OPO mode is NOT PvP

Whereas if being PvP is a choice, then healing someone who is flagged PvP sets YOU PvP, you stepped into the ring, you get your whuppin.

 

That is an option. However before applying the healing spell it should specifically tell you "If you perform this action you will be flagged for PvP. Do you want to continue? (y,N)

 

It could work like that. I gave both examples. But again, if you are going to have battles over control points and territory, they should actually mean something. Which means if I take a castle, it's my castle. Switching modes doesn't make it your castle. (Unless you're playing completely offline in your own game.)

If I have enemies, switching modes doesn't let me walk into their stronghold. Putting a blindfold on means that I can't see a wall. It doesn't let me walk through it.

 

You could still battle over control points in non-PvP mode. The only people you would see would be the NPCs or monsters.


EDIT: Maybe the way we interact with these zones could be quite different in PvP mode rather than in PvE. One thing is for certain is that these zones are controlled in the persistent world. So it just might be a PvP only instance, and PvE people will have no choice but to go around.

That might be less than ideal, but it might be the only way to make the zones work properly. However the rest of the world should be opened for people to be flagged for PvP regardless.

 

Zones are not created by geographic location, but by how each player configures their flags. There is one geographic spot, and the first person in that spot creates and hosts an instance of it. If another person comes along with matching flags, they are added to that instance, otherwise a new instance is created and the new player is the host of that instance.

Location is independent of what goes on in the zone. Activity is governed by how people are flagged and matched under Selective Multiplayer.

 

I'd say no to that. If I'm looking to JOIN the battle, and my friend is getting beat up bad, I don't want a yes/no box popping up just because my flag was down.

If someone gets smeared because they stepped into PvP without quite realizing, then tough cookies, you walk into the street you get run over.

They will know what happened and be a LOT more careful in the future.

 

If you are not flagged for PvP, the situation should never arise, since you should never see people who are flagged for PvP. That is what Selective Multiplayer is for, to avoid things like this.

 

Actually, judging by what has been said about it, I believe it would be possible. One of the first things said about selective multiplayer is that, in SPO mode, players are absolutely guaranteed to never meet any other player.
And I sure hope so, after going for Citizen during Black Friday. Well, not exactly the never meeting another player part, but rather being able to reach every last bit of PvE content without ever having to engage in PvP; SPO is simply a way to achieve that. Because if there are places on the map with PvE content that I have to go through forced PvP to reach, I'm not going to play online, and I will be left with the feeling that the pledge upgrade was utterly wasted money.

 

Richard Garriott has specifically stated that there will never be PvP that is required. PvP quests are for the purpose of introducing PvP, not as a hurdle to jump to reach other content.

 

I can play WoW in full PvE mode on a PvE server. I can complete every quest and raid of the game. But...if I'm a human (Alliance Faction), I can't walk into Orgrimmar (the Horde faction capital) without a fight. I can either flag myself for PvP or I can not go there. I cannot have both. The Horde have a right to keep Alliance people out of their house, just like you have the right to keep unwanted guests out of yours.

I know that this game won't be WoW. I know that this is not an MMO. That said, if there control points and territory wars exist in this game, no amount of PvP flags and SPO options gets people a free pass to avoid ownership.

It's clear that we're going in circles here, and I have no interest in forum PvP. There's a lot of speculation because they haven't explained anything about how PvP works. We're all deriving ideas based on their intent, the wording of the stretch goals, and how other games have solved similar problems. But if I own a castle, it doesn't make any sense to me that someone else can switch flags or modes and get into the castle. They either have to make friends with me or get a group of people together to kick me out of my castle. Anything else makes the whole concept of owning something pointless and stupid. It may not be an MMO, but it is an RPG...and in a RPG actions have consequences.

 

I agree in part. The counterpoint to your question is:

How large should be the consequences for one player from a different player's action? Specially when it comes to negative consequences, such as someone utterly uninterested in faction war being denied access to part of the game?

It's similar to the non-consensual PvP issue, just less direct. It's still causing negative consequences for players that don't want to take part of it, just not in a so direct way.

That being said, I don't have anything against exclusive cosmetic benefits, and non-exclusive functional benefits, for owning a castle; perhaps the main benefit for owning a castle is a merchant that only appears when the player enters the castle in OPO PvP mode, for example, which would require that anyone interacting with it is either allied with the current castle owner or defeats the current castle owner.

BTW:

<-- Loremaster for both Horde and Alliance. Which means I completed about every quest that exists for both factions, though this was before Cataclysm. Different characters obviously, but if there is one thing I never cared about at all in WoW, it was faction pride. I would sincerely have liked WoW better if it was a single faction game.

 

Don't agonize over things that may never come to pass. Wait until you know if there is a problem before trying to solve the problem. Of course, in the meantime, by all means make your wishes known that as far as game design goes, you strongly suggest that some things should never take place. If that's what you are doing, terrific, but it sounds to me like you are complaining about a game design flaw which has not yet been announced.

 

Not trying to be a douche, but can we get a source for that claim? You're probably right but without source it is just another he said she said.

As for the flag, I would hope that the PvP flag is a decision you need to take when creating your character and not something you can easily toggle on or off.

 

Which claim by whom? Be a little more specific, please.

That's pretty much already a done deal, I believe.

 

Ooooooh man! i didnt think of that either! thats a good point! now what!?

 

The original post, I mean as much as it is probably true, I don't understand that someone can just come on the board claiming something and everyone start to like his post as if it was a known fact. If it is indeed true, there should be a source somewhere and OP should add it to his post, instead of making an unsupported statement.

Unless OP is a dev, this post has zero credibility.

 

If you want to hook up with a friend, your flags have to match. That shouldn't be all that difficult if you plan ahead, or use a chat program like TeamSpeak. Perhaps the chat window could have a Friends tab where you could talk across instances even if you can't see each other because of a flag mismatch, or you could /tell a friend where you are and what your settings are to effect a rendezvous.

Either way, your flags have to match. Otherwise, you get pathological situations, as described by Isaiah.

 

I agree.

 

It has been alluded to in numerous dev videos during the KS, in a few RG interviews, etc... that there will be a PvP toggle. If that is creation time, penalty on switching in game, etc... there is zip info.

The short version: No one knows jack - most everyone wants to present their desires as authoritative source.

Welcome to the WWW.

 

I agree, but I'm still throwing out options in case this situation is allowed to happen.