Personal PvP Definition Poll

There is a choice. You can choose to have your PVP flag turned on or not. Many people here who aren't PVPers have stated many times that they (myself included) will have their PVP flags turned on because we simply enjoy having that extra challenge, however, not all people want that level of difficulty included in their game. Not only that but to throw everyone to the wolves so-to-say goes against the very basis of what they were told when the game was first being pledged on.

And honestly, we keep beating the dead horse on this topic. There are already many threads that cover exactly this. This game will not force people who don't want to PVP into a non-consensual PVP situation.

 

In my opinion, attacking people who are not prepared, ready or even want to fight another player.. Is hardly what one could call challenging PvP. If you flag yourself for PvP, then the game will essentially be 'open world PvP' for you, just that it only has people who wants to PvP. Surely that is better.

 

I don't care about what consequences the actions of other players have; I care about not being attacked by other players without my explicit consent in the first place (and this goes for being stolen from, and other such negative interactions that would be a crime in the real world). A justice system is completely worthless for me as far as making an open PvP world "palatable" goes.

I'm not sure how widespread my point of view is, but if it's more widespread than just a small pocket of players, then no justice system can ever bring the different camps together.

BTW, it's not just a matter of being able to live with it; it's about having fun while interacting with the systems. I can deal with a lot of things I don't find fun, but since they are not fun for me, I'm not willing to play a game where I have to deal with those same things.

I would rather play another game than compromise. I won't be involved in non-consensual PvP, neither as attacker nor as victim, and for me this is final. Force me to engage in PvP and you won't have one more PvPer, you will instead have one less player in the game.

That being said, I'm not against other players taking part in random PvP, or taking part in PvP myself (as long as it's an actual choice, and not something I'm forced into engaging either because of being explicitly forced or else the game being biased to favor those that engage in PvP).

The only exception I make for "taking part" in non-consensual PvP is when both PvP defeat has no actual consequences, and being forcibly engaged in PvP is rare enough to be merely a nuisance. In that case I will just suicide myself as soon as I'm attacked in PvP, rez, and keep playing as if nothing had happened. I don't think this is what PvPers want, though.

 

I understand that you would rather play another game than compromise but please understand it's no different on the other side of the table. We can argue about it all day (and I'm sure people will). But you guys can't really sit here and pretend like the number of players who would prefer open PvP with a justice system is insignificant. Look at the poll results. It is WINNING.

 

For those that can't read:

"I want a fun and real Justice System. If the game has that, they can have open PvP and thievery."

The current poll winner. Notice the little word "open".

 

Open PvP implies that there is in fact no flag. You don't decide with a flag if you will be attacked. In open pvp you'd decide by placing yourself in a dangerous situation or not. Yes, this is the option I would prefer. I have just been trying to think of a technical way to help separate those who wish to be separated while also satisfying those who don't want any separation. In a way we're arguing about two separate issues but they're just closely related.

On the PvP flag issue: There are repercussions to allowing you to have a flag. Firstly, who would a thief steal from? Other thieves? Realistically that eliminates thieves from the game. How can you really have any sort of player rivalry if anyone can go hiding behind a PvP flag? This is the reason that, for me, simply flagging PvP on or off is unacceptable. For me a compromise would be to think of a way that everyone could be happy and still keep a sort of politics/danger aspect to the game.

It's clear that there are two sides, one wants a PvP flag and is more interested in PvE and the other wants open PvP with a justice system. According to this poll's results players lean more towards permissive pvp than non permissive. Do you really think they are going to ignore that? I think most likely you would be disappointed. I think you're missing the point here.

I think when people say they want open PvP with a justice system they want the drama. The drama is what made UO fun and engaging to me. When you play the game you know that anything could happen and it makes it exciting. People may occaisionally do mean things to you and it might piss you off, but one day you find them in a dungeon running from a monster and an arrow strangely comes from nowhere and kills them. Nobody saw anything, it's ok. I think that most of the oldschool UO fans are looking for exactly that type of gameplay and I'm hoping that SotA delivers.

 

We covered this in IRC yesterday, vvortex3. What you want (non-consensual PvP) is not going to be in SotA, as currently described/designed. I'm sorry, sometimes that's just the way it is.

Pathfinder Online is going to have non-consensual PvP anywhere, everywhere, anytime. It may be worth a look if this feature is on your must-have list.

If you're willing to accept that consensual PvP ONLY is going to be in SotA, then it might be worthwhile expanding your brainstorming to include it. There are a massive number of player conflict options available, with that single feature in mind.

 

Aw, gee... whoa, whoa, whoa, people. More assumptions and mind-reading is going on than is here. Devolving is happening. Arguing against each others' personal opinion. No, please. That's not what this Thread is about. Please define what it is for you, and let other's opinions have some valid points, to open your ideas up some. And Mystic, it isn't necessarily that other Players don't want that 'difficulty' in the game -- of course it means what your definition of difficulty is in that sentence. It can be just a matter of play style preference, and not difficulty issues at all. There are all kinds of difficulty, in other words, that the non-PvPer enjoys.

 

This is how I hope it is, your actions determine if you are at risk for PvP. Examples include going into wild lawless areas, choosing jobs/quests that have a high element of danger (stated to be PvP), joining a guild that's stated objectives are to combat other guilds, etc., etc.

But unlike vvortex, I don't want or expect ALL of the OPO world to be classified as a PvP zone. That takes all choice away from those that don't want to participate in PvP.

 

Silent Strider - I'm certainly not backing 'Open world PvP everywhere, full loot'. No. That's only hardcore PKers backing that, as far as I know. No one should be certain that there will definitely be a certain game mechanic in place for all episodes, either, as the official Dev Team hasn't said that. I've actually had a Dev [official Dev] invite the input of the ideas of a Justice system, and if that were not an option, ever, they could have said no. No one needs to be getting upset, nor cause upset. My goal is for the opposite here, which means learning, gaining understanding, and looking at things from another Point of View.

 

I would not use the word "level (of difficulty)".

I am very skilled at murdering virtual avatars. I personally dont want the bother. It is not a "level" of skill I do not posses, it is an annoyance factor for which I am not interested in my R of RPG.

First and foremost the people arguing for PvP should understand that from the non-PvP camp. It is not to make a weak, ******** game for the non-PvP, just because they dont want to practise said skills in THIS game.

You want to meet me on BF4, LOTRO, NW, CS, etc... and I'll be happy to PVP all day long.

But I shouldn't (unless the game is designed to be PVP) be forced into that choice, again, unless the majority is weighed and measured to be so.

Then I have a consumer choice to play or move along.

If this was designed, up front, to have PVP heavy aspects, that would have been plainly spelled out (99% certain) in the KS.

They have already stated "some" things to which they are leaning, like a flag for PVP, slider for "playstyles like yours" etc...

So it is already tilted towards not being a 100%, open world of pvp and looting.

 

I don't see the problem with the flag solution. Some people enjoy constant risk, and some people don't. Forcing co-operative people to risk getting killed by strangers or forcing hunters to always play nice usually ends up with civil wars.

 

We can argue semantics all day long but honestly, I'm not going to do that. They are not going to force players into a playstyle they are 100% against when the whole reason they backed the game is because they were given the option to opt out of that playstyle. If they went back on that at this point in the game, that would be a bad time for Portalarium.

Honestly, I believe the idea they had from the get-go is the best one. Let players who want to PVP do it and let players who don't want to PVP play their way. It's a solution that simply works. People who are interested in PVP will likely have the same amount of people in their game that they would likely have if the game were fully open PVP, so I'm still not seeing the issue as people who don't want to PVP wouldn't buy the game to begin with. It's really win/win.

 

Sorry if I go OT for a bit, but this argument is like "prohabition", the "wets" and the "dries", pro/con of alcohol consumption. For year the "dries" wanted a total Ban on alcohol consumption/sales, they wanted it sooo bad that they took up their cause to the Congress of the US, which passed the issue to the Supreme court and eventually there was an Amendment to the Constitution Banning alcohol.

Did it work? No, it just drove it underground so that criminals like Al Capone could become weathy. A few short years later, the amendment was reversed, but with heavey regulations placed on alcohol comsumption/sales. And the argument still rages on today some 100 years later.

Let's talk about alternative Justice systems:
1- A player attacks (1st strikes or PKs) another player, and that player dies by your hand or one of your groups hands or a nearby monster (you lewrd), then you will be fined 10,000 gold and you will loose the ability to attack that same player until you go into town and pay your fine off at the Justice department.

I think this will solve a couple of things, griefing by lewring mods in to kill inocents, by PKing an inocent, by ganking an inocent (all in the group are fined).

2- If your counts are higher than 10, your fines are doubled, higher than 20, doubled again, etc.

3- You don't have to pay your fines if you don't want to, but I think you will run out of players to kill because most will be No-Kills to you eventually (and of course this is tied to your account, not your chr). If you want it tied to your chr, then go ahead and delete them, but your learning curve for your next chr will be doubled, PK some more and delete them too, and the next chrs learning curve is doubled again, etc.

4- You can avoid all this by not killing the players (if they suicide, your not fined, they are, after all they did kill an inocent).

5- There should be a duelling system, lets say Shift+A is war mode, CNTRL+A is Dueling mode that needs to be accepted by the duelee. If they decline, then their chr name is posted in the local Gazet under "Yellow Pages" for public riddicule.

6- You can also avoid all this by joining Waring Guilds/Factions whatever, and fight your Guildies.

7- Sorry I got to put this in, you need to have at least 100,000 gold in your bank to even start PvPing (PKing), you really need to be able to pay your fines, right?

8- You can have full loot, but 1/2 of your player fine will goto the Victum, and the other 1/2 will go into a Community chest for Newbies to draw on.

9- A Bounty system could be instilled, all you need to do is goto the Justice Dept and check the "Wanted" list and go find them.

10- A Bounty Hunter needs to register as such before hand to claim any rewards, and never be associated with their prey, even talking to them will void the reward for them.

That's all I can think of, Ten rules and then I might concent to Open PvP, Open Loot as a non-PvPer. I don't seriously think anyone will agree with me, but it's my idea.

 

Here's my 'issue'(s).

• I do not want to PK or PvP as a play-style. However, I want to be able to have a more dynamic world, with even the 'bad guys' in it, and not have all the Players separated in the world by a PvP 'flag'. If I see someone in trouble, I like to be able to help, and I would miss that. I would miss having all of those PK or PvP Players in my world, because if I am forced to choose between the two, I choose PvE. [It is what all MMOs do, because no one has figured out yet how to keep them together without ruining the PvE-er's experience. This would be an innovation if SotA could come up with a way to do it.]
• Separating for the PvP/PK 'flag' forces all the honorable duelists, the Arena fight people, the role-player 'criminal', and the vigilante [even a part-time vigilante, like I was, with my guild-mates, when needed] to choose between being either
  • lumped in with the 'murderers' who want Open PvP and full loot, which is not what they want or
  • give up that whole dynamic you like and just be PvE
    • The Open PvP and full loot supporters, as far as I've ever known, hate roleplay.
    • I love roleplay, and all aspects of it, including what the 'bad guys' bring to it.
• If a Player has a friend (or friends) that is a PK/PvP playstyle, and a friend (or friends) that is PvE only, then what? They have to choose between the two friends? I honestly don't know.
• Personally, I don't support that anyone 'opt out' of their playstyle. I don't want anyone forced into an uncomfortable playstyle. No support is here from me for anyone to lose interest in New Britannia. I am supporting all playstyles, myself. To me, that means don't separate anyone with 'flags' so that they don't even see each other, and force them to choose either one or the other.

 

I don't know why you're posting why you'd consent to Open PvP, Full Loot, or why you're posting an alternate Justice system here, but I just caution - this isn't a Thread about stirring up support for an Open PvP Full Loot option. No. There have been far too many of those. I don't want that here! As I already stated, there are other Threads about a Justice system, this isn't a Thread for that.

 

Well, Excuse me... I'll stay out of "your" thread, since you don't want to debate the issues or come up with alternative ideas, you want a 3rd option? PvP or non-PvP or who knows what?

SotA is doing just fine, right out of the Box, I hope they don't change a thing...

 

There are a few really good ideas regarding such things as flags and a better justice system, I'm really enjoying seeing another aspect of a game where everyone can contribute ideas and debate a subject. I am a fan of open world PVP and full loot like I said but I'm not here trying to antagonise anyone or start a war/fight I'm just contributing as well. Some of us do RP as well, we do like developing a thief/assassin as well just like all you guys do. Also I do love monster bashing as you have put it and don't just wait to gank/PK all my time, we do craft as well and trade just as much as anyone else. Everyone here is just trying to express an idea or ideal that they want seen in this game and I hope that the devs are reading as well.

 

It wasn't my intention to imply that you back hardcore PvP; I was simply pointing that I'm not going to be put in a situation where I can be forced into PvP, even if it means never playing with other players. Thus, any answer that can't guarantee me that I won't be attacked by other players just isn't going to make any difference for me - which is why a justice system, for the specific purpose of allowing me to be in the same instance as PvPers, can't work.

For me to be found in the same instance as a PvPer, at least one of three things must happen:

- It was my choice to engage in PvP in the first place. If that is the case, I will be doing exclusively PvP while I'm there, ignoring anything PvE related - I really dislike mixing both - and I will leave for a PvE-only instance as soon as I want to engage in some PvE.

- PvP has no consequences. This allows me to, if I'm attacked by other players, just suicide, rez, and go on my way as the PvP attack never happened. I'm literally not engaging in PvP when it's not by my choice, even if someone else attempts to force me to engage.

- I must be completely and absolutely protected from PvP.

I'm not sure the second or the third are acceptable for PvPers, which is why I believe what seems to be the current idea for dealing with the PvP and PvE divide - having PvPers and PvE players not even see each other - is the best way of dealing with this. I can't see a way that would let me have fun while playing in the same instance as a more hardcore PvPer without irking him, and a justice system isn't going to help here.

 

I would rather play another game than compromise because a game where I can be attacked while doing PvE is completely worthless as an entertainment medium for me, no matter how good the game otherwise is. I would be better served by, well, playing anything else.

This is why I won't compromise; firing up my Atari and playing Frogger would be more entertaining to me than playing a game where I can be forced into PvP while playing PvE. It's not like I lack games to play anyway, I have more games than I have time to play, so it makes absolutely no sense to play a game that would do more to frustrate than to entertain me.