Looting

Even in a non consensual PvP setting, this happens, and PvP is not going to stop it. There should be game design solutions for this. Turning to player hostility as the answer for bad character (if you can agree that these are in bad character) does not help those that lose that battle.

The high skilled bored PvP player that turns to griefing is not swayed by relation, in fact they are further bored when no one can stop them.

Give players positive actions (PvP with a purpose) with effective solutions against griefing (handled by the staff if needed). I'd rather have punishment for actions over the line to be in the hands of the support staff. Deal with those players before they cause a sickness withing the game.

 

That is not what I was proposing. I am just trying to point out that it is hypocritical to say that other players won't be able impact your gaming in a negative way and not address those things while acting like the only thing that promotes toxic game play is another player killing and looting you.

 

And what is the "prevailing law" you would be suing them under? Just curious.

How are you being forced into a play style... you have made it clear that you do not want Open PvP. They have already provided TWO modes for you, single player and friends only. So as I see it you also wanting to take away a Open PvP mode would place YOU in that corner.

Are you kidding me. I have never seen an Open PvP player come close to calling non-Open PvP players anything like a sociopath. Even the mods are anti-Open PvP; they frequently remove my comments on how negative the consensual PvP environment is but posts like the Sociopath post by one of YOUR people, remain up as if they agree.

Again... PvP is not forced on anyone. Friends only mode and Single player. 'nuf said.

Not with me... People have my respect... they 'earn' the loss of it based on their own comments.

 

And still the Oracle system matches what RG initially proposed almost perfectly.

And what does this even cost you? 15 minutes once in the whole game, and mostly done to allow for a bit of immersion RG himself wants?

I would be all for a UI toggle, or a character creation toggle, that allowed players that want to PvP to completely avoid the Oracle quest, BTW.

Removing the chance of opting out of PvP in OPO mode is removing a whole game mode from the PvE players. It's far more drastic, with far more harmful consequences for the affected players, and isn't even the actual issue. You have a quest to toggle PvP instead of a switch because RG wants immersion, the fact PvE players are allowed into OPO mode has nothing to do with it.

Feel safe is relative. More accurate would be to say that those players don't want the kind of direct, and unwanted, player conflict that open PvP promotes.

And, for me at least, having any chance at all of another player being able to attack me is an absolute deal breaker if death has any meaningful consequence at all. It's a point where I will never compromise simply because I would rather not play the game at all otherwise.

And I never had any issue with other players doing this in over a decade of playing MMOs, to be honest. Though that might be because I tend to only play as Tank and Healer, which means that I really need spatial awareness — there's close to no chance of another player taking me unawares with a trick like what you described — and pulling a mob from a Tank is a losing proposition.

 

It was loaded because there simply wasn't enough time, or the right conditions, for spiritual successors to MMOs to even exist before now, much less a long running one like you asked for. You are asking for a subgroup of a group that is empty, or nearly empty, to begin with.

And the restriction you added doesn't even make sense. Why would the fact a MMO is a spiritual successor to a different MMO even make a difference when talking about the commercial viability of PvE games versus games that force non-consensual PvP?

Because I'm not lying. I watched every. single. hangout. back then. I've read every single interview. It was mentioned multiple times that PvP would be by consent only.

BTW, do you want to see (or, rather, read) Lord British himself making that promise? Reddit AMA at March 25, 2013: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/commen..._lord_british_garriott_creator_of_the/c929z9u

Hard to find a more direct answer than that.

I can likely find other places if I bother to look for. Most of those are buried in the hour long (or longer) hangout videos, though.

In that specific video, yes — a video made with, and aimed at, hardcore PvPers, in a round table whose host was a strong proponent of non-consensual PvP.

You are aware that, a year ago, most times when RG and Chris were together and someone asked RG a question about game systems he redirected the question to Chris, right?

For example, in this video : here we have the dev team answering questions, and when a PvP one arrives RG passes it to Chris, who starts by saying that PvP is by consensual.
(There are other places in that video where the team hints, or explicitly state, that PvP is consensual; the one I linked is just the most obvious one, as Chris starts his answer by restating it.)

In other words, you want to completely destroy my gameplay experience out of some distorted sense of entitlement that your way to play is somehow "better", out of some misguided fear that myself getting to enjoy the game in a way you will never even be able to meet me will somehow destroy your enjoyment.

It would completely cripple their ability to make the next episodes of the series they want to create. And their credibility.

He loves open PvP, and the emergent gameplay that can come with it. Which is why the game has an easy way for players to opt into being permanently PvP-enabled (or, at least, permanently until they revert their decision).

Doesn't mean that players will be forced to flag, except for a small part of the content that should be of little interest to pure PvE players anyway.

Sincerely, if you had actually watched the hangouts and read the interviews back then you would have noticed it a long time ago. I'm not the only player that waited for absolute confirmation that PvP would be consensual before pledging; I didn't just trust some nebulous idea that, because RG was involved in a previous game with a mechanic I liked, that the new one he would create would have that same mechanic.

NPCs attacking and players attacking are completely different things. Otherwise you wouldn't even be pushing for PvP, you would simply be content with slaughtering NPCs (or being slaughtered by them).

With that distinction in place, it's easy to show how it actually supports my position. Given that NPCs attacking have nothing in common with real persons attacking, there is no intrinsic reason to avoid it in games; but players attacking unprovoked, in a non-consensual way, does bear similarities to those real world incidents, which clearly show why some players will avoid them at all costs and why games that want to attract those players are better served by never forcing non-consensual PvP.

Consensual PvP doesn't have this issue because it's more akin to a friendly sparring match than to an unprovoked assault.

I only expect games to imitate reality when it's fun. I have yet to see a game where I have to fill tax forms on the gold hoard I snatched from a dragon.

Fighting players in a non-consensual way is not fun for me, not at all, and I'm not the only one that thinks like this. I don't think I'm in the minority, even. Thus, I don't expect to see it in most games, and I will refuse to play games that attempt to force me into fighting other players.

 

Who are you to say how I spend 15 minutes of my time?
You don't want PvP to affect you in anyway yet your DEMAND for that affects everyone who wants to play PvP. I don't care about consensual PvP whatsoever but go ahead and alienate anyone who might be remotely sympathetic to your cause because you've never been griefed in PvE because a competent DPS player hasn't pulled a mob from you. I've never been ganked in PvP to the point where I wanted to quit the game and neither of our experiences are invalid.

 

I'm sorry, but I never heard from any of my friends being griefed in PvE because a player pulled a mob from them. I have however heard of many people leaving due to PK-griefing, and mostly rez-killing and structural persecution by PKers. If you wish to further your cause, do as others have done, and instead of attacking on the forum those who disagree with an FFA approach, start (or join) a PvP protection guild.
You can still fight other PvPers, and whether or not the person you are 'protecting' is actually vulnerable or not should not matter to your role-play. You are there to protect a miner/forester/gatherer from getting killed by either NPCs *or* PVPs. Why is it such a problem you may see non-PvPers in the game? You cannot attack all NPCs either! And for some area's even the non PVPers will have to accept that risk to get access to the best resources in reasonable amounts...

And the 15 minutes you talk about, *that* is a decision by RG & Team you should NOT blame on the rest of the community.

 

I don't have a cause. I am telling some of you that I am not sympathetic to YOUR cause because you are not even trying to compromise. The "rest of the community" is supposedly the reason they said they came to that decision as smugly bragged about by some people in this thread. I DO NOT CARE about consensual PvP one way or the other. This thread is about loot. My main issue is that in the efforts to appease people who rage quit the game over PvP, they are going to make the more laid back people mehquit by making the PvP so pointless with the proposed loot rules.

This game is too small for people to be alienating each other and when you are sitting around by yourselves with no one to sell your wares to or hunt with, tell yourselves "because RG and the Team" said so but I say you all should look in the mirror because your unwillingness to compromise even a little makes no one want to play with you... well except for those guys who want to have their own modded servers. The point is there aren't enough of us to keep breaking up like this so try to compromise for your own sake.

 

I agree that the current loot system sucks! I have in several threads championed for a better system, but a number of PvPers are so hell-bent on being negative and aggressive that I've quit doing that! THAT behavior is chasing away PVErs and Neutrals from your cause! I have not seen PVErs chase supporters away!

But the main thing you are missing is that the OP wants to be able to steal/loot from anyone, even non-PvPers! That to me is nothing but griefing!

I support[ed] the cause for better loot systems, but I am against non-consensual PvP (or thievery) under any circumstance!

If PVErs are unwilling to compromise, it will for a large part be due to the aggressive, non-compromising stance of a number of FFA proponents, not due to the actions of the (more) reasonable PVPers!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

 

It's hard for me to talk about stealing. I even find myself laughing about how mad I get at the thought of it. The weird thing is even though that would probably make me throw the drink I was holding at the monitor, curse the offending player's name and start making voodoo dolls (god I wish that stuff worked) I still would be OK if they put that in there. It's not a feature I would ask for but I wouldn't ask for the ability to play musical instruments either. I would like to be able to make the guy who stole from me a greasy spot on the floor but I am pretty ambivalent about thievery. It still seems to me that the community is intractable about things and we really need to find a way to come together.

I wouldn't say that my cause is for PvP, I primarily play PvE and find myself in the middle. It is the folks that can't stand to be negatively impacted in anyway that have caused me to be more sympathetic to the PvP folks. I am the supporter that PvEers have chased away.
I am scared to death of walking through the lava field because I suck at PvE even! (In the beginning of EQ2 I got killed by a forge so don't even talk to me about fear. You're a weapon smith and can't even make an iron bar.) I am going to do it because I'm more into shinies than having a good kill versus death ratio. I like the idea of being able to fight back if someone attacks me but I also feel that those who don't are being completely unreasonable and will vote against the PvE side should the devs ever ask because I really think this unwillingness to listen is on their part.

 

I have the same stance on PvP in general... I'm ambivalent, and do think it has a place in RPG. I just don't agree with the non-consensual bit (and to me going in to one of the special areas equates to consent!) the OP (and several others) was proposing!

 

You and I are on the same page about consent. The reason I find many of my PvE brethren to be unreasonable is because even that isn't acceptable. Just because people are rude, does not make them wrong. We don't have to make compromise suck as badly as a Senate appropriations bill because as much as I get frustrated with our community, I KNOW we are better than Congress!
It has been pointed out to me that saying that we're better than Congress isn't really saying much...
This is true. Maybe the Devs will give us enough information that we can better help them come up with something that is closer to fair.

 

I'm not an American, but to be as bad as Congress we'd have to be making a conscious (and deliberate) effort to polarize the community and break down the efforts of the dev team! (And be paid obscene amounts of money for <90 days of work per year!)

 

For all I care you should be able to just click a button and be done with it. Or have a forced question at character creation, without a default answer, asking if the character will start with PvP enabled or disabled, only having players need to use the Oracle if they want to change their option afterwards.

Different experiences and tolerances. I have left games in the past due to being ganked in PvP, but never due to being griefed in PvE. I tend to be very hard to grief anyway.

And of course I don't compromise an inch about other players being able to negatively affect me through PvP, at least as long as the game has any planned death penalty worth of note. The combination of non-consensual PvP with meaningful death penalties is one that I never, ever, plan to deal with again for the rest of my life. I would rather not play the game at all, no matter how good it otherwise is.