PVP compromise idea

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

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

    herradam Avatar

    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    737
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I think a person's motivations for wanting to kill non-consenting players in game should be clearly laid out before proposing any sort of compromise. Far from confusing the issue, this lies at the heart of it. If a person can't present an argument that isn't just meant to satisfy their own personal pleasure in attacking those who aren't consenting, then I feel it has no merit to it.

    This doesn't mean we can't discuss the issue of consent in pvp, and neither does it necessarily mean that trolling will result.

    In short, if anyone has a compelling compromise for non-consensual pvp then they are free to change my mind.

    That said, I will say no more on this subject.
     
  2. Isaiah

    Isaiah Avatar

    Messages:
    6,927
    Likes Received:
    8,453
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    The multitude of PvP threads in the annals this forum alone are enough to write up a case study on how asking a person their motives about attacking players who do not want to consent to PvP leads to arguing.

    The point I made is the argument is for nothing since there will only be consensual PvP in SotA. Since there will be no compromise on this why talk about it? It only creates fights. And worse it gives the false impression that ALL PvPers think this way. It's not true. Most of us here in this forum agree that PvP should be a conscious decision made in SotA.

    There are a lot of PvE folks out there that think most PvPers just want to prey on the weak, and this debate feeds that. I want to clerify that this is not the case.

    EDIT: I guarantee you that this guy who wants to fight people who don't want to PvP has a psychotic reason for doing so. LoL You will not likely receive any beneficial information from him.
     
  3. herradam

    herradam Avatar

    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    737
    Trophy Points:
    43

    I don't want to shut down discussion. I wanted it to be justified. I've yet to hear a compelling reason for non-consensual pvp, but maybe I was foolish to think someone could step up and prove me wrong.
     
  4. Robby

    Robby Avatar

    Messages:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The way I see it, when one steps into zone where players may attack each other on site, that really shouldn't mean that players MUST attack each other on site... I think that its all about the suspense of knowing that it CAN happen. Sure you can choose to go to these places for the rares and stuff that they say will be there. If your looking to snag a rare in a PvP zone, you might see another player you never met and say "Hi hows it going! Oh your after the same loot? Lets help each other get it! Ill protect you if a murderer comes by."
    But if you run into another player whose not real friendly, they may just butcher and loot you. Now, while all players in this zone knew what they were getting into, and basically consented to the CHANCE that they may be attacked... I dont really consider this 100%"consensual". I may consent to going into a game/zone where any player could potentially attack me. That doesnt mean though that im saying. "Oh yes! Attack me! Everybody!! I love it!" It just means that im looking to live life on edge a little bit. Im hoping to get around getting killed by sneaking around, making good allies, and by watching my step, planning and being extra careful. Kinda like how I play silent hill or resident evil. I dont play these games to get bit by a zombie.... I play them in spite of the fact that I could be bit by a zombie because its fun and suspensful.

    So basically, if you opt into full loot PvP, it doesnt mean your hoping that you get killed and looted. Your not saying "YES YES KILL ME! LOOT ME!!" Your accepting risk, thats all. And perhaps its for extra reward.. And I dont ever consider it "consensual pvp" when I get killed and looted in a game even though I knew the game I was playing, and was 100% accepting of the risks.
    So if there are going to be PvP zones... then yes there will be "non-consensual pvp", there just wont be any purely PvE players involved because they dont have to go into the PvP zones.
    I dont think I want these folks hanging around in my game anyways unless im just out to slay monsters. If im gonna play a dangerous game I want to play it with people who understand me and my game. Dont mean we will be friends. Tough to make friends with someone you just slayed, or someone who just slayed you and looted your stuff... Unless one decides to rez the other, give items back and start talking. But that doesn't generally happen on the private UO servers based on the old school pvp rules.
     
    xanax and Time Lord like this.
  5. Phredicon

    Phredicon Avatar

    Messages:
    877
    Likes Received:
    1,842
    Trophy Points:
    105
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Except I think many PvP players, although of course not all, DO play in PvP zones for the express purpose of killing any and all challengers/victims. That's what they enjoy, the defeating of another person; it's why some aspect of skill is desired in PvP and not just "best gear = WIN!".

    The way you see it would be nice, but in reality I believe anyone who steps into a PvP-enabled hex should fully expect to be attacked, and I'm guessing it won't take long for it to happen.
     
    Mercyful Fate and Time Lord like this.
  6. Acrylic 300

    Acrylic 300 Avatar

    Messages:
    866
    Likes Received:
    624
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    The thrill of survival is the reason I like it. If we were all trapped on an island with nothing but our skills of survival (as a game) it would not be fun if most of the players were having catered feasts, belching, farting, and pointing their fingers saying, "look at all the fun that skinny guy is having surviving"....."I'm sure glad he can't murder and grief me" ..."belch"...."fart"...*gnash gnash gnash....



    Consensual is fine with me, survival is not the only way to have fun. I would rather have consensual PvP than propose some idea that totally overpowers one side.
     
    Time Lord likes this.
  7. 3devious

    3devious Avatar

    Messages:
    1,447
    Likes Received:
    2,621
    Trophy Points:
    125
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Virginia
    It just feels more natural to me to have everyone be attackable. I have to admit that we'd need to be more in tune with our environment because a person with a red name over their head means one of three things to me:
    1. They are hostile.
    2. They are higher level than I can handle.
    3. Both.

    I think that everyone should be able to fight anytime anywhere. That's not acceptable to some people. I understand that it can cause "harm" to some people but since there are people who feel it is perfectly acceptable for them to demand to feel safe all the time I've decided that is reasonable to determine that it is pointless to try to appease them.

    sent from the future using my Coleco Adam
     
  8. Time Lord

    Time Lord Avatar

    Messages:
    6,874
    Likes Received:
    26,601
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    ~SOTA Monk~ ~Monastery~ ~Thailand~
    :oops:
    The word "compromise" seems to come up allot lately in our PvP for everyone discussions.

    What is it to compromise?


    com·pro·mise
    ˈkämprəˌmīz/
    noun
    noun: compromise; plural noun: compromises
    1. 1.​
      an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
      "an ability to listen to two sides in a dispute, and devise a compromise acceptable to both"
      synonyms: agreement, understanding, settlement, terms, deal, trade-off, bargain; More
      middle ground, happy medium, balance
      "they reached a compromise"
      give and take, concession, cooperation
      "a happy marriage needs compromise"
      antonyms: intransigence
      • a middle state between conflicting opinions or actions reached by mutual concession or modification.
        "a compromise between commercial appeal and historical interest"
      • the acceptance of standards that are lower than is desirable.
        "sexism should be tackled without compromise"
    verb
    verb: compromise; 3rd person present: compromises; past tense: compromised; past participle: compromised; gerund or present participle: compromising
    1. 1.​
      settle a dispute by mutual concession.
      "in the end we compromised and deferred the issue"
      synonyms: meet each other halfway, come to an understanding, make a deal, make concessions, find a happy medium, strike a balance; More
      give and take
      "we compromised"
      • archaic
        settle (a dispute) by mutual concession.
        "I should compromise the matter with my father"
    2. 2.​
      weaken (a reputation or principle) by accepting standards that are lower than is desirable.
      "commercial pressures could compromise safety"
      synonyms: undermine, weaken, damage, harm; More


    "It's a very interesting word, when one wants something odd from another that has it"
    What is, "it"? ..."My Game!"... What's your game?.... "Why it's, ...umm.. Your Game Of Course":D
    ~Time Lord~:rolleyes:

    *sent using crap talk* ;)
     
  9. MalakBrightpalm

    MalakBrightpalm Avatar

    Messages:
    1,342
    Likes Received:
    1,480
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sol system.
    This does NOT address why many PvE players don't want to mess with non-consensual PvP. It tries yet another way to force them into it. A 25% chance of instadeath is a 75% chance of no penalty. A 99% chance of instadeath still allows a 1% chance of no penalty. As @Silent Strider pointed out, a 100% chance of instadeath still allows the attack. There are players who don't want to even see you run up and wave your sword back and forth menacingly. It isn't about the in game consequence. I fully expect my character to be able to rebuff and PWNZOR anyone foolish enough to attack me, that's not the POINT. There will be days that I want to PvP, and days that I DON'T. I equate PvP to any other form of gameplay, be it the PvE content of SotA, or a game of poker with the guys, or some quick stickball in the field out back... if I don't want to play, and someone comes and tries to drag me into the game against my will because they need more warm bodies to fill out their game, I'm gonna be offended. In real life, if someone asked me, I'd say no, if they got persistent and obnoxious, I'd close the door in their face, and if they tried to drag me to the game by force I'd break their bloody arm. In the video game world, the equivalent response is not opting in, /ignore, and /graphicignore. When I cannot even see you anymore, and you cannot see me, I don't feel pressured and annoyed by your unwanted PvP requests. There is no percentage chance that will satisfy me of you forcing the request when I'm not interested. When I AM interested, you won't need a percentage chance or even a clever gameplay mechanic to get me into PvP, I'll come looking for YOU.

    There are some players who will always be up for PvP. There will be some who NEVER will be. They deserve the right to make that choice for themselves and not be criticized for it.
     
  10. Isaiah

    Isaiah Avatar

    Messages:
    6,927
    Likes Received:
    8,453
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    After what I posted you still go on and post this? lol There is no compelling reason for non-consentual pvp in "SotA". I understand why some people want it, but it will never happen in this game.

    *********A REAL UO NON-CONSENTUAL PVP EXPERIENCE***********
    That being said, I don't believe it's necessary to have non-consentual PvP, but having played UO back before Trammel I do know what the appeal is. In fact the people who prey upon the weak weren't the average player. MOST players in that environment wanted to help you out when you started off, and most people were kind and considerate. Most people wanted more players to play and they didn't want to ruin the experience for everybody. So it was a co-operative world to live in.

    However there was a danger in that world, and an experience that may never be experienced again in any other game. There was a chance you might find yourself in the wrong space at the wrong time. Walking through a small corridor, or walking into a small cleft in the mountains where small houses are placed... Before you know it you're being attacked by a fast moving character wielding a vanquishing katana and if you weren't prepaired ... or worse... you think you're prepaired and you're not! ... This killer makes quick work of you, and then you realize you need to escape, but it's too late... OOooooOOoooOooOO

    I was never a PK, but after Trammel came around the world seemed to be less "nice" as strange as that may seem. There were cocky rude people in trammel. Every once and a while I would get one of those cocky newbies to follow me back to fellucca. They had these little moonstone things you would find as loot and you could open a gate on the spot to Fellucca to Trammel. I don't know if they still have those but it was an easy way to travel to fellucca. Either way those guys would get killed and I would loot their stuff and they learned not to be a jerk. HOwever these jerks were not as common when the world was full open PvP with full loot. Strange huh? Of course a PK would act like a jerk to provoke you to cross the town lines, but you expect those guys to be jerks not the people at the bank or something.

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

    THe problem with Full Open Non-consentual PvP was the fact that newbies could get griefed and killed over and over and over. That's why I believe we need an optional PvP ssytem. The days of non-consentual PvP are over. It was fun for lots of people, but others were either to afraid to join a game like that because of their perception that the game would be unfair, or some people would have a bad experience getting killed and quit instead of comming back and have a better strategy next time.

    Truth was even in the non-consentual full open pvp world of UO renaissance or earlier it was in fact possible to stay alive UNLESS you looked for trouble. Once you were a grandmaster at your weapons skill, you usually had the ability to run away from a serious thread if you knew what you were doing. A PK or even a group of PKs didn't mean you were going to die. If you were mounted and you weren't trapped some place you should be able to run off, and when the mount ran out of gas you could ditch it and run on foot, and usaually nobody would follow you that far anyway. PKs know their limitations, and they usually stick to a safe area for them. They didn't go romping around because they usually carried items they didn't want to lose and they usually liked to loure people into their web rather than follow people into a possible trap. PKs had the most to lose if they died!!!

    SO it wasn't a bad system, but because of fear and some people don't want to be competitive we will likely never see that exact type of game again. However if you want to give it a try check out UO Second Age, or UO Renaissance freeshards. They go pretty old school. They are very similar to the way UO was back then, but just not exactly the same in my opinion, but it is close.
     
    Ferrus likes this.
  11. herradam

    herradam Avatar

    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    737
    Trophy Points:
    43

    Isaiah, it's not your job to come in here and police the thread. If you don't agree with discussing this then please don't.
     
    MalakBrightpalm likes this.
  12. Isaiah

    Isaiah Avatar

    Messages:
    6,927
    Likes Received:
    8,453
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Are you policing me bro? LoL Didn't work. I'll post what I want to post. However take a look at my post because I really believe it gives a great picture of what it was like to experience exactly what you were asking justification for. There is a justification for non-consentual PvP and I think I gave good reason for it, and in doing so I believe I answered your question.

    However I personally don't think it is a good idea to do for SotA. In my opinion PvP should be consentual.
     
  13. herradam

    herradam Avatar

    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    737
    Trophy Points:
    43

    You do that, but don't tell me what we can or can't discuss. This entire derail was the result of you trying to shut down discussion.

    I am not in favour of non-consensual pvp, but I would like to hear a justification that doesn't privilege one person's enjoyment over another. Discussing this in a thread devoted to compromise is reasonable.
     
    MalakBrightpalm likes this.
  14. Floors

    Floors Avatar

    Messages:
    4,266
    Likes Received:
    6,618
    Trophy Points:
    165
    PvP and Compromise ? I thought that wasn't possible.

    If you can't full loot and pvp anyone even if they don't want it, that's not PvP right ?

    At least that's what many hardcore PvP threads on here in the past have proposed.

    Doesn't seem very fair to me.

    To me, in SoTA it means one thing :

    1.) They're a developer
     
    MalakBrightpalm likes this.
  15. 3devious

    3devious Avatar

    Messages:
    1,447
    Likes Received:
    2,621
    Trophy Points:
    125
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Virginia
    No one seems to care about "fair" so I am all for scrapping PvP at this point.

    In SoTA: when I saw that first bear with a red name I assumed he was some sort of hostile uber bear. I was confused that bandits had red names but didn't attack me. I found myself fighting things that weren't hostile per se. If they do that with players, I am going to have to re-train myself.
     
    Time Lord likes this.
  16. MalakBrightpalm

    MalakBrightpalm Avatar

    Messages:
    1,342
    Likes Received:
    1,480
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sol system.
    Wow. I'm glad you aren't a dev. Or even remotely involved in making those decisions. You don't see people backing you up on your view of fair, so you want to scrap the entirety of PvP?
     
    Silent Strider and herradam like this.
  17. Robby

    Robby Avatar

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


    There are plenty of UO emulations, as well as a few other MMO's that are full loot open world. They aren't top of the list in popularity, but they are "popular". Theres always hobbyists and stuff out there that make those servers.
     
    Time Lord and Isaiah like this.
  18. 3devious

    3devious Avatar

    Messages:
    1,447
    Likes Received:
    2,621
    Trophy Points:
    125
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Virginia
    Oh yeah, people "backing me up" matters about that. I am glad that I am not a dev so that I wouldn't have to pander to people who can't compromise when it's their own community they want to shoot in the foot. All the people "backing you up" will be sitting around listening to the crickets if you keep refusing to work together. You've proven intractable. People have tried to work with you and you rebuff everything. Now I am the bad girl for saying that dealing with you is a waste of time? Whatever.
     
    Time Lord and Ferrus like this.
  19. High Baron O`Sullivan

    High Baron O`Sullivan Avatar

    Messages:
    3,503
    Likes Received:
    8,109
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    is everything.
    Never going to happen. PvP is going to be here whether anyone likes it or not. Whether you partake in it is up to you.
     
  20. 3devious

    3devious Avatar

    Messages:
    1,447
    Likes Received:
    2,621
    Trophy Points:
    125
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Virginia
    It's their time to waste.
     
    Time Lord likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.