PVP compromise idea

I actually believe players will be able to do anything PvE in MMO mode while protected from PvP for one small reason: because it's Portalarium's stated intent to lure players from offline mode into online SPO mode, and from SPO mode into OPO mode.

Luring players from offline into online SPO mode can only work if players in SPO mode can do basically anything an offline player can. Any part of the experience that is "missing" for a player that decides to never leave SPO will be a reason to never choose to play online instead.

Getting players from SPO into OPO likely has the same requirement, specially given that players can just change modes more or less at will. Make OPO mode feel restrictive to a player that enjoys playing in single player and the SPO mode players will never be lured.

So, if that is still the objective, I believe players will be able to, basically, do anything PvE-related in OPO (MMO) mode without ever engaging in PvP. If that is not the objective anymore then, well, I believe the online game will be less populated than expected.

PvE players have already been told, in the past, that all resources could be obtained through pure PvE.

Personally, if playing offline allows me to engage in more PvE content than playing online while completely opting out of PvP, then I will just find a way to sell my two more expensive pledges and use the remaining one to play exclusively offline. I have no interest anymore in a game that forces me to engage with other players in PvP.

Sandbox doesn't mean non-consensual PvP.

Heck, John Smedley told somewhat recently that H1Z1 (you know, the hardcore, open PvP, full loot zombie apocalypse MMO they are making) will allow players to vote for the kinds of server they want. Wanna bet that PvE servers will not only be among the first voted in, but also become quite popular?

(And there are already PvP players spreading doom and gloom on the game's reddit section, saying that if PvE players are allowed their own servers then there will be no unwilling victims elsewhere... )

I would be really surprised if EQN or EQN Landmark ever forced PvP. While I do think those games will have PvP, I truly believe it will be either fully consensual PvP, or else restricted to PvP servers.

 

kinda good idea in ultima i always didnt wanted my main char to get red because stat lost was hard you could deleate your hc char XD
that stat lost/skilllost reduced the ammount of new players getting killed more than once or twice because of the murdercounts.
if you wanted to have much war and pvp as a blue you had to declare every guild the war and join the chaos order faction. + your idea that some people can flag pvp on that they cant give murdercounts even when they are blue will sure make some poeple think twice if they should not attck you if they not get a murdercount

 

what we really need is an awesome combat system that everyone like to do pvp !!!! as i already posted in another thread a combat system like in chivalery would be bomb and everyone would like it i expect



still after weeks of playing you can improve your fighting skills and it have a very good key binding (in default)

http://www.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/sdssssnlrt9ap5uw.jpg

 

Please try to understand that there are people that will NEVER ENJOY/PARTAKE IN PvP!!! No matter what you do!

Forcing people to PvP (What is what you suggested should be possible even with PvP Off) will chase away players! PERIOD!
25% chance of instadeath to the attackers is waayy too low anyway, but even with 90% instadeath chance, there will still be people not wanting to PvP or be open to attack.

The team promised players before they pledged that you would not be forced to PvP, ever!
(Yes, there will be Open PvP regions, but you can still opt to not enter if you really do not want PvP!)

So anything less than that will not be an option...

 

silent strider, i apologize they are trying to make a game that pleases the masses and not you directly. PVP is a huge part of any MMO, and many of them fail at it. WOW, is a huge fail in the area of PVP and they miss out of many many subscribers because of it. I juts stopped playing MMO's and went to my Xbox one to save me from the head ache of horrible PVP. If Sota has half the greatness in PVP of UO it will bring great many more people then the few who won't play because PVP. carry on with your non comprising ideas. You don't hear PVPer's say i must PVP every where. so why is it OK to think there should be PVP no where? the ignorance of some makes my head hurt......

 

You may want to reread Silent Strider's post, and this time without any prejudice... He's nowhere saying what you state above... He's stating that aside from PvP itself, you can do everything in game doing only PvE...

 

he has other posts stating that if he can get PVPed he will have no part and no comprise at this.

 

"You can have it your way at Burger King, but not with New Britannia's King"

It is because PvP is a contention that PvP conversations contentions. PvP is all about ego, because that's what it takes to see your target clearly and without distraction. Silent Strider is very correct in the stance of wisdom, because there the challenge here is for others to accept, that PvP in New Britannia will not be a carbon copy of other games.
Others here that meet Silent Strider's stance, are also correct in their own positions, yet these are positions of other game's ideology in style to meet combat situational style. Such PvP players search for familiar ground to take their stance, yet here in a new styled combat, such carbon copies of familiar ground are not easily found.
In such stances as "my way, or the highway", all the feet stamping on the floor in the world, will not get your way, because our ways, are new ways and our search for new ways through different ways almost all challenge the old ways. Yet all, are valiant efforts, from our own visions to suggest what our reality may see in it's release, that no one knows but He that creates the world and He is as he should be, which is very tight lipped indeed.
We can't Lawyer Him Bro and we can't forces His hand in anything, but we can keep suggesting, because that's what He wants us to do
~Time Lord~

 

So?... I don't get your problem? Since he doesn't have to PvP in SotA, he can play, and since you can opt in, you can play *your* game as well...

 

I only pledged (above the minimum pledge that would get me the offline game, that is) because the devs had said PvP was by consent only. So, if you want to know why someone like me is here, it's because we have been promised from the start that we would never have to worry about the PvP unless we actually choose to partake in it.

Non-consensual PvP is not only not fun for me, it completely ruins any enjoyment I could have with the game. And I will not play a game I'm not enjoying, which is why for me there is no compromise on this point; if I can be attacked by other players without consent, the game is simply not worth playing, at all, for me, and hence I won't play. It's not a threat, a tantrum, whatever; it's just a statement of fact.

On the other hand, as I've said many times, I have no issues, whatsoever, with PvP existing, as long as players are not forced to take part in it. If you desire PvP with other players that enjoy PvP and want to engage in it, then it's my wish that you get what you want; if you desire PvP with players that don't want to take part in PvP but are being forced to defend themselves against other players, then yeah, I'm not going to budge one inch about my current opinion and will fight against that every step of the way.

Sincerely, I see non-consensual PvP as just a way to ruin the game for other players, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. You will never get me to see it as desirable in a game.

 

Well, PvP is gonna be by consent only! If you play online - you agree to PvP! If you don't want to PvP - you play offline! Simple!
*trollface.png*

 

You know, I have a theory that people like Silent Strider who say PvP ruins their enjoyment of the game are really basing this off of a frame of reference that is limited to the PvP implementations they have experienced, and that there are only a small number of different implementations out there to experience because of a lack of innovation in this area. Most PvP implementations, like most games, are copies of what has come before, with minor tweaks.

Because of bad experiences such as griefing, many players form a strong opinion and close their minds against PvP.

However, not all PvP implementations are created equal, and not all possible PvP implementations have been tried.

When people talk about PvP today in the context of MMOs, their frame of reference is generally games like WoW, SW:TOR, DAoC, ESO, Guild Wars 2 and the like, which all bear remarkable similarity and represent basically FPS-style, fast-paced repetitive combat experiences with teamplay objectives and basic point-based reward structures.

Imagine, however, a game enabling you to experience total immersion in a fantasy world where players were motivated similarly as they are in the real world for basic necessities such as food, water and shelter but also aspirations such as wealth and power and having many different paths to take to acquire each of those. By coming closer to simulating the dynamics of the real world, with so-called emergent gameplay, we can enable a more enjoyable experience for all players and enable people to tailor their experience to their own preferences and style of play.

The danger element created by players choosing to be bandits, thieves, pirates or simply murderers can actually be an enjoyable element if the game systems enable a balance between these and other forms of gameplay to counterbalance them. It is only when the world becomes unbalanced and these elements overwhelm the game that the enjoyment would be lost. Otherwise, they enhance the game by providing a risk element, a challenge and the opportunity for emergent gameplay to create unique and compelling scenarios requiring complex interaction and choices which stimulate players' minds far more than pressing buttons on timers to overcome braindead AI in pre-designed encounters and pre-scripted quests!

For example, if your desire is to play the role of a craftsman by trade, you might specialize deeply in your trade and in a fight, you'd be no match for those who are professional adventurers, soldiers or mercenaries. But you could hire said mercenaries to protect you as you travel from town to town and the danger element of highwaymen could in fact provide you enjoyment and a challenge.

At the same time, the people who enjoy playing highwaymen and mercenaries are presented with enjoyment, challenges and things to do--another word for this is quests!

Contrast this with a game that allows fast travel and where everyone just passes each other by because they're running to their next kill quest objective and you can see what's wrong with MMOs today.

 

AFAIK this is exactly what Richard Garriott originally attempted in UO. He didn't predict that the social dynamics would end severely skewed, with FAR more players choosing to take the role of bandits, thieves, murderers, etc, than the criminality in the real world would suggest.

He also apparently didn't predict griefers, which further skewed things.

This really depends on the player. For me it can never be enjoyable because, when the agent behind those activities is an actual person, I associate such activities too strongly with their real world counterparts. Being stolen from in the game is about as unpleasant, for me, as the real world equivalent. Similarly with other non-consensual PvP happenings; while the in-game one doesn't carry the prospect of real injury or the risk of actual death, the psychological effect is roughly the same for me.

BTW: I found this in an empirical way by playing multiple games with non-consensual PvP, from more than one genre. My last attempt at playing a MMO with non-consensual PvP was EVE, and after that I sincerely doubt I will ever bother again with any MMO that doesn't allow me to completely avoid all PvP.

Also, fully consensual and balanced PvP, completely unrelated with PvE, is something I often find highly enjoyable; it feels like a friendly sparring match (something that I, having practiced martial arts for a fairly long time, am quite used to). Arenas, battlegrounds, even duels. I have a fair number of PvP games and play them regularly. I do tend to avoid PvP in MMOs, though, because it's often gear-dependent, something I really hate when it comes to PvP.

 

The game itself could have addressed this lack of balance in the same way we do in the real world--by penalizing and making this behavior very risky--but it did not do an effective job of that. That is why the result was imbalance.

I still believe that with proper balance, emergent gameplay like this becomes enjoyable even for the "********" type of player.

This type of emergent gameplay, even when there is imbalance, also happens to be immensely popular, enough so to sustain games like Day Z.

Ah, but I still think you'd probably enjoy seeing the guards arrest the thief, knowing he'd be on their watch list from then on and would have to spend the next 2 hours figuring out some way of getting out of jail. The game could enforce balance by increasing or decreasing this time limit a thief is held in prison, as one possible idea.

Or maybe putting a bounty on his head and getting your possessions returned along with a fresh head for the collection we all know you keep in jugs in your house. Players who enjoy playing bounty hunters would be able to enjoy that as well. And the thief will be having the time of his life, of course, because he knew there would be risk involved in his nefarious activities and it increases the level of enjoyment when he succeeds.

The game and the impact of it would be cheapened without the risk element on all sides. In a game with proper balance, I would dare to say that the fact that you feel bad after being stolen from is a good thing which serves to illustrate your deep level of immersion into the game.

 

"Assuption of Fact" is never a good basis for argument. We can whine, cry, stamp our feet and say we don't want to play, but..."Freedom of Choice is Here to Stay". Freedom to do whatever and however we want to do with or without our friends is never leaving SotA.
Begging for a victim is a sad excuse for such childlike insistance of forcing our friends to do anything.
Everyone can have it their way here in New Britannia, but you can't insist that others have it only your way...
It's all very simple...
~Time Lord~

 

Who is to say this isn't planned to be in the game?

 

redfish shared this post which is definitely worth a read if anything I said resonates with you.

 

Gee, that's funny, it doesn't say that anywhere. Has anyone informed the dev team of this yet?

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/pvp-death-current-thinking-megapost.8247/

 

That's a banned word on these fora due to the negative connotation it has gotten. It's a PvP troll-word to demean non PvPers. Using it - esp in a negative connotation - can get you warns or even banned!...

PvErs do NOT try to force their way of playing on to the PvP crowd, why does (part of) the PvP crowd want to insist to force their way op playing on to the rest?
It's NOT going to happen, the team's been clear about that! Better find ways to make PvP inviting enough to convince PvErs to try it!

 

Dearg, you are joking right? You don't honestly believe any of that? I've seen PVE players call pvp players rat "illegitimate child" esc and nothing, just an edit. PVE getting total consensual is forcing itself on Open pvp if they have to play in the same instance. PVE trolls pvp forum constantly and is hostile to new members that are pvp friendly. PVP players probably care less about forcing people to pvp and more about not having players they come across immune to damage from players. So the forcing is in the immunity. The fix? Put it in the filter, done everyone happy and if a player knows pvp is consensual and doesn't want anything to do with pvp then why keep trying to dominate the pvp discussions. There is no compromise possible with this mindset on either side so you either force people to the middle in a balanced compromise and they call lawyers (lol) or filter the game off the open pvp flag so they both feel like they got what they wanted.