PVP & Death: Current Thinking Megapost

Yeah, I've spent most of my gaming career in PvE. I look forward to running like hell through PvP zones and trying to protect myself against thieves and rounders sometimes, maybe even fighting some murderers or something.
Last night my husband told me "I liked you better when you tried to run from everything." I kind of miss those days.

 

LMAO, well on your journey through those PvP hexes, if you see someone with a pack of players with murderous intent chasing someone don't trip me please!

 

Unplugging is for non-hardcore PvPers. I have cigar cutters on of all my network cables. Risk vs. reward. I risk my cables - what a rush!

Good luck and I look forward to reading it. Hopefully the ensuing conversation will manage to avoid devolving into another festival of whine.

 

The only way you will get full loot is if there arent any pvers or they segregate the community. I have no lroblems with lvp and pve being sperate if that means we actually get features we ask for. Even in this game if pvpers want full loot between two pvpers theb let them have it since in no way would it affect pvers. They really just dwindle down our options to zero. Give us castles keeps and territory with towns to tax that is the most anyone has wanted and wouldnt be any more difficult than the different game modes within a game technically.

A lit if peopel that are pvp at heart dont even bother because there is no reason to pvp. If they do its strictly for fun so while pvers get all these cool features they want pvpers just get to play for the fun of it which in no way is equal nor fair. Unless you are mr uber pvper you would lose more than you gain but even then people still like the exhiliration of consequences

 

Link to my Thread : Understanding Gear and Looting

 

I would say the story is the major driving force. The content driven nature of each hex. Both PvE and PvP will have their economic access via the hexes. The rare resource/creatures spawning in PvE zone and PvP zones could easily be tuned to favor one side or over the other. Hopefully it will be a little more than slightly in favor of PvP.

And I say this with respect to both sides but if it's too easy to gather in PvE, no one will gather in PvP. The opposite could be said but I would have to chuckle if they made PvP so easy that people choose to gather in PvP over PvE.

 

I was not talking about PVP, I was talking about loosing things because you loose your connection. It does not happen very often but even with me having battery backups, when the power goes out, I loose my internet connection, I am guessing Comcast does not have enough backup power to keep operating. I do understand the risk of folks pulling the plug on their modem to disconnect, but I think it would be bad to penalize those of us who loose our internet connection for some random amount of time. I have played online games for many years, and in that time it has happened dozens of times that I have lost my Internet connection for hours at a time. I have re-logged in to have dead characters in many games, luckily I have not lost anything in them other than debt, experience and damage to my equipment depending on the game. If I can loose my immortality fruit, because of an Internet disconnection, I will be one very frustrated customer.

 

We are in agreement here, and so is Chris, there is a cost to PvP and little influx of currency. Something must be in place to fund PvP, on an individual level. Chris has brought it up so I expect that there will be ample opportunity for profit as PvP.

 

Thats exactly why they cant coexist because one side or the other will always cry foul, justified or not. The devs just habe to make their decision and tell one camp too bad. Cant please both and games suffer when devs try. Even if is not in my favor yu can respect the dev who lays it on the line instead of one who tries to appease both and delivere nothing much more than lipservice.

 

LOL, so no kids?

That's the beauty of this hex system. They can take any given hex down, patch it for new content, bring it back up, PvE or PvP.

One minute you are in your village PvE, the next, you are raided by the Dark Lord. You stick around, be prepaid for PvP, or run for cover with the rest of the non consensual.

 

For me the holy grail is game systems which gather together players with varied play preferences. There’s value in it both from the game producers’ $ perspective but also because when the community isn’t homogenised and you have different kinds of players butting up against one another, more interesting gameplay happens. Clearly there’s a very careful balance to be struck here in terms of not scaring off the more timid players. But that balance also needs to be careful not to make the bolder players up sticks as well.

As it stands, in this thread I’ve still not seen gainsaid my initial impression that the combination of areas where OPO is enforced being extremely small, and the very minimal player ransoming possible in those areas, means that the current proposal will only scare off a tiny handful of players at the one end who cannot bear for any content at all to require enforced OPO, while at the other end of the continuum it seems likely that a very significant portion of players will feel that the availability of open gameplay is so small that it doesn’t meet their requirements. In fact if the OPO/looting stays as currently described, I’d expect a significant number of pledgers at that end to simply never install the game.

For that reason, stepping away from the trees, I think there needs to be options of more significant looting. I just read Marthos’s post:

I was thinking of something very much along those lines, and I think the game would be a lot healthier with those kinds of options available from day 1. If they're not in from day 1 and are phased in later, the damage to the heterogeneity of the player base will already have been done, and it will be very hard to fix that by tempting players back later.

 

A PKer's Story

 

I hadn't thought of that. I suppose choke points and such may slow PvE gathering down.

They will still be independent (self sufficient).
Every working model of economy in existence relies on the interdependence of materials. Even in the world economy no one is completely independent (china is near it).

I don't think it would hurt to give PvP a resource or two. The argument from PvE players is that these materials would have to be bought. To me that's the point.

 

They won't stand having to depend on a PvP mechanic, even by secondary means.

 

It's as simple as dropping a coin on a vendor.

 

I agree with you. But if they can't physical obtain the stuff, they will complain. I have no problem with a circular economy.

 

Sso what is stopping them frim letting two consensual pvpers determine how the loot works if it doest effect anyone but them ie no pvpers

 

I presume you are referring to the concept of the "Duel" here ?

In that particular circumstance, there is absolutely nothing stopping the devs from providing a means of setting the looting rights, other than the time/expense of having to implement a different system.

It actually sounds pretty reasonable that one of things the two combatants would agree on beforehand is the reward when one falls.

At the same time, one could also state the winning conditions themselves: "Near to but not completely dead", "to the death", "to first blood (if such is possible)", etc.

 

War are expensive and resource demanding and should impact the economy, so I hope wars between guild are costly specially for the loosing side.

Murders and other ransom killings are not expensive or resource demanding and should hardly have any impact on the economy.

 

Well i was lookig forward to being a murderer since that was one of the coolest features in the game thats why i thiught it would be in this one. Theres nothing better than coming home after being abused by society at work and doing some abusing of your own. Its a good stress reducer but oh well. I dont suppose portalarium will make up for it by paying my therapy tab