PVP defaults and other questions answered ? (Dev) Replied

Discussion in 'PvP Gameplay' started by Baron Elvish Dragon, Apr 11, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Baron Elvish Dragon

    Baron Elvish Dragon Avatar

    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    18
    For anyone interested in PVP I asked a question that makes clearer how PVP works in today's devchat. Once the chat ends I will transcribe the question and answer as well as other info from other chats, but if you are interested, you should watch today's chat.

    The question was:

    In the Open Online mode, is PvP enabled or does a separate flag need to be set? Is the default mode PvP enabled?

    answer shortly.

    The answer wasn't as simple as Yes/No in case you are wondering why I have to wait for the video to get up.
     
    acrylic_300 and Kilhwch like this.
  2. Baron Elvish Dragon

    Baron Elvish Dragon Avatar

    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    18
    For info on the sharding system (the answer won't make as much sense without having this base information):

    More video stuff on sharding/switching:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULHt9rjEiMU#t=1h04m28s

    RG: ?I?ll take this one from Elvish Dragon, ?Is it possible to switch from single or friends only mode for a day or two and then switch back to multiplayer?. Yes, exactly that?s the whole point. You get it quite well there, who was that.. Elvish Dragon, that is exactly the way it works. As long as your playing online you can throttle down from solo and friends only to open at will all you want.?

    [[ The full question I asked as I recall was "If I am playing in multiplayer mode and have a bad day, is it possible to switch to single or friends only mode for a day or two and then switch back to multiplayer." But at the time chat was scrolling pretty fast ]]

    He also goes on to describe it more at 1h08m50s:
    RG: ?And yes we also want you to meet new people we think that?s?. fear not that?s the way the default level of play is. Again think of it as real-time sharding, its real time mini-shards we just ad-hoc build shards together and if you want you can throttle down how much a group of strangers you?re willing to see. But fear not the nominal level of the game that I believe everyone will play most of the time will still feel like a normal MMO.?

    More links about sharding...
    dev vlog: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQowuSParmA
    RG talking about it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNKo2ih3fyU#t=3h43m
     
    Kilhwch likes this.
  3. Baron Elvish Dragon

    Baron Elvish Dragon Avatar

    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    18
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtPp22hCY8I#t=49m15s

    RG: "Its a little complicated answer than that. In open, multiplayer online you will see in your surroundings both people you know and strangers. The game will on its own nominally transition between PvP and non-PvP as the game sees fit. And so for examples, there are some towns... that are protected so that new players can't be ganked in there or so that role-players can set up shop in a place that they will find comfortable. And there are maps that are absolutely always PvP. They are places of high value resouces where the fiction of the story puts a wrapper around that geographical space that explains why these are particularly dangerous. ... Beyond that there are a lot of other ways the game will, by itself, transition in and out of that state. Some [are] due to plot points, if you get sent on a contraband mission then you will be forced into PvP. You don't want to be in PvP then don't take that mission... There are ways that guild can define themselves as PvP in which case if you are in that way then suddenly the whole world is more open to PvP to you.... Its sort of a constant flow that the game to some degree by the design of the story is forcing things one way or the other and also by some player activities there is a flow that goes back and forth as well." [There might be a sentence after this but for some reason it came across muted when I played it.]
     
    ImRad and Kilhwch like this.
  4. Baron Elvish Dragon

    Baron Elvish Dragon Avatar

    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Now that I got LB's answer down... I would just like to say that it sounds like an interesting and innovative take on the problem and I hope everyone will be willing to at least give it a try before making claims that it won't work or X is better since this is the first time we have ever seen a system like this, it is a little early to predict its downfall.

    Thanks LB for coming up with something new and interesting.
     
    Kilhwch likes this.
  5. Sir Tim

    Sir Tim Avatar

    Messages:
    312
    Likes Received:
    181
    Trophy Points:
    43
    @Elvish Dragon
    Great catch! Nice fishing. :) Thanks.

    ,To comment on that response it's interesting that someone can throttle up and down as they want. The idea that a player can reap the benefits of one mode and just switch over to another just leaves a bit of distaste in my mouth. I cant say that I am a fan of this, infact I'm leaning toward not liking that aspect. If a player is going to play in MMO then they should remain there, if with friends then they should remain there. But to reap the benefits of one and switch over to the other, seems like a lot of room for abuse/misuse.

    I have to say I hope they change their mind on this. Join a PvP guild, skill up with friends in your local guilds lands that you are familiar with, no worries that they may surprise attack, return to server and PvP with you uninterrupted rewards.

    Im starting to convince myself this is a bad idea as I write this. I dont see how it cant be abused in a PvP scenario in a game. Being able to opt when you want to PvP or not just doesn't work.

    Hopefully they change their minds or develop it further. Im just not a fan of the direction a opt in or out of PvP mode can go.

    I feel like each character should be stuck in the mode you choose. Limit possible abuse. Your either in MMO and stay in, or your out.
     
    magnetholik likes this.
  6. Ultima Aficionado

    Ultima Aficionado Avatar

    Messages:
    445
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Tim, I think Richard made it pretty clear in his response. He said within certain towns/areas there are newbie zones. These zones do not permit any PK's whatsoever, probably similar to the same idea of safe zones in towns within Ultima Online.

    There are areas that are out in the world, hopefully dungeons as well that will be open PVP. These areas you will not be protected and you should not enter these areas without prior preparation. You will also be full-time PVP within guild which are at war with one another. Again, if you belong to one of these guilds you will always be able to get PK'd by a member of an enemy guild.

    I don't think players should have access to these high yield areas without competition. There will be guilds at war with one another and highly competitive players vying for these resources. I think Richard said that this is the "default" for the "OPO" mode, which is basically the traditional MMO mode. I am still hoping there are no "flags" and barriers even within safe zones, but there is some other mechanism which prevents a newbie from getting killed such as guards or something of that sort.
     
  7. PrimeRib

    PrimeRib Avatar

    Messages:
    3,017
    Likes Received:
    3,576
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Ya, I think that's what they've been saying all along. It's pretty fuzzy because they haven't figured it all out yet. Over time this will get more nuanced.

    I expect to the the following:
    1) As part of the overall story, you will have different options for completing some goal. One of which will allow PvP.
    2) As castles and towns change hands you will have some set of repeatable quests to support or weaken a faction. These will have a PvP option.
    3) As a part of this, some kind of PvP mini-game that's repeatable.
    4) Any actual siege which goes on.
    5) I actually think resource gathering can be woven into the faction story, rather than just making it FFA. So you can either gather resources for the castle lord (and give him half) or you can just try to steal them.
     
    Time Lord likes this.
  8. flashburn

    flashburn Avatar

    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Stop with the faction BS already. It absolutely sucks. Go play some WOW.
    There is no immersion or suspension of disbelief at ALL with this faction nonsense.
     
    TemplarAssassin likes this.
  9. rune_74

    rune_74 Avatar

    Messages:
    4,786
    Likes Received:
    8,324
    Trophy Points:
    153
    I find this interesting in that the game is starting to sound like a giant PVP arena and less the single player rpg up to online game.

    Newbie starting areas? How does that fit into a story, it sounds like a traditional MMO and not what Ultima 7 was like.

    I'm hoping and praying that 20 loud PVPers aren't deciding the future here.
     
  10. PrimeRib

    PrimeRib Avatar

    Messages:
    3,017
    Likes Received:
    3,576
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    @flashburn
    It seems the nomenclature confuses you. Guild, side, party, group, team, people on the quest you're trying to help vs people you're trying to stop. It's just a generic term.
     
    Time Lord likes this.
  11. Abydos

    Abydos Avatar

    Messages:
    1,827
    Likes Received:
    3,862
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Québec, CAN
    Full LooT + Full PvP PlZ. I dont want a be in guild for get a PvP all TimE.
     
  12. Ultima Aficionado

    Ultima Aficionado Avatar

    Messages:
    445
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Rune,

    Players have to begin somewhere, obviously it's not going to say loading "Newbie starting areas..." on the screen. In Ultima 7 you began in Britain, this was the "newbie area" whether you call it that or not. The discretion is up to you.

    It is not a PVP arena, it is an open world. Do not become confused, in the real world when you leave your house you can become a victim to any number of things. This is just how reality works, I do not leave my door unlocked when I leave my house because I know someone can break in and take my possessions.

    This game is going to have a story and essentially be an MMO in a sense. I think that is inevitable now because of the whole guild war feature they are adding when they reached their stretch goal. I want this to be a successor to Ultima and that includes Ultima Online; NOT the Ultima Online that EA ruined.

    Shroud of the Avatar will feature an offline, story mode which is what I will probably play first so I am not disturbed by people in the chat and all of the other elements of an online game. The online mode will have many features common to an MMORPG from my understanding. Essentially, this game seems like an "offline" game and an "online" game combined into one.
     
  13. Sir Tim

    Sir Tim Avatar

    Messages:
    312
    Likes Received:
    181
    Trophy Points:
    43
    @rune_74
    It sounds like its going to be voluntary PvP from the answer Elvish Dragon said he received. Being able to go into "Friends only" mode and go back into "MMO" mode. Im not a fan of being able to switch. It doesn't sound right that someone can go into a mode with no PvP risk, get gains from a non-PvP environment then go back into MMO mode where they can PvP.

    I will comment that it sounds like you are an Ultima 7 fan AND that you dislike PvP. But I should remind you... you could kill your party members in that. :) Ofcourse you suffer the consequences. This get to many pro-PvPers points that you can have a PvPer environment that punishes PKers(essentially serial killers) and rewards role players.
     
    magnetholik likes this.
  14. rune_74

    rune_74 Avatar

    Messages:
    4,786
    Likes Received:
    8,324
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Ultima Aficionado, I think you may have not played ultima 7 because you did not start in Britain. Trinsic is the starting town for about 10 minutes of time then you could go anywhere.

    PVP may be for you and that's great. It most likely will not be for me. I didn't think I had to play completely offline to enjoy the game I want.
     
    Time Lord and MalakBrightpalm like this.
  15. Silent Strider

    Silent Strider Avatar

    Messages:
    1,067
    Likes Received:
    1,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The most direct quote I've ever found about whether or not players will be ever forced into PvP:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=720b6Q2yqOg&feature=youtu.be&t=33m00s

    So I truly believe many here are reading too much in that previous answer. There will be PvP, and if the player wants to always be enabled for PvP there will be ways to achieve that; but there should also be ways to never, ever, have to engage in PvP, and still have a meaningful game experience.

    Besides, there's always the last resort: offline play. Which will include all the main story, much of the persistent world, and even solo versions of some of the content meant for PvP (castle defense scenarios offline are part of the 2M stretch goal we already reached), and is likely to allow mods, which means players can add back anything Portalarium leaves out as well as new, original or ported, content (modding tools are the next stretch goal, and at the speed pledges are increasing we might reach them before the month's end).

    The offline mode sounds good enough to tempt any player that strongly dislike any single element of the game that is either exclusive to online play or can be modded - such as the PvP - and I do think the devs are not only aware of that, but also will look at that risk as an incentive to keep players as happy as possible with the online modes.
     
    Time Lord likes this.
  16. Ultima Aficionado

    Ultima Aficionado Avatar

    Messages:
    445
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Rune,

    I haven't played Ultima 7 in years. The only thing I remember wherever you start you are investigating the murder of a gargoyle and there was an open world. The point is the definition of a "newbie" area is based on what your perception of what that definition is. Definitions are only useful in contexts, I'm not sure what a "newbie" area is to you. Mine is where new players start and the early areas of the game. Trinsic was the "newbie" area at least for the initial quests.
     
  17. smack

    smack Avatar

    Messages:
    7,077
    Likes Received:
    15,288
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Based on the responses, it looks like there will be some PvP areas, and there will be others that aren't. I didn't get from his response that this entire game was a huge PvP arena. It also sounds like there will be optional quests that force you to go to PvP areas, and those aren't tied to the primary storyline since well, it's optional.

    I think non PvP players will be fine and get to experience the epic storytelling (with friends if desired) without fear of being ganked, even while in OPO mode. Just don't take the PvP quests or go into contested PvP areas. I would expect that you can complete the entire primary story line without having to go to those areas at all.

    Also, Richard even said several times during that campaign that you'll be forced into single player mode to complete various aspects of the primary story line, so he's making sure we'll all get to experience it unimpeded by others.

    All else fails, FPO mode or SPO mode if you really want those quests to go into PvP areas. I imagine they'll just make it NPCs that go after your contraband instead of other players since you don't see anyone else (except friends) in those modes.
     
    Time Lord likes this.
  18. Baron Elvish Dragon

    Baron Elvish Dragon Avatar

    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    18
    @Sir Tim -
    <blockquote>
    To comment on that response it?s interesting that someone can throttle up and down as they want. The idea that a player can reap the benefits of one mode and just switch over to another just leaves a bit of distaste in my mouth... [it] seems like a lot of room for abuse/misuse.

    ...I dont see how it cant be abused in a PvP scenario in a game. Being able to opt when you want to PvP or not just doesn?t work.

    ...I feel like each character should be stuck in the mode you choose. Limit possible abuse. Your either in MMO and stay in, or your out.
    </blockquote>

    I wanted to think on this one overnight to give it time to sink in and think my way around all sides on this issue. I ended up at a place where I don't think it will be a problem. I would be very interested in what people think of my points below. Please this is not a discussion of PvP vs PvE or anything else... these are just my reasoned thoughts on the slider and its impact along with associated thoughts. Please if you are going to reply, do me the courtesy of reading these through and understanding them before assuming you know what I am going to say or what I mean by them. This is not going to be a traditional point counterpoint, I am laying out a bunch of information then tying together and analyzing it, skimming it will likely mean you will miss what I mean.

    When thinking of a game mechanic there are two main things to think about.

    First, is there value in the feature. I can think of a number of use cases where this option adds value. Some may never use them or even not want them to be used, but in certain cases it is a valuable thing to be able to do. The easiest use case is the one described in the original question during the livestream I posed to RG that was partially quoted during the livestream. The whole question was:
    <blockquote>
    "If I am playing in multiplayer mode and have a bad day, is it possible to switch to single or friends only mode for a day or two and then switch back to multiplayer.
    </blockquote>
    The ability to enjoy the game even if you don't feel like dealing with other people is a value add.

    In addition there is a tendency by some in online communities to "get their jollies" by ruining other's gameplay. We will call them.. goon...er troll..., er how about just griefers &gt;:). [to any who feel obligated to attack me on the goon part, it was a joke... I happen to think the goons are a lot of fun HTFU and stop QQing ;)]

    These choose to exploit the system to create barriers for others preventing them from completing things by finding choke points and the like. Often this is accomplished even without skill as they like to win by sheer force of numbers. No matter how skilled you are, fighting 20 to 1 means you are likely to lose. This feature has a value add of allowing people to avoid that without causing additional GM/developer interaction to try and re-balance it.

    As an example, EVE is a constant mire of such re-balancing. The amount of developer hours they have put into tweaking the game because some group or another has found a way to deny or exploit another group in an unbalanced way is staggering. Add onto that all the time spent re-balanced resources because one group has found a way to monopolize them and you end up with a lot of wasted manhours. And this is even in a game that actually allows and encourages a certain amount of that kind of play. That is development hours they could allocate to improving the game in other ways.

    BUT even despite these "benefits", we need to balance these adds and temper them against the second thing we need to consider.

    This second thing to consider is does it cause harm to the game in any way. I.E. is it imbalanced or exploitable. For example, a god mode adds a feature someone might want to the game but is undesirable because it creates enormous imbalance. Even if there is some harm, it then needs to be weighed and decided if the value is greater than the harm, but I get ahead of myself.

    The initial thought some (and myself) have had is, yes it can be exploited. Before thinking it through to its conclusion I thought that the harm was acceptable given the value, but the more I thought about it last night, the more the conceits that lead me to consider it harmful fell away.

    Let me elaborate...

    By in large we are talking about a feature that only impacts the core storyline. Emergent content after storyline content is mostly immune to this feature as avoiding this emergent content means there is little/nothing for you to do. There are some economic emergent content but we will address that later separately. So basically if it is after the storyline and we are talking about an environment where players are making their own challenges and competing with each other, opting out by using this slider means you don't even get the content so hence no exploit. (except economic which as I said we will address later)

    During the storyline, the conceit is that the key point of the game is the story that is being crafted by RG and team. That story includes in part player interaction as a conceit of the story which is one of the big innovations they seem to be doing here. While there are some indications he may allow some players in limited circumstances to join in as "bad guys" he has been coy about being able to do it and has indicated it is not going to be necessarily an "easy" thing to do. This indicates to me that the core antagonist forces are by in large NPC or environmental.

    There have been confirmed optional side-quests and heavy resource nodes which are PvP exclusive and it seems like even with the slider you won't be able to avoid those so they are not a factor in this analysis.

    While in the "friends of friends" mode, open online players won't even see you, so as far as they and their gameplay is concerned you don't even exist so there is no "immersion breaking" or the like, no mystical you can't hit this person force, they just aren't there. [they have been clear you can't switch in instance, so no disappearing people running from fights by changing the slider]

    From hints and fragments of what RG has said, the end goal of each player's story is extremely deterministic to the player. There is not one "avatar" and each person's game story will be different. I can't wait to see how thy pull this off but either way it isn't a case of "I got to the end first" since "the end" will be different between people. So unlike a race that has two people starting at the same place, going over the same course and ending at the same place, we have two people running in two different directions on two different paths and ending up in two entirely different areas with the path being different shapes/lengths/etc.

    So with these basic concepts laid out, lets re-examine if the slider actually imbalances the game in any way (except in economic terms which as I say we will cover later).

    Since the end goals of the game could not possibly be considered a race (if there is no unified end goal, any race is meaningless), using such a feature to speed up "advancement" is non-impactful. In a real sense it doesn't matter if he can speed himself ahead in the story since his story is going to be fundamentally different than yours anyway. That removes one aspect of the traditional "exploit" mechanisms.

    We already covered how immersion won't be broken by allowing it and how "end-game" activity won't be affected.

    Another traditional "exploit" mechanism is earlier access to power and items causing someone to have an advantage over another. However that too is being taken care of by the mini-sharding system. People of widely disparate power are unlikely to ever even see each other. To elaborate, based on what has been said so far you have to get through all the people who you know and are connected to you in some transitive way, all the people in the same quest advancement as you and all the people of similar power level and other metrics of "similarity" as yet undefined before even having a chance of running against those people in normal questing. Obviously this will be different in things like guild sieges and the like but that is a different topic.

    Another possible "exploit" quoted is that it makes the game to easy. But that is predicated on the postulate that PvP will make up the bulk of the game's difficulty. It seems based on what they have said so far that the bulk of the game's difficulty will be in game generated content and that steps are being taken to make it so you can't "just look up content online to solve it". If they succeed in that, PvE content can easily be made to equal PvP difficulty. For those that don't believe me try progression raiding in an MMO where you are the first group to try and beat the content. I have seen top of the server PvPers, throw up their hands and give up on a piece of PvE content because it is "unbeatable"... that is not to make any claim that PvE is more difficult as I have seen the same pattern in reverse. And I make no arguments that one is superior to the other, there are plenty of other threads to have that argument, please keep it out of this one.

    If that is indeed the case, one can view PvP during the storyline as a type of side quest to the main questline. And in effect dialing your settings to avoid it means denying yourself content, not making things easier. Hence allowing the user to bypass it is roughly equivalent to allowing the user to progress the main storyline without doing sidequests... which is part of the whole point of sidequests ;) It can also be viewed like a sidequest in terms of progression because of the XP gain. If the XP gain of PvP is sufficient, it will act like a sidequest in that participating in it will accelerate your progression speed and avoiding it will slow it instead of the inverse. Hence negating the argument that it is an exploit in this fashion.

    The only other possible imbalancing element I can think of is the argument that it "denies someone else the opportunity to play their way". This is only true if there is insufficient game population to sustain the game.. If say 10% of the game uses the slider on a given day and that 10% means the difference between having people to PvP with or not, there are bigger population problems. And not allowing people to use the slider usually means that the people not in the mood to PvP that day don't log in... so that same population would not be available to you regardless of which method they are denied. The only reason to deny them the opportunity to play instead of forcing them to not play is to "spite" them which is not a valid reason to create or deny an in-game mechanic.

    So with all those out of the way, we are left with only economic impacts as a cause of imbalance.

    The argument that this causes economic imbalance goes something like this: "It takes a user a certain amount of effort to accumulate X amount of wealth. If that user is open to PvP, all other things being equal, it will take them more effort to accumulate that wealth than someone who is not. If those two users then compete in a marketplace environment then the non-pvper will end up with a measurable advantage creating a feedback mechanism encouraging people to not pvp." This is demonstrably true. However the reason I have saved it to the end is because unlike other exploitive pieces, this one is relatively easy to fix. All you need to do is build in sufficient feedback mechanisms in game to counteract [but not exceed] the disparity in effort. These mechanism can include increased resource availability (which is confirmed), access to unique items only available from these areas that can then be sold on the market (part of how EVE does it) and so on. Hopefully some combination of all of these.

    With all this in mind, if they take care to properly balance the feedback mechanisms of the economic impacts, I can't think of any reason this could be considered exploitable.

    TL;DR: No... I took a long time to think about and address the concerns I and others have had with this issue, if you want a quick summary jump off a pier. Feel free to reply but anyone who did read it and realizes your reply is covered or not applicable will likely be laughing at you and ignoring you. Don't be surprised if I don't reply either as I chose not to engage with people who don't have the common courtesy to at least listen to the other side of a debate and reply to their points instead of just repeating their own over and over again.
     
    Kilhwch likes this.
  19. Lord British

    Lord British Lord British SOTA Developer

    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    6,712
    Trophy Points:
    80
    A lot for me to catch up on in here. First don't forget nothing much on PVP / PVE has been implimented yet, so while we have "plans" which we are describing, we are going to work WITH you to make the best attempt at it, and then in Alpha and Beta, we will make further revisions as needed!

    The easy one to fix if it is found to be harmful is the "slider" from open to solo online play, we could easily make that less "changable" if it is found to cause harm. Frankly I think Open Online will be fine for most everyone, honesty, even the non-pvp types, but until we build it, and y'all play it, we have to wait and see!

    More tricky is the rest of PVP. Here is MY and only MY current thinking. Team members have varying thoughts, as do all of you! That is why we need this thread.

    Start this mental exercise by considering the game a PVP game. Please don't flee this thread if you are a non-PVP person, hear me out, please. New players MUST be protected, else they will not stay in the game, which is BAD for ALL of us, as the game will fail. Also players who know or believe they NEVER want to see a PVP event, MUST be protected, else they won't join the game at all as well, so their safe life is not important to the PVP players. BUT, I believe most everyone, even those who don't think they want to ever see PVP, can be "enticed" into elevated danger.

    What follows is a fictitious example of how I think it could play out. Imagine that newbies and Role Players have safe havens around the world. For PVP'ers this is so far no worse than UO which was VERY open PVP. Now give RP'ers some methods of "safe passage" around the world, that let them RP, but not necessarily have the easiest or most valuable "paths"... Imagine "safe paths" from safety area to safety area. But occasionally these tunnels are discovered and thus unavailable, or that real value is "just off the safe path", beckoning to you to step out of the comfort zones.

    Personally, I am a believer, we can get everyone the safety and openness they desire... stay tuned, and keep on commenting!

    Thanks,
    Richard Garriott
     
  20. Baron Elvish Dragon

    Baron Elvish Dragon Avatar

    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    18
    @Richard Garriot - Thanks for replying! So to understand it, say we were going from a city to a quest, the town and the quest might be "safe" and the road between them, but instead of the road we could say take the sewers and caverns which would have more peril (and PvP) and potentially hidden and valuable rewards?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.