Please stop selling us stuff and give us info about pvp so we know what we are buying.

They do listen, and they do change all kinds of things. I don't think they have ever scrapped an idea that they have framed out as their intent. Consensual PvP is not getting scrapped, but it has changed (if you have Dev+ you can see that in the PvP mega thread when comparing it to what is in the public area)


Seems like the PvP crowd have all decided to have a common song. If you are not full open PvP you are PvE. It's the PvEer here that are attacking the PvP and it's all the PvE's fault.

Guess what, this is the Dev's plan, they have had this plan from the beginning. They are only forming the details now. If you couldn't see that, then you put too much stock into "everything is subject to change" and your ability to push "your" agenda into their plan.

 

I wish they wouldn't do that to PvEers too. If that part of the story goes against what I end up defining for my Avatar's framework or is stupid to me, I'm not going to do it.

sent from the future using my Coleco Adam

 

It doesn't help to treat all opposition to an idea as a single opinion or a single personality. I'm not a PvPer. I don't like the adrenaline rush. Regardless, a world where no violence can exist is too artificial and too constrained. Even I will engage in the occasional PvP when it becomes appropriate. The thing that could truly ruin the game for me is having to play with a bunch of people whose reason for logging in is to get in a fight.

 

Only for those who don't want to engage in PvP, period, under any circumstance, whilst exploring the multiplayer/online aspects of the game. But they didn't want those gameplay elements anyway, so that's hardly a loss, is it?

If you've opted in to PvP, then of course you will still be subject to surprise, randomness, and choice; you will spend your time playing the game uncertain as to whether that player over there is about to initiate trade or reach for his sword. And if that's the tension that makes the game for you, great...you, who want it, will have it. And those who do not want it...will not.

Unless, of course, that's what you see as being the problem, that those who do not want to deal with the uncertainty and tension will not have to deal with it, or deal with the consequences of a surprise attack. If that's your complaint here, well and good...but this is not going to be that kind of game.

It's a different approach that yields the same outcome; those who want PvP end up friend-graphed together, and those who do not want PvP are protected by the friend-graph from ever seeing a PvPer.

Which is...exactly the experience being offered to you at present, the only difference being that PvP isn't auto-enabled for all players by default.

Specifically, the people saying they don't want to be attacked...don't want to be attacked by other players. Being attacked by NPC monsters and being attacked by human opponents make for very different experiences, with the additional distinction that in the general case, one tends to know ahead of time that one is going to be engaged by NPC enemies. The exact number and composition a group of NPC enemies may be somewhat variable, but...in general, a player knows that if he's making a run on the Throne of Bone, he'll be pitted against some quantity of skeletons and the lich at the end, and can prepare for that.

A surprise attack from a PvPer upon entering a hex to look for crafting resources? That's a very different gameplay experience, and harder to prepare for unless one happens to be a seasoned PvP combatant with a keen awareness of the tactics employed by PvPers. (And not everyone is that, whereas most players will be reasonably experienced at dispatching NPC enemies.) Plus, if one of those NPC skeletons gets the better of the player and manages to kill him, the skeleton isn't going to fire off taunts like "QQ, n00b" in chat after the fact. To say nothing of the fact that some people don't actually like feeling as though they always have to be looking over their (virtual) shoulder when exploring a game world.

Equally, it's fine if those are things that appeal to you, personally. If you like that tension, if you like that unease, if you like a gameplay experience that keeps you looking over your (virtual) shoulder and weighing each move according to the possibility/probability of being ambushed...well, SotA will give you, who wants it, that experience. And SotA will allow someone who does not want that experience to avoid it.

So again, what's the issue here? Or is it, as I increasingly suspect, that what you are most looking for is the ability to make other players experience the tension and unease, whether they particularly care to or not?

Conclusion does not follow from premise.

I suppose you could look at it that way, but you'd be in error to do so.

 

From what I can tell, things will be in a constant waxing/waning state. Areas that are uncontested can become contested. Those contested areas will eventually be brought under control and uncontested.

As a PvPer, we move to the contested area, to PvP with a purpose. As a PvEer, we join in or move out of the way. This is how I imagine the "Evil" forces (Dark Lord or what ever) will be active in the world, instead of holed up in some instance waiting to be attacked.

 

Actually, for the main story, if there is any PvP it will be optional.

RG does want to include story and lore in the PvP, though, so there will be PvP "stories" that are not directly related with the main story, which appear to be what other games would call PvP quests or dynamic events but with a SotA flavor. The events that create temporary PvP zones seem to be called "stories" by the devs, at least part of the time, as well as on demand PvP missions like the often mentioned contraband run.

 

If this was actually the case you would have no issue playing PvE instead of PvP, right?

 

So ifi warned you first like a npc i could attack you. Oh thats right they red name gives that indicator. And no there is less choice and u do know that in a consensual system u will be attacked as outlined above by me. Wheb its consensual olayers assume someone flagged always wants to pvp and attacks. If its always on they hesitate. As indicated by Uo

 

I watched the exact opposite in Asheron's Call.

Darktide, the full PvP server, when you see anyone, they attacked on sight (unless it was a friendly guild). On the normal servers, there is a quest to go PvP. The normal servers, the PvPers cared more about PvPing with worthy opponents in fights that showed their skills.

Sure, jumping people when they least expect it and are in a less than ideal situation happens.

Fact is, if PvP is fun, people will PvP, no matter how they frame it. PvP with enough situations that people do not wish to PvP is what gets people to stop. If stopping means leaving the game, then that is what they do.

Give players the option to bow out of PvP until they decide to opt in gives the Devs time to get things right, when things are wrong.

 

Heh...well, not me, because I'll be over in SPO.

But for the purpose of the hypothetical...yes, you could attack me, provided that I was flagged for PvP. If you're asking whether you can just walk up to someone and smite them after announcing that intent, then (as I said before) this is not that sort of game.

As I recall, it wasn't always possible to escape a "red".

That's one possibility.

But equally, if it's always on, there will always be some percentage of the player base who make it their mission in life to antagonize that other percentage of the player base who just want to go about their business without getting into a fight with another player. This phenomenon -- griefing, PK, whatever term you want to give it -- has been the main issue with PvP that MMORPG designers have been attempting to solve for nearly two decades now. Or it's the feature they include somewhat grudgingly, but only after making sure it's as isolated as possible from the rest of the game world. Occasionally there's a game that takes the opposite approach -- ArcheAge and Rust spring to mind as games which impose few (if any) limits on PvP -- and one can find no shortage of stories of players of those games who have been, or were nearly, "griefed"...perhaps repeatedly.

Is it necessary that the choice be a binary one, though? That's the riddle SotA is attempting to solve, by finding a way to let those who desire the thrill of PvP experience it to the maximum possible extent, in as much of the world as possible, while still minimizing the possibility of PK/griefing. The consent mechanic seems to be a necessary component of that, but that aspect of it will more or less go away anyway once the friend-graph has time to populate for each player, since after a short while there will only be PvPers paired with PvPers anyway. But to cover both the initial period of gameplay and the occasional edge case, the consent mechanic will offer PvE-minded players some protection against unwanted PvP encounters, while doing nothing to limit the experience of those who want to be open to PvP encounters (excepting, of course, PK/griefing).

 

I had no problem escaping a red of course i never put myself in silly situations. Effectively pvpers are being punished for bad decisions by pvers. There will always be players trying to antagonize regardless if the flag is off or on. If griefing was that. Ad in archeage likely they wouldnt have a publisher. Its a subjective term. I had two hiuses stolen and gAnked in deceit by my ow guild. I didnt insist they change the game cause im an adult and dont let it get to me its just a game

 

Well and good. But this is not that kind of game. Nor was it ever going to be.

Clamouring for it to become that kind of game -- or disingenuously casting aspersions on the developers for somehow deceiving you with all their talk of a successor to Ultima Online and the Ultima series -- is not the hallmark of an adult. The adult response would be to either a) step back from this game that will not be the kind of game you want, wash your hands of it, and find a new game and community that more closely matches your preferred gameplay style (might I recommend Shards, by Citadel Studios?), or b) participate in the community in a constructive manner, in e.g. the "PvP Current Thinking" discussion, in an effort to try and foster changes in the planned design of the game's PvP system so as to bring it closer (in what ways are possible) to what you would consider acceptable.

 

mmjarec, I think it's a shame that you seem to not like the game design the devs are planning on having when it comes to PvP, but honestly, if you don't think this game will be fun for you then just don't play it. People have been screaming for full open PvP, preferably with full loot, since the very beginning and the devs have heard it, considered it, and chose, it seems, to go a different way. Staying here on the forums trying to convince anyone that what you enjoy most is best for everyone is not going to work.

Good luck finding a game you DO want to play and will have fun in.

 

First off a hallamrk of an adult is one who knows what he wants and settles for nothing less And one who doesnt get bent out of shape because they get ganked in a game and forcefly try to restrict others playstyles.

You dont see me trying to force ppl ito doig pve the way i demand.
They already said they wont do what pvpers want so its moot to argue for changes will never happen. I gave plenty of siggestions at first but was promptly ignored and minimized so now im one of the few pvpers left.

If they werent open to changing it they necer should have said everything is subject to change based on your feedback because its untrue as ive come to realize. And its not in anyones place for mecto decide what games i play. I probably wont paly this for long but it will be nice filler for a while in between games so my plans should be none of your concern

 

I realize that, but to say you are being forced to PVE in a game primarily made around PVE seems a bit contrite.

 

Why should one side be forced to do anything. They can make open pvp and still enable ppl to avoid it.

Why does the pve crowd always get their way? Im sure pvp would be open if they didnt rAise such hell but equally raised hell from pvpers just doesnt matter. At this point i know im not going to get what i want but i argue on behalf of equality. If it werent for me the pvp voices would be totally drowned out aside from a few others.

Its smoke and mirrors ilthey say they want to end unfair practices yet discriminate against pvpers

 

And what of compromise? Is this not also an adult virtue?

If the outcome is the same, why does the method used to arrive at it matter (since neither your proposed method nor the one Portalarium has proposed is objectively immoral or unethical)?

More explicitly: if the end result is that the friend-graph ensures that PvPers only ever see other PvPers online, then does it really matter whether PvEers have the option to consent to PvP or not? Either way, your online experience as a PvPer will only ever be populated by like-minded, PvP-enabled individuals...which is what it is already shaping up to be in SotA under the proposed PvP system. So why does it matter to you? You, as a PvPer, end up with the same gameplay experience either way; you get the PvP you want, whereas other avoid the PvP they don't want.

Where's the problem here?

 

Ultima Codex I have been arguing the same thing since kickstarter....if you can pvp with those that want to why is that not good enough?

I think I will get involved in smaller things like volcanoes and meteor strikes, when my mood is for it. But, I have limited time in the day to play and don't want to spend my whole time dealing with PVP if I don't want to. This system is great in it allows me to do just that.

 

And so they have. Exactly.

 

No they havent. Open pvp is ffa at least to me. What we have here is a watered down unoriginal bland system that every other game has. Consensual is too restrictive.
Its not a sandbox without the freedom to choose. You have the choice to fight wherever whenever as a pver. As a pvper im put into a box and not a sandbox