PVP compromise idea

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

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

    Betamox Avatar

    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    231
    Trophy Points:
    18
    This is a good example of someone using kickstarter front page to prove there will be zero non-consensual player combat in SotA. From the same post, others might see the following phrases differently:
    Choices have consequences
    Ethical paradoxes
    Spiritual successor
    Play the way you want to play
    Anti-hero

    Since there is ambiguity, the direction of pvp is not obviously clear from the kickstarter main page. While I do believe there will not be non-consensual player combat based on information presented by the devs in the forums, I am getting tired of the canned "it was obvious in kickstarter and the very beginning..." responses, because that information is not readily available without using third party sources (YouTube) or emails/chats not available to potential backers.
     
  2. Bodhbh Dearg

    Bodhbh Dearg Avatar

    Messages:
    1,797
    Likes Received:
    3,465
    Trophy Points:
    125
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Don't put words in my mouth! I specifically did NOT say that!

    I said they *also* made it clear from very early on there won't be non-consensual PvP...

    Two different individual statements, the one is not related to the other! (Aside from both being relevant to the OP...)

    Please stop jumping to conclusions (that itself is your own problem) and then assigning them to others (which makes it other people's problem, in this case mine... :p)!
    If you draw conclusions, make sure to post them as your own... ;)


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.
     
    Time Lord and docdoom77 like this.
  3. rune_74

    rune_74 Avatar

    Messages:
    4,788
    Likes Received:
    8,335
    Trophy Points:
    153
    A the truth of your other thread comes out...you want to use it as some new way to come at the PVP angle. It may not be labeled clear on the webpage for it but it was very clear to those of us who were involved in the campaign. They never hid it and it was never some underhanded way to trick people.

    I have to say I am disappointed but not surprised you did this.
     
  4. Betamox

    Betamox Avatar

    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    231
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Haha I doubt you're disappointed.

    This is no new angle - I even said above there will not be non-consensual player combat in SotA based on recent dev comments in forums.

    My point is that this information was not clear and readily available to later backers - and the anti-pk crowd have been constantly using the kickstarter page and "early information" as canned responses to prove to late backers that non-consensual player combat was never a potential option.

    The kickstarter page can be read very subjectively based on someones own bias, and is thus not as clear and obvious as people proclaim.

    That's all.
     
  5. rune_74

    rune_74 Avatar

    Messages:
    4,788
    Likes Received:
    8,335
    Trophy Points:
    153
    It was never an option past the end of the kickstarter...and that is enough.
     
    Time Lord and Bodhbh Dearg like this.
  6. Silent Strider

    Silent Strider Avatar

    Messages:
    1,067
    Likes Received:
    1,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Kickstarter page doesn't explicitly tell whether or not non-consensual PvP will exist.

    Which, IMHO, means that anyone for whom the existence or not of non-consensual PvP is important in deciding whether to back the game or not should have looked for information elsewhere. It's what I, and many players that didn't want to deal with non-consensual PvP, did.
     
  7. WebTeam

    WebTeam Avatar

    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    8
    I think YOU are also forgetting that the KS campaign never promised that consensual PvP would be an option in the MMO(what ever you want to call it) mode. The only said PvP would be consensual... never said 'how'.

    They could have very easily made the MMO mode Open PvP with full loot and made Friends Only mode the 'optional' portion. Personally I donated on Richard G's MarkeeDragon interview(made during the campaign BTW) where he indicated he was in favor of "safe towns/citys with safe paths that let you play the story line but not come across PvP". Not sure whats going on there; right now they seem to be doing ho-hum boring 'been-done-before optional PvP system, but this game could go either way. Right now its going in one direction... and not one that is good for real role playing.

    This isn't Diablo 3 and I want the game to allow others to be a part of the content. That means implementing a system that allows people to RP a murder if they want with checks and balances in place that dont let them grief, but do let you hunt them with a 'justice engine' of sorts(guards, roaming high level rangers, nature yen-yang reactive environment).
     
    Caska DiFumarate and Time Lord like this.
  8. docdoom77

    docdoom77 Avatar

    Messages:
    1,274
    Likes Received:
    3,381
    Trophy Points:
    125
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Latveria


    Best post in the thread. My sentiments exactly.
     
    Time Lord, tradyblix and Bodhbh Dearg like this.
  9. Bodhbh Dearg

    Bodhbh Dearg Avatar

    Messages:
    1,797
    Likes Received:
    3,465
    Trophy Points:
    125
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Netherlands
    There's also plenty people who say that PvP/PK is not good for real role playing... Most PvP opponents are open-minded enough to at least admit there's multiple ways of looking at this, and that their view isn't the only right view.
    For a majority of PvP (and esp. FFA) proponents however, it seems to be incomprehensible and impossible that people actually disagree with their pov, and cannot see that what they want (except for the grieving/PK anyone part, which is obviously the goal for a number of them!) might still be possible in the proposed model.
    You may want this, other may not want it... However, I see NO reason why the above would NOT be possible with the opt-in system proposed... The PvP enabled players can conrtibute to such a system, whereas the non-PvP players can do the game their way, without having to fear being killed, losing their stuff, etc.

    Why is it such a big deal that there are people in game who wish NOT to be killed by 1337G4nk3r_2002, if there are plenty others that *are* ready to chase and kill him?

    *That* question I have not yet seen answered by *any* proponent of non-consensual PvP / FFA style gaming...
     
    Time Lord and tradyblix like this.
  10. rune_74

    rune_74 Avatar

    Messages:
    4,788
    Likes Received:
    8,335
    Trophy Points:
    153
    I love it when people put words in my mouth and twist things to go their way.

    I never expected diablo 3 for this game. Your beliefs of what is good for roleplaying are obviously not felt by everyone else or else they wouldn't have it the way it is. They were clear during interviews and chats that OPO would not just be for PVP no matter how much you want to twist it.
     
    AndiZ275, Time Lord and Bodhbh Dearg like this.
  11. Silent Strider

    Silent Strider Avatar

    Messages:
    1,067
    Likes Received:
    1,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you mean that there was no mention of it in the KS page, yeah, I agree. But, at the same time, it never said that players would ever be forced into PvP.

    If you mean nothing was said about PvP being optional in OPO mode back during the KS drive, then you are wrong. There were references to PvP being optional in OPO mode in the hangouts and the site chat, plus a post from Chris in the forums that unambiguously told that the open world wouldn't be PvP. My early upgrade from the $25 First Responder tier to the $120 Digital Explorer tier only happened after I was convinced that, despite RG's posts and interviews, I would be able to play in OPO mode without ever being forced into PvP.

    This was suggested early on, discussed on the chat, and refused by the devs. OPO is the mode meant to meet players from outside your friend list, and it's not meant to be exclusive to either PvPers or PvE players.

    My guess is that he was talking about how the game would look for players that opt into the PvP aspect of the game and never leave it. Including safeguards to let players that want to have the risk of PvP, but not actively take part in the fighting, enjoy it.

    In other words, enjoyed what RG described? Go do the Oracle quest as soon as you start playing and never do it again to leave PvP mode, and you are supposed to experience exactly what was described there. At the same time, players that don't want that can still play the same game without being bothered by unwanted PvP.

    Given that I only consider an activity as true roleplay when it's consensual, I have to disagree. I don't consider most of what happens in a game with non-consensual PvP as roleplay, and I don't want to have anything to do with that.

    BTW, I play pen and paper RPGs since the 80s, so it's not a lack of experience with roleplay per see.

    It allows — for the players that consent to be part of the content. As it should be.

    I don't care about balances, checks, safeguards, punishment, whatever. In an online game, if another player can set me back without my consent, I'm not playing. And if another player attempts to make me into his content without my consent, I will just suicide my character to deny him — as I did in other games with non-consensual PvP I've played in the past.
     
    Time Lord and Bodhbh Dearg like this.
  12. Floors

    Floors Avatar

    Messages:
    4,266
    Likes Received:
    6,618
    Trophy Points:
    165
    I'm flagging for PvP just so I can use my crystal sword at an opportune time :)
     
  13. WebTeam

    WebTeam Avatar

    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    8
    I guess using the term "open-minded" would suggest players in favor of open PvP are not. But dont forget that open PvP players are open-minded enough to allow others to role play as content against them. I am one of those and if someone wants to role play a murderer and attack me, thats fine... I'm in an ONLINE mode to experience others roles. However it seems PvE'ers are not... yet there is a mode already for them to do so... Friends only mode and single player mode.

    I think this is an folsification. They dont feel like it's incomprehensible and impossible that people actually disagree with their pov. I think they understand completely. What open PvP'ers fail to understand is why are their mode for everyone except them.

    The system you are talking about already exists on 2 levels, single player, friends only, and from the looks of it now MMO(style) mode. So I can reverse your statement and say " I see NO reason why open PvP would NOT be possible with the other 2 modes proposed." It only hurts open PvP which by definition requires players that are not friended to come across eachother. Mean while friends only mode already has Facebook friends, Twitter friends, and Google Plus friends as SotA team has said this is how it will determine who you run across in Friends Only mode.

    Well, let me answer it for you right here and now so you can stop asking it. Because it is at the expence of open PvP proponents who, UNLIKE PvE players, do NOT have a mode.

    Dial it down a little and relax. No words were put in your mouth. I'm simply pointing out that Diablo 3 already has non-combat and that I dont think SotA shoould be striving for an gaming experience that has been over done and over worked.

    Exactly.

    But it was never mentioned in the KS. Where people actually made the dontation. Slightly irrelivent, but many of us know RG and donated for a spiritual successor to his games. That include not only the single player Ultima series, but the online one as well which included open PvP till EA made the Tram/Fel foolishness.

    Right, but the problem with this is that the nature of open PvP involves role playing with people you are not cooperating with. People that may be RPing a murderer. That is the fundimental problem of making the OPO mode PvP optional. It only works for one side and not for the other.

    Well we can guess till we are blue in the face. RG, please reply! :p

    How about "Enjoy PvE? Go join friends only mode." Works just as well.

    I think this is a close minded statement. Considering Role Play, by its nature; is when a player chooses to play a role... You might not always get someone that will consent to "not talking" or "not following" or what ever other thing you may not like about how theier character interacts with you.

    Since the 70's here. I have abotu a decade of experience on you when it comes to this matter.

    Well that is productive. I think I can rest my case.
     
  14. Bodhbh Dearg

    Bodhbh Dearg Avatar

    Messages:
    1,797
    Likes Received:
    3,465
    Trophy Points:
    125
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Netherlands
    For quite a number of them: Correct!

    Totally wrong! Friends only mode is to only play with friends. You cannot make new friends or meet other people there. OMO (Note it is *NOT* MMO!!!) is where you meet others. They may be PvPers (whom I have no problem with) or FFA-PKers (whom I dislike with a passion!), or they may be PvErs. It doesn't matter, because even the PvErs can intermingle with PvPers without having to be afraid they'll get killed.

    I'm afraid a number of them actually do! What YOU fail to understand is that there IS a mode for you: OMO! No you don't get to kill everyone, but if you are a PvPer and not a FFA-PKer (AKA Ganker), why does that really matter that much? There'll be sufficient players (some PvPers stubbornly keep claiming a majority of players, even though LB and DS already implied otherwise) who *will* want to PvP with you!

    Again, there is no MMO in this game! This is NOT an MMORPG! In OMO mode you will run in to every sort of player! It is like a Trammel where reds *are* allowed to come and fight other reds. And some of the world will be like Felucca, where everyone is a target for PvP, but where the better resources will be found...
    But in the end it is a moot point. The team already stated during the KS campaign that it would NOT be non-consensual PvP, and that SPO/FPO/OMO modes had nothing to do with that.

    Wrong assumption, therefore an invalid answer! There IS a mode for you, 2 actually: FPO or OMO with consensual PvP flag ENABLED! Now please answer the question again, without the incorrect assumption stated above?

    It wasn't EA who made that happen! It was an attempt by RG & team to fix what was broken with the non-consensual PvP leading to ganking, rez-killing and other anti-social behavior in game! People were leaving UO because of that ganking. RG stated that as a fact, and I can assume he and Starr know what they're talking about! They had the numbers to prove it!

    I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make sense at all! Why would PvPers have issues with non PvPers doing their thing? The non-PvPers aren't telling you that you cannot PvP where they are, are they? Then why are you telling PvErs that they cannot play the game they want where YOU are?
    Seems mighty ego-centric to me, sorry!

    Wrong again! It is OMO where you meet NEW people. If you want to play a certain part of the story line with only friends, go in to FPO. If you want to meet people, make new friends or try some things with random band of people, go in to OMO.
    You really have to let go of the idea that one mode excludes other options and vice versa! You can do PvP in both FPO and OMO, just like others can opt out of PvP in both FPO and OMO. You can PvP EVERYWHERE in the world. Non PvPers only get about 90% of the world. The other 10% means they HAVE to accept the risks of PvP.
    So stop acting like you're getting the short end of the stick! You're NOT!

    The only way all of this will TRULY disadvantage you is when you're a FFA-PKer/Ganker... But if that is the case, I don't feel sorry at all!

    Oh and as a PS: These type of threads have changed me from an indifferent supporter of PvP to an avid defender of the status quo! And I truly believe that these posts only serve to prove Portalarium correct in their decisions! Só many of these threads (not pointing at any thread in particular, incl. this one!) are thinly disguised complaints from gankers upset at not being able to gank...
     
    Seneth Somed, Aldo, Time Lord and 2 others like this.
  15. rune_74

    rune_74 Avatar

    Messages:
    4,788
    Likes Received:
    8,335
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Ahh yes, the old "well if you don't want to pvp why not just play with your friends in FPO mode". That has been brought up and discussed to death on teh forums over the last year. If you play FPO mode you don't get to see everyone else playing the game. Which sucks if you just want to meet new people.

    At the moment they have essentially two versions of OPO, one with PVP and one without. Seems like the perfect world for both, unless I'm missing something they have taken away from the PVP players? Explain to me how this affects you? If it is such a wanted feature you will most likely have more players playing that version.
     
    Time Lord and Bodhbh Dearg like this.
  16. rune_74

    rune_74 Avatar

    Messages:
    4,788
    Likes Received:
    8,335
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Bodhbh, gotta say you nailed that.
     
  17. bassaX

    bassaX Avatar

    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    8

    My original point was "The game with feature of free pvp and full loot gives you more social aspects" Such is relations between PvPers and Crafters for example. Both needs each other. PvPers need gear and most of them dont want to craft and it is easier to buy. So it brings economics to the game. So if farmers need protection they can ask PvP clan for protection, this brings mercenaries to the game. And game without this points can't be sandbox. It would be archeage - game with optional pvp and the game which became boring after 1 week. Nothing to do. Do boring quests, max char in a week, raid every dungeon, try pointless pvp and find a new game.
     
    jondavis and Time Lord like this.
  18. rune_74

    rune_74 Avatar

    Messages:
    4,788
    Likes Received:
    8,335
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Wouldn't it also make sense to have equipment that gets damaged in normal PVE events as well? Then crafters would also be needed. Seems like balance is more the issue then not having just pvp.
     
    Time Lord and Bodhbh Dearg like this.
  19. Dhimmi

    Dhimmi Avatar

    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    424
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Belgium
    its my understanding that all gear gets damaged, unless i totally misunderstood the crafting deep dive.
     
    Bodhbh Dearg and Time Lord like this.
  20. rune_74

    rune_74 Avatar

    Messages:
    4,788
    Likes Received:
    8,335
    Trophy Points:
    153

    That was kind of my point...also that it could be balanced enough to make it viable.
     
    Time Lord and Bodhbh Dearg like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.