Proposed Consequences for Murder

Negative, ghost rider.
It's not inferred, it's explicit. What you personally believe to be true is not the issue here.
Portalarium has been explicit about this design point since Kickstarter. But feel free to argue with them.
There will ONLY be consensual PvP, in SotA. Entering a player conflict hex, with foreknowledge of that fact, is giving explicit consent.
Conversely, how would you demonstrate you do NOT give consent, thereby not participating? By not entering that hex.

 

By that logic, leaving a town in UO gave PvP consent - and from your point of view that would be correct. 95% of pre-Trammel UO was consensual player combat by your definition.

I determine consent is given when both parties are voluntarily entering combat, not going where combat is possible.

It's just an argument of semantics .

 

Because PvP is the risk, not PvE. PvE will have it's risk vs reward also. (Not mentioned in Darkstarr's comments during R3 but mentioned in the mulitplayer hangout)

 

The hexes in SotA are not the same as the invisible town boundaries in UO.

If this was an argument of semantics , we would be in agreement about a claim being true.
That's not the case, so far. At the core of this particular argument is your interpretation of the facts, from Portalarium.
You can interpret them as you wish, but I suspect you're in for disappointment when their implementation is tested in game.

 

I explained it in a previous post. If the game can only be played in PvP, then it's non consensual. Towns being the only place that is non PvP can you play the game? Choosing to not PvP to gather a resource but instead going to a PvE area to gather said resource is consensual PvP.

 

Haha you guys crack me up.

I choose not to consent to a debate on terms.

Oh damn! I already consented because I'm in the forums! No wait! I consent because I engaged in conversation! Argghhh

<Ristra and Vjek gain experience!>

 

You could have chosen your subject (playstyle) but instead you choose this one. Game on, by consent.

 

Since there is no forced PVP in this game why do you need penalties for people who choose to PVP? Whole idea is silly.

People select PVP at log on. Winner gets to keep the losers stuff. Loser re-spawns and tries again.

No need to over think this stuff.

 

Except that's not how the developers have indicated they are making the game, based on what very littles HAS been said and is known at this time. All things can change, but I don't believe there has ever been mention by the devs of a PvP flag at log in or its been stated how loot mechanics would work.

So keep assuming like everyone else.

 

Because some people who might like an open world without limits would still like the world in open PvP to have some balance to it, so griefing people isn't too easy. You want to entice people to play with PvP, not just leave masochists to turn PvP on.

Anyway, my approach to this, posted earlier: Life as an Outlaw.

 

Many people asked for the ability to be a Red. It's not going to break my heart either way. I usually only kill people that are lurking around and stealing my loot anyway. On the same note I hope the punishment isn't too harsh for that same reason.

Part of my admitted prejudice with the radical PvE supporters is that I have stereotyped them into being those people that use to wait for me to kill something then run in for the loot .....then mouth off about it while hiding behind the skirts of the game mechanics. When I think of how the slider will effect the economy my judgement may be clouded a little, in my mind I'm pulling up references of a greedy thieving people and it's probably unfair. I can't convince myself otherwise though.

Just as I'm sure some PvE players stereotype all PvPers as the griefing type.

 

Just because a miner goes into a PVP area to get resources does not mean he wants to be killed.
It is still murder if the miner had no reason to be there then to get the ore.
The penalties I'm asking for is they can't go into town and player vendors can choose not to sell to reds.
If there are light vs dark spells, then maybe recall can be light, I'd hate to lose that when pks are coming my way.

 

I keep saying that trolls will troll no matter what, and that consequences can't dissuade them from griefing because they don't care about their character. They only want to grief.

I am here to revise that statement. You may be able to get them to change their ways with the right consequence.

Griefers should be forced to play an unpatched copy of Ultima IX in its entirety on a period appropriate PC.

 

With no cheat mode or internet access.

 

If there is forced PvM why can't there be forced PvP?

 

The thing that made Ultima Online was the free and open world, you had the option to attack players at will (though you were notified of your actions) flagging grey and eventually red had its own inherent consequences. I was a PK eventually after dealing with too many players who thought themselves self entitled. However, the things REDs brought to the game was that fear/excitement of the encounter, and later I was an anti-PK , the thrill of people coming back in ghost form to the town to tell you of PKs just outside etc , the community gathering to hunt and chase/kill those PKs , that brought a dynamic that no game has been able to achieve since UO. Unfortunately too many players now want this safe zone and the freedom to do whatever they want ith no consequences, imagine if a player is fighting a monster and you run past to steal the chest they were fighting to for 10 mins, that player now must suffer and accept he has no ability to do anything , but in the old UO style you had the choice to punish that person or allow them to steal your chest. Realism wouldnt apply to games as nobody has 24 hours a day to play , but thier should be consequences for everything you do good/bad .

 

Speaking of ghosts coming to town ....reminded me of Snoop Dog , a pk that would come to town as a ghost to visit everyone. Everyone loved him, but would spam him with continual rezzing; he would have to turn all those resurrections down though or lose his valuable head. He was on the top of the wanted criminal list. ..Drakenfel


I thought it was cool that he didn't have his alt take the bounty, but gave everyone the chance of an awesome bounty.

I was more excited about meeting him than I was about LB.

 

Is there?

 

I

Im sure there will be monsters that attack on sight, but then again we go back to whether or not we consent for that monster to attack us based on us entering their territory versus unwanted interaction...

 

It's all about if you can achieve the same through PvP and not have to PvE.