Poll for Non-PvPers/ Idea for "Open World" compromise [UNOFFICIAL]

Only if you throw away role-playing, in my opinion. If you compared SoTA's world to a real world, all it would really mean is you're entering a dangerous area. If its not anything like the real world, you can start assuming people are willing combatants. But why do we want to do that in a role-playing game? The game world should be an alternate reality.

What if a player goes into a PvP zone and yells "stop, I don't want to be killed." You kill him anyway, and you don't consider him a victim. That's not role-playing.

Yea, arenas can be consensual, but they aren't necessarily consensual.

 

Much of what you said would be true, if everyone 'role played' by the same rules... They don't.

Also, there are real world similarities to walking into a PvP zone... The stereotypical urban bad-neighborhood at night. A biker bar at 2am... Those could be considered real-world equivalents to a PvP zone... People who don't wish to risk it stay away... those that do accept the risk.

 

Exactly, but it doesn't mean the people who get killed in those neighborhoods aren't victims.

But yea, I think the biggest problem with PvP in UO wasn't that it was non-consensual, but that it wasn't built around role-playing. Because of that, wandering into the wilderness made everything seem like non-stop arena combat (ie. non-consensual dueling). So, I would have preferred a completely different approach to the problem.

Not necessarily complaining about the dev's approach, though.

 

Yes... everyplace outside the confines of a city amounted to East LA or Downtown Detroit (as depicted in the movies) at night.
Not a world I will pay to inhabit. Nor, seemingly, the largest portion of the available market.

And, I agree, that in the Real World those attacked would and should be considered Victims. However, in a Game, that has Rules, where those some areas are declared Free of the Laws that encumber the actions of Free Men... anyone that enters into those areas cannot be considered a victim.

No one that voluntarily scales the wall and enters the Island of Manhattan as depicted in the classic "Escape from New York" is a victim.

 

I would caution against importing "real world" situations into video game theory. Not everywhere in the world is some sort of Hobbesian state of nature.

 

And to some, anyone who thinks that's not an enoyable game is a "********." The biggest problem with that label is people get the motivation completely wrong.

 

That's why I equated them to Movies, or movie depictions, rather than Real World.

 

Not everywhere is a modern warfare battlefield....

 

Either way, murderer is a play style in role play. Turning that word into some kind of personal attack on the forums happens. But so does phrases like "lawyers are evil" and we all know there are plenty of great lawyers that are in no way evil. So unless it's a personal attack directed at a person (sounds funny huh but it's been confused a lot lately) when someone says "people suck" don't bother feigning outrage.

It's an exercise in distraction via semantics.

Portalarium has addressed the "murder" they do not wish to be in the game. They went with consensual PvP. Now, if there is a certain definition of murderer that people wish to see in game, without going against consent, this is the time and place to bring it up.

 

@Ristra,

Yea, I agree. I'd add -- just to clarify -- the point I'm making is more than about semantics. A possible concern of mine is that they may just replacing full-world arena combat with PvP-zone arena combat, and not addressing the role-playing aspects of PvP, except in the quests, ie. contraband quests. In general, arena-style combating doesn't really appeal to me. I'm not really complaining about it, because we don't know about all of the aspects of how its being implemented yet, and its something we're going to have to play test. I'm just raising my POV on this for discussion.

 

The semantics comment was directed to the definition of words. Not the discussion of mechanics of design.

How the game mechanics are laid out vs how each person plays within, or in spite of, those mechanics

 

I hate to say this but I think I am converting.
For a long time I have been completely Anti-PvP
But when I see topics like this one, I start to wonder why.
Unfortunately my answer wasn't in the list so I will just say it here.
(and yes I did play UO before trammel)
It was exciting never knowing when you might be attacked.
Getting away was always exciting.
Winning was awesome.
Getting slaughtered provided hours of fun swearing and planning revenge/strategy for the next time.
I guess I starting hating PvP when the exploits became so overwhelming there was never a chance to win or even experience any type of fun challenge.

I just read somebody else's reply about how they just like they challenge of a good fight, if they are superior they may doing things recklessly just to make it more interesting so there is the risk of losing.

Now I would LOVE that experience again. I REALLY hope I get the chance at fair PvP. I don't really care about Full loot or not, if you want it take it. The real PvP would probably give you back SOME of your good stuff anyway, just as a matter or respect.

Well here is hoping for a solution that does add the danger/excitement of honorable PvP.

 

Yes, that is a common claim by PvP enthusiasts, and I'm sure it's true in many cases. But the challenge of the fight doesn't explain the exploits or the griefers, or Lord British's famous thief that stole from the same new character repeatedly every time she stepped out of town until she left and never came back.
Fortunately, these people will again be able to find a good fight, with willing and prepared people who also wish a good fight through the consensual PvP mechanic.

I see no reason that the current PvP Plan would not provide that for you.

 

For me 'Murderer' isn't really the one to focus on, because the fact that it can kinda sorta be used to refer to both player and character lets people dodge the real issue, by raising the player/character point. (It's either smokescreen or red herring, depending on whether the intentions of the particular poster are honourable or not.)

But the underlying double standard which acrylic is pointing out is clearly there, really it leaps out of the page unless your glasses are permanently tinted: on the one hand, treatment of the c word, on the other hand, treatment of the equation of griefing/pking/pvping, explicitly and repeatedly made by many with very little censure - including, like a scene straight from Beckett, by the poster whose name is next to the 'Forum Rules' sticky, and elsewhere including repeated labeling of others as mentally ill for killing internet pixels. No amount of 3rd rate sophistry or feeble attempts to weasel out of taking responsibility for one's opinions can justify the discrepancies. People notice this stuff, others hear about it, and it's already (to the obvious joy of many posters here) had an at least semi-permanent affect on the demographics of the forums. It will almost certainly end up having a similar affect on the demographics of the game itself - even if the mistake is rectified right now.

 

I DID say that it makes the character a murderer, and it makes the player a "player of a murderer". If you implied from my words that I thought YOU were a murderer, you can look out your window and see by lack of Feds (I hope?) that I do not in fact think that YOU are a murderer.

As for doing it 5 consecutive times... you DO realize that we aren't talking about Ultima Online here, right? I keep seeing this kind of reasoning popping up in the PvP forums, it has been EXPLICITLY stated on many occasions that this is not UO, it won't necessarily be using UO systems, it won't contrive to imitate UO... so why bring up a UO system for determining a player's PvP status? Now, if the devs of SotA had said on an official SotA site that SotA would have a system whereby you had to kill 5 "innocent" players before you got flagged as a PK...

I STILL WOULDN'T CARE!!

Doing it ONCE makes you a murderer. Playing it ONCE makes your character a murderer. If you didn't get caught and punished YET, and still need four more black marks before the local authorities intervene, that's a matter of LAW. I don't care if you got 5 years with time served, life without parole, or the death penalty. That's the PUNISHMENT. The crime was killing someone. You don't have to commit the crime repeatedly in order to be guilty of it. Only to get CAUGHT.

Now, if SotA invokes exactly this system, or some variant of it, bully for them. I may very well take advantage of such a system to occasionally murder someone. That's right, sometimes *I* play a murderer. The difference is, I own up to it, instead of trying to blame everyone else for noticing that I just stuck a knife in that dude's face.

This, is, once again, something to be taken up with the devs. Personally, I never found the c word alarming or insulting, I'm a say it like it is kinda guy. There are players in this game who want only to socialize and harvest plants and sell fancily died ponchos they made themselves. IMO, they should be allowed to do so.

However, the posting that we are seeing in these forums seems to contain a great deal of raging at various forum posters, who HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT BAN AND COULDN'T CHANGE IT IF THEY WANTED TO, which seems pretty wasteful. Certainly wasteful of everyone's time. And people wonder why they aren't getting any love. I say to those ranters, "Get down off your soapbox and put your clothes back on."

 

Call me a ********. I was one of the Originals.
I wear the label with pride.

 

I am clear on my views of the forum rules. I don't care who wins or loses in the game. The subject is the fairness of the forum rules in relation to derogatory name calling.

Winning and losing is only important to me as a way of describing players without using derogatory terms.

Calling Role Players Murderers is a slippery slope because that would imply that we should have that choice. Again this is a case of sore losers wanting the best of both worlds. The freedom of choice has been given to the non PvP players and now you want to call Role Players Murderers after taking their choice to Role Play away.

My first few posts were on virtues and Role Playing a true hero by fighting the greater evil.

In a Role Playing game that has become very limited. You do not get to cause players to lose both the villain and hero roles that they cherish and then call the Winner of a PvP competition a Murderer.

That's bad business...to allow customers to gimp a game and then allow the same customers to call the players who wanted a full game derogatory names.

 

@acrylic,

Nah, I agree with Malak, I have no problem with people role-playing murderers at all, and have no problem role-playing one myself. Why are villains villains? Because they just happen to wear a black cape instead of a white one?

 

Ok, lemme try another tack to establish some sort of rapport. What exactly is derogatory about the word "murderer"?

 

I'm well aware that SotA is not UO. If you missed my first few posts, I mentioned that SotA has redefined Open PvP as being consensual, but allowed the stigmata to linger.

The game is nothing like UO, but the stigmata created by UO is still in the community and arguably has tendrils reaching as far as the dev team. The double standard on derogatory name calling is prevalent enough that only a blinded eye could miss it.