have faith in them. I will try SotA right out of the box, Doh, there's no box...

 

I think I'm starting to see something of a compromise between the two entranched camps on this issue. I think that the people on the no-pvp side want to be separated and the people on the pvp side want everyone in the same basket. I understand the underlying reason for this: there cannot be villians without victims. I don't believe it is a compromise whatsoever to separate the two groups of players. Separation is the same as fully favoring the no-pvp side of the argument in my opinion.

Let's brainstorm a compromise. Maybe there can be a fully open pvp with a justice system. Additionally there could be a slider where you select the karma level of people you'd like to play with. Everyone starts out blue but if you commit a crime you lose karma and people who choose to play with only good karma players will no longer see you after your next death/log/their own log/whatever. HOWEVER, you should also not be able to get vengeance unless you change your karma slider to see people in the range of your attacker (because you would not see them anymore).

This is just a rough idea but I think it could be built upon to accomodate everyone. I am extremely pro-pvp and I'd go for this sort of thing as a compromise.

 

So is it cool to have a pkrs name on a board with a reward, pre paid by victim? so if we decide to collect we can get our bounty? I still think i liked that system in UO (i know this isnt UO) but i did enjoy that aspect collecting bounties.

 

Please understand that a compromise involves give and take. It's not that I want to PK anyone, it's that i want to play in a world where my options are not artificially limited, yet the justice system prevents the game from becoming quake. So far I don't see much compromise on either side. PvPers need to have the option to attack players, PvEers dont want to be attacked. There simply has to be a compromise or one of the camps won't be happy.

This is like one of those situations where neither side wants to budge and I'm afraid that not everyone can be satisfied so I think the best solution is for us to constructively settle on a compromise which means BOTH that PvEers can be killed in a non-consentual manner AND that PvPers are punished and prevented from making the game descend into chaos.

I don't think the option to play as pure PvE should even be on the table at this point.

 

Of all the features of SotA PvP, the one (and only one so far, afaik) that is confirmed is:

All PvP in SotA will be consensual ONLY.