Consensual pvp???? Stay a While and Listen Why this is no fun.....

Yes iv read all that and i have stated my stance several times. So i dont feel the need to do so again. I will howeve coment on the "i cant role play with out open PVP" as one who does both i dont understand that comment as the two are very differnt thing's if anything i would see the reverse to be true. I would be very anoyed if i was sitting down role-playing and have to stop to fight someone.

 

Interesting article on some of the reasons why there are not many games with non consensual pvp. I put the text or the article in the spoiler or here is the Link. Disclaimer: Explicit language in text so please do not hit the spoiler if offended or do not hit the link if offended.

Spoiler

How UO Changed The Culture of MMOs

Posted on September 1, 2014 by Damion Schubert
There are those who think that perhaps Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian are lying about the campaigns of terror, hacking, and bullying that they are currently encountering (and thanks to Tadhg Kelly for inventing the term Gamergate Truthers to describe them – it’s easier to say in polite company than fuckwads). I daresay that anybody who has ever set foot in the Customer Service department of a major MMO for more than five minutes has pretty much no doubts whatsoever. Because those guys see it all. Every day.
It used to be worse. Much worse. My first MUD, CarnageMUD, had to ban several players for attempting to hack, bully or keylog other players. Meridian 59 was worse, but it wasn’t until Ultima Online that we really saw how dark things could be.

Early days UO was chaotic for a lot of reasons. The game was much more successful than they anticipated, and they had to scale up very quickly. It was also very, very buggy, which created all manners of headaches for players and developers, and some incredibly novel ways to exploit and abuse your fellow players. It also was, bluntly, a social cesspool.
MMOs always vary wildly in tone from game to game and server to server, but early UO was a place where it seemed that everywhere I went, you’d encounter the most awful crude sexist, racist, homophobic, juvenile crap that you can imagine, both on the boards and in the game. And early UO was birthed on what was somewhat of a libertarian vibe — Origin let way too much of that crap slide, with the idea that you could always just kill the jerks. The problem was that no one was as good at PVP as the jerks were, and even more problematic, the jerks didn’t really feel all that traumatized when they died. It was the cost of doing business, where business was being a jerk.
At the time, there was serious concerns in the budding MMO industry. UO was not a very nice place. There were not a lot of women players – hell, there were not a lot of players who had thin skin. But our visions in those days wasn’t just for a couple hundred thousand players – we wanted the genre to see millions, or even tens of millions of players. But you were never going to get there if you were being called a ‘faggot’ every ten seconds. I remember in those days actually feeling despondent. Maybe the vision of an MMO just couldn’t scale above a certain size. Maybe the dream was dead.
You should not need thick skin to play a video game.
With all due respect to Raph, in my mind there is no person who has been more important to the development of MMOs as a viable consumer product, historically, than Gordon Walton. He came to Origin from Kesmai, one of the few companies that dabbled with large-scale multiplayer gaming before Ultima Online and Meridian 59. And he had the scars to prove it. His contribution was simple: he was able to convince every level of the organization that change was necessary – and possible. He did so with the single most succinct definition of a griefer I’ve ever heard: A griefer is someone who, through his social actions, costs you more money than he gives you.
Well, when you say it like that, we all felt pretty stupid for letting these jackasses hang around for so long.
Ultimately, his message was that the culture of the game had to change. Community services were beefed up. The team developed tools that allowed players to report abusive behavior and allowed CS to review the chat logs of trouble incidents (fun fact: in a not-insignificant number of cases, CS would ban the person who filed the complaint, as it was clear the player was attempting to goad his target). Origin also built what may have been the industry’s first community relations department, in order to rescue the tone on the boards. And the team did the Felucca/Trammel split, creating a safer adventuring space in order to attract a less cutthroat brand of audience. And then they began working on a Zero Tolerance policy for general assholish behavior.
Which was tough, because in those early days, the CS tools were still roughly akin to rocks and twigs.
But it worked. UO was, most assuredly, saved by changing its culture more than any other change it ever made.
EverQuest managed to learn from UO’s mistakes and corrections, and had a zero tolerance policy from the start. They had some rough patches — early MMO developers were continually astounded at the ingenuity of griefers determined to ruin each other’s good times. By the time WoW came around, the formula was pretty pat. Sure some MMOs have struggled with fuckwads, but these struggles have tended to be brief, because now MMO developers know that it’s just not worth keeping their $10 bucks a month.
The modern MMO has a full-time staff, usually of dozens of people, hopefully working 24 hours in order to identify problem behavior — including not just harassment like this, but also issues like gold spamming, botting, cheating, etc — and escort those people out the door as quickly as humanly possible. It’s kind of like being a bouncer at a strip club. You may get your hands on a dancer’s ass, but you’ll likely be out in the parking lot within 2 minutes.
We spend MILLIONS of dollars doing this. Millions that as a designer, I’d sure like to spend on more game content or features. But it is the cost of doing business. And its working – there is probably no online, synchronous, co-ed gaming place that feels as protected and as safe for women and other minorities. Everquest 2 reportedly has a 60%/40% gender split. Same for WoW. Compare that to the 85/15 split playing GTA IV. Or the 90/10% split playing League of Legends. Or the 92%/8% that call themselves Call of Duty fans on Facebook.
The walled garden MMO is a uniquely safe place for female gamers to play with male gamers. Which is something to be concerned about, given publishers seem to be losing appetites for making MMOs in the wake of no one being able to replicate World of Warcraft’s lightning in a bottle.
Make no mistake – MMOs have strong advantages in controlling their cultures. We house the servers and pay for the bandwidth. We frequently have subscription plans to help pay the costs of a CS crew. Most communications in these games between strangers is done in text chat, which is cheap to store and easy to search. And the generally long lifespans of the character arc in these games means that getting kicked out of the game will lose a ton of character progress and rare items – sure, that level grind sucks, but perversely, it also creates an investment of time in that character that most people are loathe to lose. MMOs changed the culture from the top down. And that was easier. Doing this for the larger gaming culture will be inestimably harder.
But the most important step was realizing that the culture had to change.

 

I logged on, been away on vacation, to do the tour guide quest. I had limited time so I wanted to blaze through it and log off.

Someone followed me around spamming "fight me" for an amount of time that shows he was clearly bored. If PvP was non consensual I would have never had the time to deal with that stuff and accomplish my goals.

 

Ristra,

Glad to have you back!

 

Thank you thank you.

My thoughts on that event was "why is he bored? will no one pvp with him?" and "why is it that I am the target vs someone wanting to pvp?"

Could be he didn't like my forum posting, there is always that. Could be he wanted something he couldn't have. Could be he likes trying to provoke people. Could be he wants to fight people that are not dedicated pvp.

Either way, he wanted to pvp even though there is no reward.

But my main concern is the constant push for his push to pvp me is going to control the difficulty of my goals. The devs are the ones that set difficulty. If PvP is what they set then they set up motivator to get people to PvP. Not everything has PvP as part of the difficulty. (or the tour would have put me into a PvP area and I would have PvPed to finish my goal)

My consent to PvP is purely based on MY goals not someone following me around demanding fight them first. And winning that fight may or may not have the reward of me finishing my goal. Only means I have won a fight.

 

I would love for the community to handle bad behavior rather than developers (ie; anti-pks, militias, bounty boards, body guards etc.). PvPers want choices not artificial constraints.

 

90% is an obviously fictitious number - so obviously fictitious (and so trivially fact-checked) that I can only assume you're lying on purpose, with the hope that nobody will know any better.

It's actually closer to 2/3s - and that's without accounting for the high bias towards "alts" (industrialists, station-traders, AFK freighter alts, multibox minerbots, etc.) in high sec. Of my 6 characters, only one regularly leaves high-sec, but that's the one on which I spend the vast majority of my playtime.



Source: CCP Diagoras

Furthermore, "highsec" does not make anyone safe. It has one function: it applies a financial consequence to killing. As this consequence, as well as the loss that will be suffered by the guy on the business end of the blasters, is trivial to quantify, highsec homicide is a simple matter of gradeschool-level arithmetic.

A few observations, up front:

Your outsized emphasis on mining activity is curious, given that it's an activity that most players grow out of fairly quickly. A handful of people dedicate themselves to it - they tend to become highsec multiboxers (though not for much longer, as this practice is being banned) - but it's generally an undertaking for the very new, or for people who are just looking to fill in some downtime with a vaguely-AFK isk earner. Having one's mining operations disrupted is not an actual concern for any alliance, as the low barrier to entry make it simply too poor of an earner per man-hour (the theoretical ceiling, at current prices, is 62m isk/hr/miner, though actually achieving that in practice is impossible, as that particular ore would be depleted in a few cycles by even a small fleet) to be relevant at the alliance level.

Similarly, disrupting the mining ops of other alliances is not actually a goal, in practice, for reasons that should now be obvious: It's not that valuable of an activitiy, so it's also not that valuable of a target. Nobody is going to "blockade" a system for the sake of deterring some miners from eking out their peasant-level, ditch-digger income, as the opportunity cost to the combat pilots will almost certainly exceed that of the miners. To alliances, miners are targets of opportunity.

This also means that the "billions and billions" in lost income you cited was clearly derived from... somewhere other than reality. Even at the impossible-to-achieve optimal value, it would take 32 miners (+ Rorqual pilot) over an hour to hit even 2 billion. Nobody is fielding a 32 man mining fleet in null (if they did, they would strip out the most valuable ores long before an hour was up), and if they did, nobody would bother to sit on them for an hour, which brings me to my point:

Your entire description of a PvP operation in Eve was utterly fantastical. There's no such thing as an alliance sending out a fleet to "blockade" miners. It's easy to see why someone with limited experience with the game and its economy might imagine that to be a common practice, but the math doesn't pan out. Things that actually happen:

An alliance does a CTA roam into enemy territory. Two or three miners they encounter retreat to the safety of a POS bubble for a few minutes while they pass. One idiot was paying more attention to Netflix than Eve and got himself popped. The CTA fleet quickly moves on, because there's no way in hell they're going to get dozens of rowdy PvP pilots to sit around with their wedding tackle in-hand for the sake of stopping two 3 month old pilots from mining in their retrievers. The miners resume mining when their scouts report the fleet has passed.

What in the actual...

You've rather conveniently invented a scenario in which, for some reason, it suddenly matters who the target is. This is virtually never the case. Prey is prey. There's no need to find them (though your assertion that that's somehow difficult is another lie - a good combat prober can pop a safespot in seconds). There's no need to wait anyone out. Just shoot the next guy. Hell, get some friends, sit on a gate, and shoot everyone.

There are basically two extremely limited scenarios where where you just said even remotely reflects actual gameplay:
-Contract mercenary work.
-Some sort of ego-driven vendetta.

Those are both pretty rare edge-cases. The most common scenario for high sec is that you don't care who you shoot. One explosion is just as good as the next. This also holds for most low-sec PvP. With Faction Warfare, you only care that they're on the opposing team.

The only common instances where a group is specifically targeting another group preclude the defensive measures you described because there are other assets in play. You can't just dock up to avoid a sov war or a wormhole eviction.

TL;DR: There is enough erroneous information in your post that I'm fairly certain you've very little first-hand experience with the game, and have mostly extrapolated what you "know" about it from that little bit of experience and what you've read on the internet. Your imagined version of Eve might be a "whole different beast", but most of the giant fundamental differences you've cited are the fictitious product of your imagination, and not the game's actual mechanics.

 

You're ignoring the fact that all the ways to actually force someone into PvP in Eve require them to make themselves vulnerable to it in some way. If you don't claim sovereignty somewhere nobody can come and challenge you for it. For all practical purposes Eve is a consensual PvP game, it's just that their mechanics that allow you to stay out of it are complex and built directly into the game, rather than simply being a switch you throw to be unassailable.
It's s fundamentally different PvP model than what people are asking for when they talk about open PvP in a game like SoA.

 

Each person's definition of "bad" behavior is different.

If the devs set that definition (virtue system) then provide tools to handle conditions of the state of virtue then the community can handle this.

Opening up methods of "punishing" other players based on arbitrary beliefs would be the other extreme. No community should be able to punish players. Unless the game was built solely around being able to punish other players. Because that is all some would be doing even if it was not justifiable.

 

I'm amazed this thread is still going.

Tbh I can't see the issue with the current build.

- All players who want PvP will remove the protection and will probably fight anywhere.
- There are PvP zones where no one is protected whether they have a personal flag or not.

For PvPers I think time would be better spent soliciting for less lag and better combat......not constantly repeating the same whining over non-consensual PvP....which btw will never happen (and if people don't get that by now, they may have taken one too many blows to the head).

 

It's called the "undock button".

If you press it, you are vulnerable, period, full stop, no exceptions. The fact that you seem to think otherwise pretty conclusively proves my previous assumptions about your lack of actual experience with the game, as well.

They are totally free to log in and remain docked and not actually do anything while being safe, though.

 

no its a bout the prime eu and na pvp time , where everybody is online . in this situations its important to have an interesting town life.

no matter if it is full loot or not

 

its not about the consensual pvp itself its about the world feel crappy if you cant attack anyone everywhere and loot him !!!!

i dont say that it is not important to have consensual pvp, its a must , especially when it is mentioned at the kickstarter as a feature ,but the full loot ultima online fans and crafters dont want to play a game like this boring like hell !!!! we need get separated we have other interests , i want to live in a cruel world otherwise the world not feel realistic for me and i cant roleplay the way i like it.


for exemple i want to have a crown and force people to bend down infront of me the king or i chop there heads of and loot them . when there is no full loot the guy might not show me the needed respect XD

just an excemple i could mentin 1000 roleplaying fun actions which only work in full loot games

i cant gather noobs on the way which i tell die here and now of follow me and help me on an ambush of the next town , when noone is afraid to die (( roleplaying is dead for me

roleplaying for the fun ,this is no ultimate roleplaying game !!!

 

You want to do all this, go to a PvP hex where everyone is PvP, and you can do it all you want.

 

I really don't like you people very much.

 

Well...that's pleasant.

 

/hug I has beer

 

its not about the consensual pvp itself its about the world feel crappy if you cant attack anyone everywhere and loot him !!!!

i dont say that it is not important to have consensual pvp, its a must , especially when it is mentioned at the kickstarter as a feature ,but the full loot ultima online fans and crafters dont want to play a game like this boring like hell !!!! we need get separated we have other interests , i want to live in a cruel world otherwise the world not feel realistic for me and i cant roleplay the way i like it.


for exemple i want to have a crown and force people to bend down infront of me the king or i chop there heads of and loot them . when there is no full loot the guy might not show me the needed respect XD

just an excemple i could mentin 1000 roleplaying fun actions which only work in full loot games

i cant gather noobs on the way which i tell die here and now of follow me and help me on an ambush of the next town , when noone is afraid to die (( roleplaying is dead for me

roleplaying for the fun ,this is no ultimate roleplaying game !!!

And people wonder why no one wants to be around them

 

Giving the community sole responsibility to handle bad behavior, is also giving the community no responsibility for behaving responsible, especially since killing a player engaged in pve is the fastest way to get rich quicker.

I would expect FPS and Moba type play rather then rpg, since many see this as a way to take advantage of folk for greed and giggles, not caring how their actions effect others and the game itself. This type of environment becomes exhausting, when any stranger has to prove themselves honest and with integrity before accepting they wont stick a dagger in your back when your at your most vulnerable.

 

To Murdock we mostly have this now OoV is but one example.

To Xandra this is untrue in my opinion. When you have PKer hunters who solo mission is grifing the grifers, makes the grifer think twice about griffing. almost confused my self on that one…
As far as not being able to trust anyone again I dissagree. Yesterday I was out killing things with Envy ran across Moonshadow. I have seen him around the forums but never had any dealings with him personally, we are both flaged PvP it wouldnt have been hard for either of us to take advantage of the situation. (He would have killed me if i tryed im sure) but the point is neither of us tryed in fact we partyed up and I dont know about him but I enjoyed the time we spent running around untill we whent our owen ways