PVP compromise idea

Ristra, are you suggestion separating hex instances based on PVP flags?

If the groups are playing in the same instances then you are forcing either way. Force one to be attackable or not be able to attack. More prey doesn't help you past 59 people in that instance... Really don't see needing more people to pvp being an issue. Needs to be a good pvp system though either way, I worry some of the devs might not think something like a karma system is necessary in an opt in open pvp system.

 

No, the Match Making system is a separate issue.

I was addressing the desire to have all in PvP and it's polar opposite. (if those players actually exist)

There is a system to track the virtues, disabled in the testing releases as the guards would be slaughtering people. (maybe not fully fleshed out but it was stated that it was disabled.)

 

There is always plenty of "prey" for me in the private UO servers. Some people on my side of the aisle on PvP I guess just feel like they need TONS of prey. But there will be plenty of us. Full loot open world PvP is like a food chain, theres always one player with the upper hand over another, we are all prey to someone predator to another. You have to find your nitch in this sort of game. I am the type to stick to the shadows and move around stealthily, and use cunning little tricks. I take down the guys who can completely destroy me once in awhile by luring them into the right place(though I rarely do this, im usually just farming and enjoying the on the edge feel of having to stick to the shadows so I don't get pk'd while hunting for treasure).
There can be room for our game here, though to integrate the worlds its going to take work. We don't want to compromise one world over the other. I imagine us all being able to see each other in OPO in main cities and stuff. But upon exiting this places we need to decide wether we are full loot PvP or completely trammel. I think that once in awhile it'd be nice to travel with a party thats totally PvM when outside of town. Maybe they like my rogue skills and need me to follow them to a dungeon. Then when im done adventuring with them, I could go back to town, bank my loot, then go back to the full loot pvp world. But then theirs that oracle.. and I guess you can choose to have a permanently full loot PvP character... Hmmm I guess if you do that your basically limiting the number of players you can interact with, which might be a problem if you like OPO. I like the idea of being able to run into full loot PvP as soon as I create my character. I don't like full loot PvP to be reserved to those who have maxed out all their skills and stats. If we want to walk into that kind of danger at level one we ought to be able to do it. Thats why I think there should be full loot pvp zones and side quests for level 1-5, then 5-10, 10-15 and so on. There will be plenty of prey this way, and it wouldn't be the silly dueling pit that felucca was where everyone's skills were maxed out and they ran into fel when they felt like PvP with a dp'd kryss, and nothing but a pair of underwear and on the back of a horse with a bunch of potions and bandages in their backpack. Now, I don't think ANY of you want to go back to that. Even those of you who like PvP but ONLY consensual. And full loot shouldn't be that big of a deal level 1-5 especially if its consensual, not like your going to have any really nice gear anyway. Though you might have picked up a few neat things along the way that could work to the advantage of someone who slays you.

 

This is super reasonable. I'm sure PVPers have noticed that browbeating people and calling them names doesn't make them want to PVP more, right? Has that ever worked? Is it some sort of effort to annoy people so much that they feel the urge to kill?

I'd like to see what the dev team comes up with and go from there. I generally find PVP to be completely dull and pointless, but I have enjoyed some PVP with a point (factional whatnot), and I bet there would be more 'back and forth' players if the PVP contingent was a little friendlier.

 

They have also gone into videos mentioning that some of the main story would have PvP elements. Saying that the devs wanting this is about as relevant as the price of eggs in China is a fair statement but the main guy who bankrolled at least half of everything that we put in has said that he wants to entice everyone to at least try PvP and would like it to be a part of the main story. They say a lot of things out of both corners of their mouths yet some folks in this thread speak about it like they are the authority on it. Frankly everyone who has been using this scrap of info or that scrap of info to shout the other side down just really needs to stop.

Until we get some real information other than a vague promise, I think none of us are right. Even saying that no one will be forced into PvP is open to interpretation and I am sure someone is not going to be happy (I don't really care what the answer is, I just want an answer.) Some folks may think that they are being forced to PvP if part of the main storyline involves a PvP quest. The fact that you can do the quest or not makes it optional to some people. The fact that there is a quest that's part of the main storyline that is PvP is forcing players to PvP to other people.

I ask these questions mostly because I am nosey. I don't really care if people are going to play or not because of PvP or PvE. We've been drawn to this game for so many different reasons that any attempt to untangle that would be madness. I am asking where the deal breaker is. (Rage quitting is funny to me which is why I asked that in my original question. Most people don't ragequit games like ours, we mehquit.) If the way they handle PvP does not live up to your expectations, what are you going to do? You mentioned not playing. Are you just going to play the single player offline game or are you going to shout invectives so loud that when the camera pulls the view out to show the city that you're in there's this cool reverb and echo added to the voice track as you go over to the Player Marketplace Forums to recoup anything you might have spent on the game? Some of the PvP folks that are also avid RPG players have mentioned that they'll play the single player game if the PvP system isn't acceptable. Others like some of the more staunch nonPvPers have mentioned tossing it in the circular file.

I'm still going to PK my husband and take his head even if PvP sucks, even if combat sucks, etc. (Probably not. He'll probably just blow the breaker everytime we both log into the game.)

 

Caska DiFumarate Said;

I'm still going to PK my husband and take his head even if PvP sucks, even if combat sucks, etc. (Probably not. He'll probably just blow the breaker everytime we both log into the game.)

Can't you just feel that New Britannia love in the air?
~Time Lord~

 

Well I think I answered your question. I would simply not play the game at all. No shouting, no tantrums, no arrogant demands that the game be made my way, "or else." A very simple "moving on." I like that term, mehquit, hehe. Think I'll start using that.

No, I probably wouldn't play the single player because I'm not really looking for a a single player game right now. And since my thing is crafting, selling to other players, housing and decorating, and rping & playing with friends (all of whom will be in multi-player), single player would be unsatisfactory for me. But who knows. Since I'll own the game, either way, I might. Knowing me like I do, probably not, but I can't predict that for certain. What I can predict is whether I'll play with any possibility I'd be forced to pvp against my wishes. That's the deal breaker for me, as you put it.

I can predict that because over the years I've learned to know myself well enough to know what I end up doing in those cases, even in cases where I've thought maybe I could deal with it for the sake of playing with friends. I already know that I will dread logging in, log in maybe once a week to say hi to friends, until eventually not at all, and therefore no reason to continue.

And, not to you specifically, but just as a note (because writing this post with my coffee this morning put me in the mood, hehe)........, to those who keep bringing up & praising pre-Trammel UO and how wonderful it was and demanding that this game emulate it, (especially the ones with 1 forum post who I strongly suspect are at least half forum alts in an effort to make devs think their numbers are larger), I can say that it completely ruined UO for me and I had already quit the game because of it, even though it meant leaving friends behind, as had many others. When they announced Trammel I went back. I reactivated my account specifically for Trammel and played for years after that. Had Trammel not happened I would never have gone back. Nor would a huge number of others who had quit as well. No doubt if it was so wonderful, they never would have spent the money creating Trammel in the first place and future games would have all emulated the wonderful, perfect pre-trammel UO. They created trammel in self preservation and an attempt to stem the flow, the hemorrhaging of players to the other games that were being created at that time, all of which had pvp flags. If they simply needed more land & the system was so perfect, as some claim, why the no-pvp in trammel?

Ok, back to my coffee. I really should wait til later in the day to make posts. lol

 

Yup, you did answer my question and satisfy the curiosity of one of the world's nosiest people. Thank you for humoring me! I've never tried Ultima online so I really only understand what you guys are talking about with Trammel and "early UO" on a conceptual level.
It sounds really cool but I can also imagine the frustration! I guess we're the reason we can't have nice things.

 

I say keep it open...when PKs were a problem, Non-PKs would band together to defend themselves. People learned to socialize and work together instead of just farming for digital goodies. People got ahead together instead of running solo all the time.

 

I love when people say they will just walk away. Many have tried... that cruel siren's call has lured them back into the rocks time and time again. No I mustn't, this time I have turned my back never to return to this twisted fantasy world... sweet twisted fantasy world... just a taste.

There cannot be a compromise between consensual and non-consensual PVP players as they use similar arguments to justify the position they have taken, Freedom to Play as they see fit. It is either one or the other in that hex instance unless they separate them from each other completely (PLEASE). What I think might change a consensual pvp players mind *shields up* is if they could actually build the Virtues and Karma into the Open PVP system is such a way that encourages players to play responsibly of their own accord. This can be done, it would require a lot of thought and detail though as players like me want a system built into the world logic and not the "Dev told the world to do this" we see so much. Consensual pvp players would literally have to say, I like the world where people decide to behave even though they have the ability to misbehave better then the world I play in were people are just not allowed to misbehave. You know the filtering of hex instances off the pvp flag is a compromise... it doesn't permantly separate players, just while they have flags that differ. The worse argument I've seen from the other side is we don't want to use the resources to make 2 hex instances for each flag as they don't see the PVP flag as important enough for that kind of priority status... Can we at least agree that the PVP Flag is a top priority to someone who is willing to go through the quest and accept all the risks?

Small example, Lineage 2. If you murdered you had a % to drop items upon death... Items that were not easily replaced that no one else had to worry about losing if they didn't murder. Not only did this detour players from killing each other, players were so use to being safe in leveling areas they didn't know how to react if attacked by another player. Proof? Someone I know very well bought the game, lvl'd to 20, got disgusted at the amount of grind, de-leveled below 4 to avoid the item loss and in the last 2 days of the first month racked up 300 non-consensual counts. Character was literally as soft as a teddy bear... and they didn't know how to react in a game with "Open PVP". It was completely "Dev told the world to do this" bs, but it shows that players react to the build and adjust their behavior.

 

From Mortal Online

From Age of Conan

From Ultima Online

From Shadow Bane

From Archeron's Call

From Aion

From Dark Fall


NO COMPROMISE

 

Mortal would be great if they had the resources.

 

Quite true in my case.

Again, quite true.
And, should I never see a PvP Avatar or a PvP Battle, I'll never know that PvP is any different from what I remember, and will never be tempted to give it a try once I see that it Is different... of course assuming that it is actually different.

I'm quite pro-PvP. I want it to be in the game. I've been unwavering on that point. I just need to see how it works in SotA before I make a choice to participate.

 

Rufus, if you being in an instance with people open pvping ruins their gameplay would you be willing to do that anyway in order to witness how the system works? If players you know in game or players in the forums that you trust vouched for the pvp system, would that not be enough to at least try PVP without witnessing it with the understanding you could take your consent back if you didn't like it?

 

Well, if we go that route and leave it the way it is you will get that option...but not the way you would like. People are trying to come up with compromises because those that want open pvp want something more....

I'm not entirely sure what that something more is? If everyone who wants to have full open pvp flags for it then they should be happy knowing they are competing against thoses that want to play that way.

Also, how does having someone in the same hex as you that isn't a combatant ruining your gameplay? When you see an NPC do you automatically think you should kill him?

I could see if he harrasses you or trolls you, but then you report them or ignore them(muting them) and move on...I think the benefits of getting people to see what you so clearly love so much and possibly getting them to fall in love with it too far outweigh the negatives.

 

On the topic of Compromise:

To actually have to sit down and talk, to listen, to compromise, that's hard work. - Michael Moore

If you want to bring an end to long-standing conflict, you have to be prepared to compromise. - Aung San Suu Kyi

I simply do not think that yelling, swearing, threatening or belittling will get you to the place you want to be faster than kindness, understanding, patience and a little willingness to compromise. - Rachel Nichols

I shall argue that strong men, conversely, know when to compromise and that all principles can be compromised to serve a greater principle. - Andrew Carnegie

Life involves other people and it is a compromise. - Kevin McCloud

Unless you are willing to compromise, society cannot live together. - Alan Greenspan

 

The way people use the word compromise reminds me of my 5 year old when he sees my 2 year old with anything he wants, she's not sharing.

 

Wouldn't all of this be moot given that they have the ability to set your level of MP experience? If they enable wide-open PvP similar to old UO days, you could simply avoid it by setting your MP experience to your friends? Besides, what's the point of being open world if there's no risk to your adventure? You can play in a no-risk PvE game by simply not playing with PvPers?

 

In a sandbox game, and people were not interested in meeting new people, maybe.

In a story driven game that potentially uses the different modes during the processes of content delivery, no.

Side note: Devs decided "risk" no-risk PvE has not been decided. PvE could be vastly more deadly than PvP if the devs wanted it to be.