PVP compromise idea

Discussion in 'PvP Gameplay' started by tiggis2006, Apr 16, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. tiggis2006

    tiggis2006 Avatar

    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Two PVP flags

    On/Off

    ON - Your available to be attacked and attack and robbed.

    OFF - Your available to attack and be attacked, but there is a 25% chance that the gods will strike your evil muderous attackers dead. This includes thieves. (three people attack they each get a 25% chance via their first attack. (Makes a stupid random PKer think twice and weigh the options)

    PVP OFF players who are attacked can dry loot the attackers/ theives.

    PVP On players (if successful) can loot 3 items via the current ruleset.

    Note.. PVP OFF players can always iniate attacks on PVP on Players (but lose thier 25% instadeath protection of the gods.)



    I can enjoy this pvp ruleset.
     
  2. PrimeRib

    PrimeRib Avatar

    Messages:
    3,019
    Likes Received:
    3,577
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    There is a castle:
    1) You can defend it
    2) You can attack it
    3) You can ignore it

    Either of the first two options effectively makes you part of PvP. Everyone who PvPs wants to be there and had a purpose. No silliness or compromise required.
     
    DavenRock likes this.
  3. Rufus D`Asperdi

    Rufus D`Asperdi Avatar

    Messages:
    6,346
    Likes Received:
    15,782
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    I can't as I can still be forced into PvP.
     
  4. tiggis2006

    tiggis2006 Avatar

    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    3
    This addresses the largest concerns of pve people, You cant grief someone who kills you instantly and loots you dry.
    You cant be humiliated by a group of people when half of them die.
    You cannot be dry looted.

    This also addresses many PVE and PVP griefer problems that PVP players hate.

    PVE players would RARELY be attacked under this ruleset.
    and on the rare chance they are they would be successful quite often, enough to offset the loss when they were not.

    This also allows for GOOD PVE groups to Mass hunt PKS.. with incredible protection.. The possee idea would work well with this.

    Example:

    1. aNGeRMAn - attacks you
    2. The Gods judge aNGeRMAn in the scales of justice and find him wanting, *lighting Bolt from heaven comes down and kills aNGeRMAN
    3. Loot him dry

    Heck bump the chance to 50%.. the only interaction you would have most of the time is looting him.
     
  5. Silent Strider

    Silent Strider Avatar

    Messages:
    1,067
    Likes Received:
    1,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't care if someone attacking me would have a 100% chance of being killed with all his gear destroyed, I would still refuse to play if I could be attacked.

    My issue is not with the loss, is not with punishing the attacker, etc; my issue is simply with the fact a player is opting to attack me when I'm not in the mood to engage in PvP. If that chance exists at all, I won't play the game.
     
  6. tiggis2006

    tiggis2006 Avatar

    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    3

    Your post boils down to "I will not compromise"

    Without the old UO crowd of PVPers the game will not be successful.
    They need the population, the patronage and the money.
    The Devs know this, you need to realize that if do not compromise you will not be playing this game long anyway and the choice will not be yours.
     
    Rodriguez and TemplarAssassin like this.
  7. Rufus D`Asperdi

    Rufus D`Asperdi Avatar

    Messages:
    6,346
    Likes Received:
    15,782
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Are you attempting to tell me what under what conditions I can and cannot have fun?
    I would not play under that ruleset.
    I have but one condition surrounding PvP... one that was promised by the Developers from the outset of this effort... That I be able to opt-out of PvP.

    On that point there is no compromise.

    Do whatever you like with and to those of like mind who wish to play that way. I will have no part of it, and express no opinion on how PvP is handled in game as long as I am afforded the ability to not participate.
     
    algumacoisaqq and Silent Strider like this.
  8. Rufus D`Asperdi

    Rufus D`Asperdi Avatar

    Messages:
    6,346
    Likes Received:
    15,782
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Yes, you're correct.
    I will not compromise my promised ability to only be attacked in PvP if I consent to the possibility.
     
  9. Mercyful Fate

    Mercyful Fate Avatar

    Messages:
    396
    Likes Received:
    567
    Trophy Points:
    55
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    US East Coast
    Don't like this at all. Down-vote for random godly intervention.


    This idea is worse than the original SotA-proposed implementation.
     
    Alayth and Lord Trenyc like this.
  10. Silent Strider

    Silent Strider Avatar

    Messages:
    1,067
    Likes Received:
    1,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1. Player looting is the utmost deal breaker for me. If I can be looted I will not play the game. No chance, ever, no matter how good the game otherwise is. This is likely final for the rest of my life, BTW; having spent over a decade trying different games with different rules, I can say with absolute certainty that not only I don't enjoy player looting, I will likely never, ever, enjoy it.

    2. It's simply impossible for me to ever have fun when engaged in non-consensual PvP. Sincerely, watching paint dry is a better way to pass my time than being engaged in non-consensual PvP. At least watching paint dry isn't frustrating.

    3. There is just one compromise that can make me accept non-consensual PvP: if there is absolutely no downside to being defeated in PvP. In which case, if attacked, I just suicide myself, rez, and keep playing as if nothing had happened, just like I did in WoW. I doubt you would like that.

    4. I wouldn't have to compromise anyway in SotA. There are two single player modes. If I'm not happy with how the game deals with PvP in multiplayer I will just opt to never, ever, see another player in the game — an option I've been guaranteed since the start. You have no chance of ever seeing me in PvP or forcing me into PvP, no matter what you do.

    So, yeah, in this I will not compromise. I will not play in any way in which there is even a remote chance of myself being looted, or being attacked by another player against my will and suffering a setback due to it. I make no secret about it, and there is nothing you can do to change my opinion about it. Any proposal you make that have even a slight chance of exposing myself to PvP, I will fight against with all I've got.
     
    Time Lord likes this.
  11. Phredicon

    Phredicon Avatar

    Messages:
    877
    Likes Received:
    1,842
    Trophy Points:
    105
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Your OP is not a compromise, it boils down to "I want to kill you and you can't say no"

    The devs have already said there will NOT be non-consensual PvP. No matter how you try to spin it or how much glitter you dump on it, I doubt any suggestion that takes away the consent wall will be accepted.
     
  12. Isaiah

    Isaiah Avatar

    Messages:
    6,927
    Likes Received:
    8,453
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Under no circumstances should anybody be "Forced" into PvP. That's been clarified since the beginning. I would personally not be for any system that forced players to be attackable that never signed up for PvP.

    The games you've played in the past all had multiple servers (or shards) to play on. This broke up the player base and distributed PvP players across all these "separate" playable worlds.

    SotA has one centralized game server. This means all PvPers in the entire planet that play SotA will be potential adversaries. Say there are only 300,000 players in sota (eventhough there will likely be many times that number). With 300,000 players say 10% of them are flagged for PvP. That leaves us with 30,000 players flagged for PvP. 30,000 players would fill up an entire shard in one of those old games. We will not be at a loss of PvPers in the game (whether you like the system or not). Keep in mind I'm using extremely conservative numbers here.

    Now imagine SotA being successful and having between 1 to 10 million players. that's 100,000 to 1million players flagged for PvP... What if the percentage of PvP flagged players is greater than 10%?


    EDIT: Do you still think we need to force people into PvP? It seems to me that we have a good chance that there will be plenty of people to choose from if even 5% of the population optionally wants to be PvP eventhough it will likely be much higher.
     
    Silent Strider and Mercyful Fate like this.
  13. herradam

    herradam Avatar

    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    737
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I don't understand this need for PVP players to make victims of those who don't wish to engage in PVP.

    Why is it not enough for you to engage in PVP with like minded individuals?
     
  14. bassaX

    bassaX Avatar

    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    8

    I still can't get after reading this forum "Why do people who want PvE only and not being killed at all wait this game?" There are so many games without PvP at all" ESO is a good example. It became boring after 1 day. Or do it the way Repopulation is going to do. PvE server for farmers and PvP for players. Anyway if there wont be full loot and PvP there wont be economics. Why do I need constantly buy stuff while I'm not losing it in PvP I myself am too lazy to craft so I prefer to buy stuff. I did so in UO, DarkFall, Mortal Online and I helped to make profit for PvE players. So someone said " loss, is not with punishing the attacker, etc; my issue is simply with the fact a player is opting to attack me when I'm not in the mood to engage in PvP". So I have a question "Why can't I attack I ******** while I am in mood to attack a ********?"
     
    xanax and fedwook like this.
  15. herradam

    herradam Avatar

    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    737
    Trophy Points:
    43
    You're free to attack whomever consents to being attacked.

    Consent is the operative word here.
     
    Aldo, Silent Strider and Phredicon like this.
  16. Robby

    Robby Avatar

    Messages:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If I was in a full loot PvP game I wouldnt be too fond of the 25% chance of my attacker being basically guard whacked anywhere in the world by some "gods". Who are these gods anyway? Did ultima ever have any gods? Im not the most familiar with the ultima lore but im somewhat familiar. Then again, this is not ultima. Dont know if there is any "gods" in the lore of SotA yet...
    If im out in the wilderness and a player wants to attack me, its me and the player. I either kill him instead of being killed or find a way to escape.... or get whacked. Simple as that. Id prefer there not to be some game mechanic that dumbs down the immersion of a full-loot PvP world for me... So yea, i'd most definitely flag PvP on at all times under these circumstances and all.... But it would still seem a bit awkward being in a world where gods are striking down murderers 25% of the time. Thats just me though. Anyways... As was said earlier the issue for the PvE crowd is not punishment to the attackers, nor is it the idea that there is going to be loss. Its just the idea that their being attacked by a player, and their not in the mood for it(They should be though! its lots of fun!!!. I love full-loot PvP environments and so should everyone else! I also love spinach and so should everyone else!! But.... everyone else doesnt.. what a crock o' you know what).
    From what it sounds like... theres going to be a places for individuals like myself. Just look for meteor strikes or volcanic eruptions. It'll be like disney land for us there! >=-P
    Not sure how well I understood the megapost on PvP, but it sounded ok. We will all understand it much better when the game is released.
     
    Time Lord likes this.
  17. redfish

    redfish Avatar

    Messages:
    11,211
    Likes Received:
    27,345
    Trophy Points:
    165
    @Robby,

    In this case, it would probably be the Oracle, since apparently she's the one granting permission for everyone to do full loot instead of using the ransom system. But yea, I think that's not really a good solution.
     
  18. Robby

    Robby Avatar

    Messages:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    I see. I remember that in the megapost. Something about the "oracle".... So I let this oracle know I want to play it dangerous and I get casted into a game full of player brigands and all?
     
    Time Lord likes this.
  19. redfish

    redfish Avatar

    Messages:
    11,211
    Likes Received:
    27,345
    Trophy Points:
    165

    It was called 'Blessing of the Oracle."
     
  20. Isaiah

    Isaiah Avatar

    Messages:
    6,927
    Likes Received:
    8,453
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    No offense please, but I've seen this question asked so many times and it leads to a bad place. See below...

    Since there is only going to be consentual PvP in SotA, then do you realize that arguing for Non-consentual PvP is futile? ALSO the argument about "Why do PvPers want to victimize PvEers?" this needs to be analyzed here!

    Why bother saying "Why do PvPers want to victimize non PvPers"... it can't happen in SotA. I've personally witnessed this type of statement creating more trolling in PvP threads than anything else. It creates confusion and anger.

    *******************

    So if you encounter a person who wants to be able to kill players in non-consentual PvP, just remind that player that SotA will have consensual PvP only and let it go. Don't ask them why because it leads to all kinds of psychotic answers that confuse the original topic of the thread.
     
    rune_74 likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.