PVP compromise idea

What's with the hostility? You're getting way too carried away here. Did you not see I put the word ******** in quotes and used it as a quick way to describe a certain player type? Nowhere did I use the term to demean anyone.

Wow, and look at all the likes on your post. Do we really have that many people who can't participate in civil discussion on this forum?

 

I wish the non-PvPers would become PvPers......they are far more aggressive

 

"Does Anyone Have Any Suggestions That Can Save the PvPers From This?"

Yes, many are trying to give their suggestions because there's nothing to worry about...

Yes, the informed here know that choice is here to stay. I am an avid PvP open world advocate, yet forcing anyone to come over to a full open PvP side of anything is a very impossible idea to sell as all our game mechanics, economy are set for a very full service product.
We do realize that players that describe themselves as PvP enjoy to swag their ego driven view that their way is best, yet there is no contention to have the PvP player somehow starved for any attention. Currently within the test game, we see everyone in our instances, but when the instancing selectors of play style and friends comes online, you should see allot less players that are not able to be engaged in player combat. So, there is no contention or need for everyone to opt in or out of any category, because all category of choices are available and selective instancing will provide everyone with the players they most like to play with. It's a win/win with both and all ways of playing here in New Britannia with the only losers being those who wish to force everyone to play with them.
SotA is a new product that cannot be compared in our old ways of PvP/PvE thinking. SotA is just as ground breaking as UO was when it first came out so many decades ago.
It's a brave new world, so go ahead and be brave by suggesting how to make PvP more interesting with new ideas.
Check out the fortification building thread, or the thief thread, or create siege thread because I believe that there will be some castle sieges going on in New Britannia. The Cannibals even have some ideas to encourage people to opt in for PvP, or have scarred some PvP opt in people away from PvP because Cannibalism is to horrifying to them. There's even a "I want to play a Monster" thread...
There are so many ways to enhance the PvP option that need the PvP input, where forcing anyone to play PvP, is never thought of as an option, because it's not an option.
Get an idea, get a thread and knock yourself out.... I do that all the time and sometimes I find others that want to explore how things could work with such new ideas, while others are aggressively opposed to an idea, or just don't care to post a comment because my idea wasn't that good.
But I stuck my 2 cents out there anyway, because "it's a whole new world here in SotA"... *gulp*
~Time Lord~

 

Copy of my PvP proposal:


"Many thanks for the great PvP Deep Dive Hangout, I think it provided clarity on many aspects.

The one aspect that I seem to struggle with at the moment is the proposed loot system and would be keen to put forward a suggestion for consideration/feedback.

Assumptions:
- All PvP is consensual
- Items that can be looted are player crafted/created or are resources.
- A dead player is given an option after 5 minutes as a ghost to auto-resurrect in the nearest town/safe location.
- Player corpse/items follow ghost on resurrection

For me the key element has to be surrounding choice and potential consequence. It is clear that standard 'full loot' will not be acceptable, however with the correct mechanics it can in principle be granted and at the same time limit the possibility of it actually happening.

I would suggest the following:
- Timers for looting based upon items for loot.
- Failure rates for looting attached to items.
- Damage to items linked to failure.
- Disturbance resets looting timer.
- Looted items cannot be traded until either corpse is re-claimed (by resurrection elsewhere) or it has been fully looted.
- Person who inflicts the most damage becomes the default looter.

In terms of timers, I would suggest the following:
Head: 10 sec
Chest: 30 sec
Legs: 20 sec
Boots: 10 sec
Hands: 10 sec
Weapon: 10 sec
Consumables: 5 sec per item

I would then apply a success chance to each item with items such as consumables being 100%, hands and boots maybe 80%, cascading down to a tunic which could be say 40%.
Each failure would result in the item being damaged, knowing that it would cost money to repair as some point the looter must decide whether or not it is viable to continue to loot.
If the player is disturbed by another player (ie an attack), the timer will re-start and it will be unlikely that the player would be able to continue to loot unless there are 'friends' who can protect him whilst the job is being done.In theory 'full loot' is achievable. In practice getting past some consumables and an item of armor would be challenging with full loot being highly unlikely.

A PvP skill could be linked in to reduce timers, increase success rates and to give a greater chance to loot whilst being attacked (not being disturbed).

I believe this kind of system gives the autonomy that many PvPers are crying out for whilst protecting players who could be perceived as being vulnerable. This system would also provide many variables that could be 'tweaked' to improve the player/PvP experience.

Thankyou for your time."

 

I don't think such balance is even possible, to tell the truth. Not if you want to keep those players.

For something to be a deterrent, it needs to be designed to not be fun, not be engaging, and have effective consequences. It needs to be something that a player with a desire to try it would take a look at and, even if the chance of being caught was minimal, decide it was not worth the risk.

Any time the penalties are made to be engaging, to feel like a game, they will fail in curbing the behavior.

Besides, penalties for stealing or killing measured in hours are WAY, WAY too lenient to curb anything. IMHO they would need to be measured in weeks, at least, if they are to have any chance at being actually effective.

Funny thing, there are a lot of PvE servers for the mod version of DayZ, and quite a few that attempt that in the standalone version (usually by kicking any player that so much as shots another player). Rust also has very popular PvE servers, and when the game is further along in development I'll be actually tempted to purchase it to play pure PvE.

Nope. I don't care about the attacker being punished or not, it does nothing to me either way; I care about not being attacked by another player in the first place instead.

Little curious tidbit: there is a site, GamerDNA.com, that offers a version of the Bartle test with a few extra bells and whistles. I score 0% at the Killer (roughly equivalent to PK) archetype (goes from 0% to 100%), and negative 84% at the competitive trait (goes from -100% to +100%).

Where I score highly is in exploring (nearly 100% on both the archetype and the trait) and social.

So, prevailing above others does not drive me, at all; rather, I want to better myself and explore everything in the game, and if I can help other players along the way — even if I end pushing them above me — all the better.

I'm actually the opposite. If I can't completely opt out of this whole trophy thing then I will never, ever, engage in PvP in SotA. Not even in a fully consensual way. I see taking trophies as unnecessary, gory for gore's sake, just a way to stroke e-peen — and I not only don't care about my own e-peen, I tend to see anyone that does in a bad light.

Ear taking in Diablo 2 is a big part of the reason I never played it with anyone that wasn't physically in the same room I was playing, at reach of a well aimed punch. And, while we did engage in PvP from time to time, I might or might not have threatened them with punches if they decided to keep my ear in their inventory .

Immersion is not the same as engagement, or fun. Nothing is more immersive than real live, and yet when playing a game we are actively choosing to not engage in real life and, instead, interact with something far less immersive.

Or, to put it in another way: immersion that doesn't make the game more enticing is useless. Immersion that makes the game less enticing is actually harmful to the game.

 

Again, all those strong opinions you have, which I think are perfectly valid and understandable, were formed based on the experiences you've had in the past, and whenever you think of PvP, this is now your frame of reference. You have yet to try all possible PvP implementations (because they don't exist) and when you think of PvP, you are thinking of a limited subset of these implementations, which is what I mean by your frame of reference. This has closed your mind to the concept of PvP in MMO games and even though the future of possibilities for innovation in this area is unlimited, these thoughts do not come into your mind because of this snap judgement mechanism taking place.

Even though you did not personally like the scenarios I presented as examples (and the comment about collecting heads was a joke and reference to The Walking Dead), I'm sure there is more than one implementation of PvP that would change your opinion and whether you'd like to be a participant or not, and to further illustrate this point you actually already told me of one real-life situation where you enjoy a PvP game: martial arts.

Now imagine if I were to present to you an identical copy of the real world which behaves the very same way as the world you are familiar with but where you could try anything without any real risk to your real life other than that once you died in this identical copy of the real world, you would have to start all over from scratch?

In other words, the ideal form of virtual reality. This also happens to be the ideal form of exactly the point I am trying to get across: simulating reality and relying on emergent gameplay to solve a lot of the problems inherent in the simplistic game implementations we have all explored so far.

Tell me that most people (including yourself) wouldn't want to give that a try. Especially if we could also simulate time periods or scenarios which we are not likely to encounter in every day life. It's basically what roleplaying games have been trying to do for a very long time, but because of technical limitations, have had to resign themselves to systems which are gross simplifications of the real world.

We're currently living in a time where it's possible to go beyond all that and explore new territory. Gameplay innovation is largely an unexplored frontier and a potential gold mine, but there are few who realize it.

With regard to the GamerDNA test, I've never been a fan of tests in any form as they fail to capture real-world complexities so I'm not going to comment on that any further.

 

I just love it how all the notorious casual players on the forum lined up to like your post. Every time the same names all together. Every. Single. Time. No, nobody said that anywhere. It was a joke. A simple one, btw.

 

But they do.

 

* Envy / Midian * Said;

Copy of my PvP proposal:


"Many thanks for the great PvP Deep Dive Hangout, I think it provided clarity on many aspects.

The one aspect that I seem to struggle with at the moment is the proposed loot system and would be keen to put forward a suggestion for consideration/feedback.

Assumptions:
- All PvP is consensual
- Items that can be looted are player crafted/created or are resources.
- A dead player is given an option after 5 minutes as a ghost to auto-resurrect in the nearest town/safe location.
- Player corpse/items follow ghost on resurrection

For me the key element has to be surrounding choice and potential consequence. It is clear that standard 'full loot' will not be acceptable, however with the correct mechanics it can in principle be granted and at the same time limit the possibility of it actually happening.

I would suggest the following:
- Timers for looting based upon items for loot.
- Failure rates for looting attached to items.
- Damage to items linked to failure.
- Disturbance resets looting timer.
- Looted items cannot be traded until either corpse is re-claimed (by resurrection elsewhere) or it has been fully looted.
- Person who inflicts the most damage becomes the default looter.


In terms of timers, I would suggest the following:
Head: 10 sec
Chest: 30 sec
Legs: 20 sec
Boots: 10 sec
Hands: 10 sec
Weapon: 10 sec
Consumables: 5 sec per item

I would then apply a success chance to each item with items such as consumables being 100%, hands and boots maybe 80%, cascading down to a tunic which could be say 40%.
Each failure would result in the item being damaged, knowing that it would cost money to repair as some point the looter must decide whether or not it is viable to continue to loot.
If the player is disturbed by another player (ie an attack), the timer will re-start and it will be unlikely that the player would be able to continue to loot unless there are 'friends' who can protect him whilst the job is being done.In theory 'full loot' is achievable. In practice getting past some consumables and an item of armor would be challenging with full loot being highly unlikely.

A PvP skill could be linked in to reduce timers, increase success rates and to give a greater chance to loot whilst being attacked (not being disturbed).

I believe this kind of system gives the autonomy that many PvPers are crying out for whilst protecting players who could be perceived as being vulnerable. This system would also provide many variables that could be 'tweaked' to improve the player/PvP experience.

Thankyou for your time."
* Envy / Midian * (End Quote?.... Ok, so I added a pic )

~TL~
I "Like" those ideas, the entire thing. I was thinking that some sort of looting skill such as a thief may have could enhance that line of thinking and make it possible to loot more or help preserve better quality. But I also like the anatomy tweak because of and surgery that could speed the proses. That entire document is a viable option and I'd like to hear more comment on it because it's something that would work and work well!
~Time Lord~

 

You keep saying that, but last time I checked, PvErs are not blocking you from PvPing, at all!

So forgive me if I call this one '100% not true'...

You OTOH want to force PvP on to those who do not want it...

 

Quotation marks or censoring your words with *'s doesn't change their (intended) meaning. The mods have deleted posts, warned and banned people before, despite doing the above. The fact that it's not your choice of gaming doesn't mean you have to use those words... You can just call them non-PvPers or PvErs just like I do! Much less controversial... (And fewer letters to type as well!)
Just for a comparison, how would you like it if the non-PvP crowd en masse would keep referring to PvP proponents as "mass-murdering psychopaths"? You see, I put it between quotes, so it's ok, right?...
(Yes, I am pulling it in to the absurd, just for illustrative purposes, and NO, I do not think that of PvPers, and I would never use such a 'description' outside of this example!!!)
In the end, if you weren't precomposed to find negativity in any post that doesn't agree with you, you'd see that there was no hostility, just a warning about a word you were using... If I'd intended hostility, you'd have known, for certain, believe me! (And I'd probably have reported your post as well, then!)

I'm neither pro or con PvP, engaged in it previously, but do not enjoy it. I'm waiting so see how it pans out in SotA to make a final decision, but what puts me off most is the immature nature of many a PvPer (please note I am NOT saying all, nor am I pointing anyone out in particular), that can't seem to feel good about themselves until they've called the slain (possibly unprepared) victim by all kinds of derogatory names!

Non-consensual PvP *always* attracts griefers, which is why so many non-PvPers are opposed to it. And that is fine, since those that do wish to PvP - which may or may not include myself, I'll make that choice later - can do so everywhere in SotA, unhindered by those who wish not to PvP. (Only the guards might object actively)

And that is why it has become my opinion (after several of these 'discussions' here) that if you truly understand the intended system, and still wish to force PvP on everyone, you are not interested in fair PvP, but just trying to find victims to plunder that can't defend themselves as well as those who chose to actively pursue PvP!...

PS: on this forum there are several PvP proponents that I'd call my friend... Among them vocal posters, including, for instance, Time Lord.

 

But unfortunately it HAS been said in earnest so many times (by others), that it can't be considered a joke any more.
Now I realize there is a chance you actually didn't know that, so that is why I am explaining it now, so you'll understand the reason for the sarcastic reaction better...

 

My suggestion is for you to leave that job to the mods and quit spreading unnecessary negativity which distracts from the discussion at hand.

 

*chuckles*

 

SP like would be nice.

 

My thoughts exactly too for awhile... But really theres a way to integrate seige perilous in with the non-PvP crowd without violating anyone's freedom to play the game as the please.

 

I love the description 'Notoriously casual'. It makes me think that all we PVE-ers are in jeans and a t-shirt, sauntering up to the computer, casually. PVPers are clearly 'the formals', in a suit and tie or ball gown.

 

Passive agressive remarks by a select few with degrading comments does not a conversation make.

 

Hey, I'm totally willing to stay out of the pvp conversations except when they start talking about ways to drag non-pvpers into it against their wishes and/or saying we should just play offline. Then I'll add my comments. As do nearly all the others who are against non-consensual. How in the world do you think we're going to react to that?

When you guys are talking about stuff that has no way to affect us, pve folks rarely if ever comment. Knock yourselves out for all we care. But when you start pushing for things that affect us, expect some comments. If you guys really don't want us posting in your threads, how 'bout not trying to find ever more creative ways to drag us into pvp or run us off line?

 

So I'm not the only one who notices the irony?