PVP compromise idea

Adybos, we still need a ruleset and the no compromise mantra doesn't help us get a ruleset. And I would argue that Open PVP as a hex filter is a no-compromise compromise as we effectively get what we want without forcing it on other people (they would be playing in a different game world).

Rune, as you well know all they have to do is make the open pvp flag a hex filter and that's all the more we need. It isn't enough to have Consensual PVP you want to be in the same instance ruining Open PVP gameplay... what a compromise. Open PVP isn't Open PVP if non consenting players are running around you invulnerable to attack.

Raven, can't take someone seriously that quotes Michael Moore.

Ristra, it's only 60 people in a hex instance so I really don't think the PVP Filter is going to greatly decrease the players you are exposed to. If it was only 1 instance we were all sharing then that would be completely different, but that isn't the system they are proposing. I also think that 60 active people in a hex instance is pretty good, in OPen PVP they'd have to be active... in Consensual PVP instances you could have 60 afk people. Well depending on how smart the AI is as you pointed out.

 

It is not the seed but the flower that people admire. - Ravenclaw

In this case it was the message the words convey not the source that matters.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

(Quote ~TL~ An older post of mine from Farming)
"An NPC Go Between";
So, you as a farmer take all of your contraband to the local snitch and give it to him, but he will only take so much of it, then anywhere in the Kingdom where there's another snitch, offers a smuggler (player) the fuzz for transport to another city for a reward, while everyone else is tipped off by another NPC elsewhere to begin the quest of contraband transport as RG has mentioned in his vids that he wants to do. Thus the quest is not generated by the computer, it's generated by the player. Yet, if the farmer wants to transport it themselves to the other town, the NPC snitch buyer there is just as the other one. So unless you have given the contraband to the snitch, you will not find any other buyer for it. If you do however want to transport it yourself, you go to the snitch give him (show him) the contraband, and he returns them to you and tells you where you must deliver them to, thus yourself becoming the smuggler.
But ether way, the Farmer, nor the Smuggler get paid until the contraband reaches it's market of destination and the Snitch will only set up for transport a limited quantity, until that transaction is finally made from each individual player. This provides incentive to the contraband famer to become his own smuggler.
Full Loot PvP Flag Anyone? If you do not as a farmer wish to Full Loot PvP, then you must wait for a Smuggler to accept your goods for transport and also wait to get paid for your contraband crops.


"Blade Runner"

Market for Your Crops;
Very similar to the Contraband Transporting system, where you can expect a better price by transporting your goods yourself, if you have made a contract with the NPC Marketer similarly as you did with the NPC Contraband Snitch.
Such a system encourages gangs of Highwaymen because of having to distribute the great encumbrance of the crops being transported. But unlike the Contraband, there is no tip off message sent throughout the kingdom.

With such systems in place, we could see the seemingly simple skill of farming, become a skill that has many dangers and opportunities for us all to better be drawn into, the act of providing good quest on our own.
By the People, For the People... "Both the farmer and the Wolf"
PvP Whacha' Tink Abou Dat?...
~Time Lord~ End Quote...

Ristra is quite correct about such assumptions of fact being false.
"Assumptions" are the most deadly enemy of anything new. Innovative suggestion for integration is what is needed.
My current thoughts are to integrate PvP risk in the same way that contraband shipping is hoped to be treated. Most between city commerce travels in the same way, thus some form of catch me if you can system could be used not only to increase risk for higher profit, but to also help mask and contraband movement by the numbers of PvP engagement travelers.
~Time Lord~

 

I can't speak for others, but for myself I can answer this. About the point of being open world if there's no risk.....why does no-pvp mean no risk? Being no-pvp only means no risk of other people attacking you, it doesn't mean no risk at all. Everyone is different and have different ideas of what risk is. One person's opinion does not necessarily equal fact for anyone else.

And you asked what is the point. The point of playing in open world is to not only play with friends but to play with, interact with, and meet others who may even become friends someday. How can you make new friends if you never meet anyone other than those you already know? How can you be a part of a player community if you only ever play with a small circle of friends, and how would you even do that if all your friends are playing open? And what if some of your friends are pvp, either all or part of the time?

I don't feel that dividing the community in game, even further than it already is on these forums, is the answer. And I don't feel someone should be forced to pvp just to play this game open online which is what some (not all) are pushing for. And I don't believe that is the intent of the dev team.

 

If you haven't seen this tidbit from RG it shows a lot of insight into the line of thinking on importance of NOT segregating PvE and PvP.

 

@Ristra. Well I can't say I'm overly enthusiastic about the "being enticed" bit or the "safe paths" becoming unavailable, but then maybe my pvp friends can clear the way (which is probably the intent). For myself personally I'd prefer they leave out that bit, but as I've said all along, I'm more than willing to wait and see how it all plays out. And then too, as he says, the team currently has varying thoughts on how to handle it, so who knows. I do agree that it shows some very good reasons for not segregating the player base.

Personally I much prefer the way Darkstarr laid it out in the pvp mega thread.

 

you missed the point of my post. Those people would not harm you but would get the chance to witness what PVP is like...I'm not sure how you didn't get that but instead went on the offensive again. It's hard to have a conversation with someone who does that as it seems to always degrade.

I wasn't talking about "ruining" your gameplay, I was talking about selling it to others.

Also, you wouldn't be playing in a separate world at all. You would be in the same world as me and others who did not select open PVP just we wouldn't be in that mode...you would still see what we do in the world like our houses etc. Hope that helps you better understand.

 

Ristra <---<<< a very good point. I often times find it very difficult to find those good quotable insights we all have a need to remember.

There are so very few players that will even make comment on issues regarding PvP because of the combative nature the PvP threads tend to take. I think it's fare to note here, how the Cannibal thread was slow to take off, yet finally did because it wasn't a "my way or highway" situation with everyone's comments. I feel it's very unfortunate at times that we cannot gain more player input with ideas into PvP, because of the obstructions to dealing with anything else other than insults and rage posts. I personally would like to see more player PvP input through RG's enticement line of theory so we can have more player input before the game goes into public release. But if the current trend continues, then we just get what we get.

"Vendors"
Along that line of RG's thinking, I'd like to bring up the subject of our vendors. Vendors are a very large part of our game's initial economic stimulation and I would like to hear any comments anyone has, that could encourage even in a small amount to the proses of integrating PvP enticement.
I'll just throw this out there to see if it offers any suggestive stimulation;

Vendor Options;
If a particular PvP guild was keeping the non-safe zones clear for the gathering of valued resources, couldn't then through the local craftsmen vendors could be set for a that particular PvP guild to have some sort of discount offered to them through a vendor option menu. Or, by the same account, couldn't the vendor also be set for much higher prices or even set not to sell their wares to a named guild that was known to be attacking resource gatherers around their area, or anywhere?

"Trade Routes" (as described above in previous post)
Could these not cross the roads at times, while at other times not. Yet this line of thinking, dose hinge upon that goods from one town may fetch a higher price in another.

Any thoughts?
~Time Lord~

 

From what it looks like to me right now, there can't really be a true "Open world" in the game the devs are trying to make. The new selective multiplayer system will approach the level of "open world" but never quite be truly open world. It will try to simulate it and give the illusion that it is though. We sometimes need to remind ourselves that the dev's were trying to sort of distance themselves from the term "MMO".
So, how will it cater to both of us full loot open world PvPer's and the consensual only PvP/PvE types? By selective multiplayer. Perhaps you will see everyone who chooses either full loot PvP and PvE only in the towns, but outside of the towns you may be able to see and interact with other players who have chosen to play the game old school UO style. I think the filtering system is pretty well thought out and should cater to us all perfectly well. Though the PvP mega post seemed to limit the PvP a bit much for my liking. Im looking for a game where I can start off fresh and new and run the risk of being attacked(even by a more experienced or stronger player) at level one, and I don't want loot limitations. I also want more incentive for players like me to play in the environment. I don't want to be completely seperated from the PvE players either though, sometimes it might be fun to travel with them on a purely PvE quest. Or to see them in the towns, and have the ability to trade and socialize with them. So I want a shared economy and all, but I don't want the PvE only types to be able to farm away while im limited economically with the risky game preference I like. Those are the things I still want worked out yet. Should be fixable without dragging the PvE players into my game(unless there REALLY REALLY in the mood.)

 

This post was meant to illustrate RG's thought process. It's an ever changing world with danger that does not sit and wait in a dungeon instance for us to come after it. The "being enticed" part, my interpretation, is the visibility of PvP and not being segregated off into it's own game. - if the PvP is enjoyable then it will be enticing. Contested PvP Hexes being the exception, there is a hard segregation there but control can be gained to allow for non PvP access. The "safe paths" part, again my interpretation, is the contested hexes. They will not be static they will be migrating throughout the land with the story and other dynamic content.

Which ties into the overworld map, some "safe paths" will pull you in if they are contested and you try pass through it on the map. Don't want to go into the contested area, no big deal, go around. It may take longer or require you to go through a different hex scene but you can avoid it.

Nothing is written in stone but there are plenty of posts to interpret so we can see direction and intent. This is how I see things coming together but anything can happen to change that.

 

Ristra, I've seen RG's comments and the comments from the other team members that conflict with them regarding Consensual PVP (I side with RG's thinking over the other team members). Doesn't change the fact that they are segregating players as part of the server system they have designed. They have said over and over that the design will filter to players they think you will want to play with over strangers and it is clear from these forums that Open PVP players having non-Open pvp players in the instance greatly effects their gameplay. It's only logical that if the system is true to design that it would filter from 1,000 players in a hex to instances of 60 with a few instances for Open-PVP players. I also think RG's thinking would greatly upset many of the Consensual PVP forum members as it doesn't sound like the promises from the other devs. More like if you don't have a tower near your or along your route you could get hurt by another player, pop-up notification included of course. And the only think that will be in all Hex Instances are housing and Vendors... we could be standing in the same spot in different instances if there were over 600 players in that instance and not even know the other was there if we weren't filtered into the same instance.... We will have to see what they come up with. (I have more detailed posts on this in the restricted pvp thread, I know you love that one ;])

Rune, Oh Rune... it is you that is missing the point... I'll paint a picture for you buddy.... I'm the Orc Half Breed Rufuso and I hates me some humies, so I'm going hunting. Just my luck... I see a particularly juicy looking one just over the ridge rummaging the corpse of a harpy, I like Harpies. Wells, I sneak up behind the oaf and slide my blade between his ribs, he slumps to the ground with a puzzled look in his eyes. To my surprise there is a feathery looking nobleman starring right at me from the tree line... Looking rather intrigued. I casually stride up to him and to my surprise he doesn't move a muscle to flee... be it from bravery or fear it's a good day for me. I take up my massive sword in two hands and bring it down with all my force, which is considerable due to my Orcish Father. I plant the blade squarely between Sir Feathers eyes and instead of splitting like a log as they tend to do... the blade just stops... while he casually inspects me. A chuckle erupts from his mouth instead of fearful screams. "Did you think you could harm me? I am a Noble Knight from Kings Port, I own a rather large manor there and I do not consent to your blade! Continue about your business or I will have to berate you for your ignorance." Slack jawed I stare at the man, sword falling from my hands... "WTF MAN!". So allowing Consensual PVP players into Open PVP hex instances to try to recruit them my allowing them to witness PVP is weak sauce... the weakest sauce in all the world if the world was made of sub par weak sauce as the norm.

Robby, this is an MMORPG wether they want it to be or not... Is Guild Wars not an MMO? Also, the big new thing with this game isn't the housing or the story... it is the server system. They can actually have the online mode tailor to player bases effectively giving them the game they want and the servers adjust to player demands on the fly. Let's say 10,000 players are on at a given time and 3,000 are active open pvp players... that is enough to fully populate 50 hex instances. Imagine Moonglow's local server as a hex with each UO server/facet as a separate instance. If 600 players are in the hex and 80 want Siege Perilous style pvp they get two instances and if the other 520 players want Trammel type game play they get 9 instances with that style... if the PVP system is great and people start to switch that pvp flag on the instances automatically adjust. Housing and vendors are Cross Instance content so there isn't anything keeping players from doing this in concept.

 

or we could just make half the world PVP and the other PVE and if we stray then we deal with those rules!

 

I was joking. I think the filter will do the Job.

On the other hand, for the loot, we really have a proposal of ****. Ransom system is really retarded and I am optimistic that Porta will adjust.

 

I think we need more information on how item strength and rarity before we can talk loot. Full loot is the way I lean in a system like UO Hybrid. In UO as it exists today items are tooooooo rare and expensive to drop, you can literally have items worth $500. If items are balanced and available, then full loot is the way to go.

 

You are omitting the Friend/Family and Guild portion of the match making.

If I am open PvP but I am friends with anyone of the people I normally game with that will never PvP does that mean we can never be in the same instance together? Same with guild, does the guild need to share PvP status?

What about the run on: I am grouped with someone that has a non PvP flagged player on their friends list, do we all need to have the same flag?

If you watched during the kickstarter, they explained the Friend/Guild grouping as not being required to be in a group. Simple follow them into a hex from the overworld map and pick up in the scene where they are. Some scenes they will need to come back to get you as the MOBs respawn while others will be clear and you can catch up.

I am not saying PvP will not get filtered first but I am saying that, we don't know that till it's set in stone. I am saying we shouldn't get settled in on PvP segregation when they have given plenty of examples that show other wise, but also not set in stone.

Just as the 64 per instance, that's the current number for testing and easily raised. It's also posible they adjust the mechanic for a soft/hard cap to allow for flexibility when it comes to bringing groups as the instance fills.

 

Ristra, I agree as there is a lot we don't know and what we do know is under the protection of the "Don't Lawyer me Bro" clause. I'd hope they would put extra $$$ into the hardware so they could up the count per instance, even though when you think about it 60s is a solid number if they are active from the hex sizes I've seen. I'm up for a system like what RG describes with protection from PVP built into Tesla Towers esc with a Virtue/Karma system possibly. With that said it doesn't sound like the consensual pvp crow will be happy with that and if they get the concessions they believe they will get then I think the filter will be the only option to balance it for the PVP crowd.

 

If you look at the PvP contested hex as a battle front. The fight is moving throughout the land and some times it's going to get uncomfortable. It's likely to be a move out of the way or get involved type situation.

The tesla towers don't seem to reach beyond the limits of the city hex but if the battle get's close to the city and for some reason the tesla tower stops functioning then it's siege time. Want your city back under control, better flag and get involved. That or move out of the way and let the PvP crowd handle things.

Open PvP seems to be an addition and outside of the contested hex and story arch. Which is why I can not see clear intent on how they are thinking about handling the filter for open PvP.

Could go either way. Friends > Family > Guild > retaliative level > PvP > recent grouping was the first wording... if we are looking to lawyer them.

 

"Creating Better Worlds to PvP Engage In, Causing Better PvP Engagements"

With each and every game that Richard Garriott has been connected to, every one of those games are more PvP based than they are of crafting from their beginnings. Even when Ultima Online came out, crafting was a secondary attraction. They were crafted by PvP first and then accommodated crafting. I believe that with that in mind and now having hind sight, that our New Britannia is being designed from a quest, craft, then PvP way, to accommodate the overwhelming desire for a more rich world from which to base an even fuller PvP experience. The idea in this being that, when a castle (or objective) is there and players come to attack or defend it, in most gaming worlds they are not such a "living environment" where there are actual other players that are civilians to the action and may react accordingly.

The history of Stalingrad was a great testament to such encounters as are many other populace military encounters that followed, where the populace could take up arms and not wish for the invaders to triumph. I encountered the same distaste for such urban combat environments, me wanting to only engage in battlefields with no thought to any living within a city. I just wanted to PvP in the real world of conflict without civilians becoming involved in any way, yet that is not what the real world had to offer and thus I was forced to accept that one could win the battlefield war, but the hardest war was to try and take any city with a people that may not all wish to be liberated.

By attempting to creating a living world from the inside out, I believe is the best way to help create such a living place where conflict can take place. Here in our gaming world, there are very few, if any games that have such "living places" where PvE/crafter, can enhance any PvP engagement. I don't know how close to making any objective real that our Portalarium may be able to create, yet with building the game from the inside out, may be a better, or at least more innovative way to insure that all things are connected. from the inside out is how the real world's civilizations came into being, so I hope it pays off in deeper PvP conflicts becoming something more than just a numbers game. Such things as connections, could be only created from the inception of the creation in order for them not to become a "fill in the blanks later", where the game has evolved to such a degree as new content of drastic change could not be placed in, yet if from the beginning, "it can".

The only things that will make breakthroughs in PvP gaming, are the connections of a deeper environment to have or afford such better conflict. Otherwise, it's a basic "Planet Side" style conflict, which most all PvP games are known for.

Here in our New Britannia, we have a populace that has social, as well as real estate venture, which aide that furthered "real living world environment" feel to it and thus a much better platform for a continuing real gaming styled world, where the deepest PvP escapes the ways of the other game's "PvP numbers games".
~Time Lord~

 

Which works wonderfully for those who view PVP as the main point of the game, but leaves a lot t be desired for those who don't. I feel that a fine balance is required for weapons and gear. A simple system of no interesting magical gear that is rare gets boring very fast, which a full loot system most likely would require. This is where a lot of the areas over lap. This is a shared game world after all.

Notice it is possible to post a response without being condescending.

 

Rune, what would qualify as interesting magical gear that would not compute with full loot? Loot really comes down to rarity and balance is a combination of rarity and increase in potency. Just curious.

The note at the end of your post contradicted your point, I think we just need to agree that we don't really get along due to our conflicting views. Doesn't mean we can't converse though, if you are ever in Austin we can go eat with Rufus.

Time Lord, great post. For some reason it made me think that Open PVP is like the final game mode, which is different than being a flag within a different game mode. Cool.