PVP defaults and other questions answered ? (Dev) Replied

Owain: 'The PvP players see only other PvP players and don?t have to suffer from a fiction breaking situation where they see PvE players that are somehow immune to attack, and PvE player don?t have to worry about PvP if they don?t want to.'

I don't think that scenario will emerge; from what I understand of the slider system, as a player each other player you see at a particular time will be under the same ruleset as you. So if you're in friends online mode or friends of friends online mode, no one can attack you and you can't attack others (barring possibly guild warfare, not sure how that will cross into modes below full open). And if you're in full open, you're potentially attackable by anyone, and you can potentially attack anyone - whether they logged in in full open mode because that's what they always play in, or they logged in in friends online but then chose to enter the particular area where you are, which requires them to select full open mode (as in LB's example on page 1 of this thread).

ultima aficionado: 'A miner, who just mined 5,000 ingots should not have to worry about wasting 5 hours or whatever due to a PK.'

Not entirely sure about this one, depends on the detail. i'm not sure a miner should be able to mine in every single location, with such safety that he can just fill his inventory before going to town, or to his house etc. in many areas - sure. but it looks like the intent is for, say, some areas to have increased ore respawn rates and require full open mode. then you make the decision - will i fill my pack, or drop off the ore more regularly in order to minimise potential losses. similarly, you make the choice to mine at the equivalent of minoc mines, or to choose a more remote location where you're less likely to be disturbed. the dynamic will be a bit different from in UO though, if the combat skills and the crafting/gathering skills are separate paths each of which can be maxed out indepedently - in which case a miner won't be as likely to be a non-combatant as they were in UO.

silent: 'IMHO, no piece of PvE content should, ever, be held hostage as a way to force players that merely want to see all PvE content into PvP. If that is done, PvP ceases to be optional to any player that merely wants to enjoy all PvE content the game offers.

I don?t think it would have the effect you want, BTW, because of the existence of single player online and also of the offline mode. I believe players that aren?t interested in PvP, but want to do that PvE content that is being held from them, would be more likely to just leave the open play mode and stick to playing single player. So, instead of drawing more players into PvP, I believe holding back PvE content to lure PvE players into PvP will just decrease the number of players in the open play mode.'

but that's where you and we all need to wait and see what RG and co are coming up with here, their ideas to make the game different from theme park games where every piece of content is available for all players with exactly the same dynamic. it's been made very clear that the aim is to entice as many people as possible into the full open mode, to be achieved through a particular combination of putting a 'wrapper' of compelling story around the enticing scenario (I really liked that 'wrapper' phrase RG used btw) combined with reward, combined with sanctions for criminals/killers. For instance, did you guys watch the chat with markee dragon where richard popped in? he made a VERY marked comment that 'a successful serial killer is not a highly visible serial killer'. i'm quite certain that this is referring in some way to RG/tracey/the team's ideas for how murder will be dealt with in the full open mode. And alongsider the story wrapper, reward, and sanctions, there's probably other stuff i and we haven't thought of yet. this is the balancing act portalarium are tasked with and i don't think it's possible or reasonable to say at this incredibly early stage that it will just fail.

and the same applies @ daven, you've dreamt up a hyperbolic phantom, plus you've put players into three neat groups which simply don't exist in that way, as evidenced by some far more nuanced views put in this thread right here, for instance.

andi: 'Please don?t forget, that there are valid reasons not to like PvP, that were stated several times here (griefers, gankers, zergers, immature kids that insult you after killing you, corpse jumpers, being helpless when not playing in a PvP guild or big group, elitist behavior, etc.)'

but those fears and the other fears in your post about being bested by much younger players, are all based either on stuff which has happened to you in previous games, or on stuff which you've read about happening in previous games. at the moment, there are no valid reasons for not liking the pvp element in shroud of the avatar, because we don't know what it will involve.

also, how would deck selection be unfair? from what i understand of the system, you select options in advance. once you know what activity you will next be undertaking, you make appropriate selections. if you have selected a 'contraband' mission where you know that there will be other players attempting to stop your illicit activities (or vice versa) then you know what you are likely to be faced with. if you then make a choice to select a deck which includes abilities focused on pve content (assuming that distinctions like that will be valid, who knows how it will turn out), that just seems like a poor choice. similarly, if you are in an area where both pve and pvp threats exist, and if the levels of pve and pvp risk are similar as you have suggested, then a player who has selected a pvp-focused deck will face additional threat from the game enemies similar to the additional threat which a player who has selected a pve-focused deck will face from player enemies.

@ sirinan no player will be able to kill you without you having accepted the game mode which allows it, i think that is a firm tenet of the design.

 

There are always people who are going to come crying to the forums no matter what happens. That is something important to remember.

@Helicon:

I agree, but there has to be a compromise. The carebears are going to come here and whine regardless of what is done. It was just a suggestion, I'm sure there are other ways such as the virtue system and some safe havens for them around the world. That is good enough for me. I find it interested that they ONLY care about their way and wont budge at all on the issue.

@Andi: If you are interested in a closed, theme-park game please go look for one. There are several of them out there. You will have some safe zones around the map, where you cannot be attacked usually. That is about as much as you can ask for, nothing more. There are also other modes available to you, please stick to one of those if you don't like OPO. Andi, it's called FPO and it has already been discussed. I am not sure what you're going on about a LAN option...

@Asguard:

You're not the only one who contributed. I never saw anywhere mentioned that this game was going to cater the carebears.

@Sirinan: Offline mode is for you. Either that or go play Furcadia, your choice.

 

Listen, I totally see the issue. I do PVE, RP and PVP.

Content which is PVP driven (unique resources, quests, items, trophies or titles) will not be available to those that PVE only.

This will make some feel forced to PVP or feel left out of certain content the game provides. I totally understand and see the point from the PVEers perspective.

So, what can PVEer do to acquire items in a PVP zone that they want to avoid at all costs? Perhaps they can join a guild, buy the items off a vendor or have friends to help. I'm sure there will be options or we will have to make sure that a system is in place where PVPers and PVEers can work together to accomplish goals.

That said, now i'm trying to be diplomatic, you have to look at it from the other side as well. I believe the DEVS will do everything they can to allow all 3 playing styles to exist in the world. Which they do with all the ways you can play the game (offline, OPO etc). The OPO with its PVP aspects is going to be the most difficult in terms of accomplishing those goals. Don't forget, PVPers, RPers and PVEers have pledged to this game.

Lets see how things develop. I will continue to stress, to the Developers, not to create a rift between the PVPers and PVEers. Helping to decrease griefing, ganking etc, so if a PVEer does enter a PVP zone, perhaps it won't be that awful of an experience. As noted above, perhaps some PVP aspects will not push players away but draw them in.

These talks are good, the DEVs are reading all this, lets continue to work at making a world where each play style has a place.

 

@Helicon: when there's a FPO mode, where I can add all my friends or a FPO only guild and don't have to be bothered by PvP, when there are is equally challenging, difficult and rewarding content for solo and coop play and when FPO players don't get locked out from areas, everything is fine.

It would be optimal for me, if I could preconfigure the FPO slider in such a way, that it simply opts out every PvP player and adds all others. That's like the slider idea Owain is proposing and for me, it's still the best solution.

And yes, I (and many people I know) experienced all that behavior, I listed above in a lot of different MMOs, even the ones considered "mature", that I've played over the last 9 years. I will maybe join some PvP, when it's fun, but I'll wait for the final product and most likely only if ever go to PvP, after finishing the story in FPO mode with my brother and maybe a guild of friendly players.

@Ultima...: Thanks for insulting and putting players down, that don't share your opinion. I'll surely ignore you in the future.

 

There needs to be appropriate consequences for a PK. This will add to the virtue element of the game and decrease griefing. The early days of UO had rampant murdering on the outskirts of every major city. This was indeed a problem because PK's would camp at the exit ramp of Delucia or Britain graveyard preying on newbies.

 

@Ultima Aficionado - congrats on confirming for me the reasons I hope to never see you in game. Why is the price I must pay for being online that I must be subjected to attacks from people like you? Why can't I play my way within the game, having all online benefits, without other people trying to spoil my experience?

@Helicon - fair enough, but we don't know how all the modes affect each other, which is a major concern at the moment. And it's sounding like the only way I can be safe from PvP is to be entirely offline.

 

@Ultima Aficionado I'm very disappointed in your big post back there, you are back to insulting everyone who doesn't want to accept what you want. I thought we moved past that.

This line:
"I find it interested that they ONLY care about their way and wont budge at all on the issue. "

You know is simply not true, since I think for quite a few pages there has been back and forth on how to make it work.


Once again, sorry man but that was bad.

 

@Rune:

It's not getting anywhere honestly, I don't think it's possible to make both communities completely happy unfortunately. I didn't intend to "insult" anyone and if you take it as a personal attack, then that's a discretion you decided to make. I am not here to make you "happy" I am here to discuss ways that may construct an experience that is suitable to PvE players and PvP players.

 

The hard line stances, Open PvP with safe havens for non PvP is not productive and is harmful to the overall life of the game.

Every time I read someone saying "you can always SPO/FPO" I picture that person thinking, "guess I am going to have to because I will never PvP."

If you want a new "UO glory days" PvP game, why wish to chase off people that have a bad taste for PvP with suggestions that the foundation of the game be so repellent to non PvPers.

Lets get those non PvPers into every aspect of the game. Lets keep tossing ways to beckon them over to the PvP side. Also, a method of gradually stepping over so they are not stabbed to death within seconds, every time they do try to grab the fruit on the PvP tree.

This game can change people to think that not all PvP is, as listed before, (griefers, gankers, zergers, immature kids that insult you after killing you, corpse jumpers, being helpless when not playing in a PvP guild or big group, elitist behavior, etc.)

 

<blockquote cite="Ristra">The hard line stances, Open PvP with safe havens for non PvP is not productive and is harmful to the overall life of the game.</blockquote>

Exactly. PvPers here have been saying that you have to be subject to PvP if you play open, that we must be subject to attacks for the overall benefit of open. Well, I assure you, you will not be seeing me in PvP on open under any circumstances - whether that's due to a filter setting, or whether it means I'll not be playing that mode. Either way, you're not seeing me.

 

@Ristra:

The fact is for many players that invisible force fields and hand-holding by the development team is immersion breaking. A player can either take a "safe" route, which will be less incentivized or they can take the more dangerous route, which will be less incentivized. Either way, they will have that option available to them. The more incentivized route should not offer something that is drastically different or game changing, but it should offer more reward for more risk.

The PvP areas can be on the outer fringes, as mentioned earlier. The PvE players who are not even accepting this are not adding to the construction of a well balanced, PvE/PvP world. They claim that they should be able to travel anywhere at anytime unharmed. That doesn't contribute anything to the discussion at all, if that's the way they feel then there are other modes available for them to play in which they can do that.

As has been mentioned several times, the addition of features such as more severe consequences for murderers should reduce the griefing and players who simply go around killing newbies for fun.

 

<blockquote cite="Ultima Oficionado">The PvE players who are not even accepting this are not adding to the construction of a well balanced, PvE/PvP world. They claim that they should be able to travel anywhere at anytime unharmed.</blockquote>
Unharmed? You don't think an environment can be dangerous unless players provide the danger?

 

A lot is being rehashed in here over and over again based on what I perceive to be misunderstandings of either the other person's position, or RG's words.

Let me break down a few things.

1) RGs words never indicated that single player or any of the friends online options will necessarily force you into PvP. He has also stated that he is open to the tuning of the slider system if it ends up being hostile to any playstyle. He has also stated that one of the first things we will be getting our hands on in all likelyhood is some ways to test and tweak that and give feedback about what is appropriate.

2) RG has stated on a number of occasions that he is wanting to find a way for both playstyles to be happy. He has gone out of his way to make sure to address both sides at every step of the way.

3) When RG states that there are going to be two paths one PvP and one PvE for a quest, I do not think he is meaning paths the same way some of you are taking it. He is not talking paths as in a linear bare spot in the forest aka road or the like, but path as in there are multiple ways or paths to complete a goal. So I believe the thought that only "narrow roads" will be PvE safe is a misunderstanding of what he was telling us. The problem is while I was waiting to get clarification on points to what he replied to, this thread exploded like every other thread on the subject with people walking over each other's points, people not reading what other people have to say, etc. Basically it became unmanageable for him or anyone else to coherently follow and reply to.

4) There is a /lot/ of selection bias going on in these discussions. People interpreting what people say through the lens of what they want or don't want. This is often unavoidable however adding to that selection bias a lot of raw emotions and worse personal attacks and over generalizations (thinks like you obviously aren't good enough, go play XXXX game, you mean you want to do everything unharmed, no pve can be as difficult as pvp, no pvp can be as rewarding as pve, you can't rp without XXXX, you can't have an ultima without XXX, etc...) DOES NOT HELP. You might feel good for about 2 minutes after posting it and think you scored a point... in truth it just makes you look like a fool.

5) We are a /long/ way off from /any/ of this being cast in stone. And RG has explicitly stated he doesn't have all the answers and that our feedback once he has tools to test it is going to be vial to figuring out the right balance/method of keeping both camps happy.

6) We ALL want the best Shroud of the Avatar, not "new UO" not "theme park game" not "XXXXXXXX" SHROUD OF THE AVATAR. What we might mean by that word will vary from person to person, let alone from camp to camp... but /ALL/ of us are dedicated to the dream that is SotA and by extension Ultima. If you want to tell someone to leave and go to something else, I think personally it is you that need to decide whether you can exist in a community that is consistent with the ideals and virtues inherent with the ultima series... things like Compassion, Honor, Honesty and HUMILITY. There is room for /all/ of us in this tent... we just need to figure out how. There is an awful lot of "you don't agree with me go away" and "if you don't agree with me people will go away"... stop it.. it isn't helping the way you hope it will, all it is doing is causing everyone to entrench.

 

My previous post I commented on a city siege. @rune_74 stated he assumes PvP for sieges. I have to disagree with this completely.

I am going to see if I can use the city siege to reply to your comments @Ultima Aficionado.

1.) non PvP would like a flag to allow them to fully play through the siege without PvP.
2.) open PvP do not want a slider because the thought of someone not being in PvP ruins the immersion?

1.a) @rune_74 is fine with not being able to visit that city until the PvPers are finished clearing the siege, even if that means his house is not accessible during this siege.
-- This I can not get on board with.

If you simply take 1.) and 2.) and compare them, non PvPers can ignore the idea that there is PvP. While PvPer can not ignore that there are non PvPers.

When it is stated that there will be invisible force fields and hand-holding is the fact that there will be an upper limit of players in any given area? If you are open PvP, will you EVER go into an event with non PvP? How is that immersion breaking, when you never encounter something that will break your immersion.

I would prefer a story line that creates the need for PvP and sets those players loose.

The players go into a city siege, hears a General shouting battle orders. This General is directing the battle hardened PvPers to bring back the heads of the enemy and he will reward them (PvE reward with PvP bonus rewards).

1.) non PvPers follow with the General, sticking with the plan, PvP is avoided. As PvPers may take an arrow to the knee with PvE combat while trying to PvP near the General's forces.
2.) PvPers take the field and do anything and everything PvPers do while in an area. (Even risking PvP near the General's forces, tempting fate for a shot at a non PvPer - the risk should be very high here)

The more unknown tactics this General uses the more exciting it will be for both PvE and PvP.

The sewers are loaded with PvPers trying to sneak into the city, or out of the city. Huge PvP battle going on. The General is up fighting the siege weapons, what does the General do next? Does he finish off the siege above or maybe change things up by sending forces through the sewer, catching the PvPers off guard. - Unexpected PvE addition to PvP, more risk for PvPers. And the non PvP get to experience the sewers this time.

Next time the General may be losing the siege weapons battle and must fall back. Opening room for PvPers to experience the siege weapon element.

----Try not to pick apart the city siege scenario, it was just me shooting from the hip to get an example of not taking a hard line on open PvP vs non PvP.

 

@Elvish Dragon - yep, agreed on all points. I imagine that many people are fairly nervous about getting the game they want to play, with some giving a fair chunk of change. Only natural that with conflicting ideas about playmodes that there will be friction.

I hope you're right, and that RG can find a way through the convoluted mess that is the sum total of all the opinions on this forum, to come up with the perfect game for all Ultima fans.

 

@sirinan - definitely, my hope is to remind people that /we all/ have spent a fair chunk of change on this. Even people didn't pledge at the "oh my god you spent what" levels, a lot of people on both sides have spent "more than they really should have" because they believe in this project and their creators.

We /all/ have skin in this game, so lets not start telling people to get out.

(As you can tell the comments about go find an X game are really offensive to me regardless of who and what type of game is being said.)

 

@?Sir Asguard? MGT470:

I'm in a similar situation. I was actually in the process of making sure my credit card would allow sending the $395 overseas to upgrade one of my pledges from Digital Explorer to Citizen when I saw RG's response in this thread. Now, for the time being, I'm waiting - I'm only going to upgrade my pledge if I can still do all, or nearly all, PvE content online without PvP risk, otherwise I will play exclusively offline and attempt to sell my second Digital Explorer pledge.

@Helicon:

I'm willing to wait and see on the *CONSENSUAL* PvP stuff; I might want to try some of that, I actually like PvP when it's consensual. But when it comes to non-consensual PvP, I'm not willing to even try it. A game where I'm forced into non-consensual PvP is absolutely worthless for me as an entertainment medium.

It's why I won't budge regarding this; no matter how good SotA might be, as soon as I can be attacked by other players without opting in to PvP first, it's just not worth playing anymore. Playing Solitaire is a more enticing proposition for me than playing any game with non-consensual PvP. So, for me, either I'm able to completely avoid PvP and still get a meaningful and challenging game, or else I simply won't play, with nothing in between.

@High Baron Elvish Dragon:

I hope you are right, but RG's previous posts didn't inspire trust on me; so, until I can be completely certain that I will have all, or nearly all, PvE content online while being completely immune to PvP, I'm holding back. If I need to play offline to have all PvE content while immune to PvP, then the online mode, as well as any deeds plus my second pledge, are worthless to me.

 

@ sirinan as i've seen it explained, only the maximum full open setting will allow people you don't know to attack you - and in that setting there will be consequences to make each player consider his actions. then there will be single player online, friends online, and friends of friends online which I think are self-explanatory. maybe there will be other options too, seems like more are likely to emerge over development.

Also, while UA expressed it in an inflammatory way, his basic point is apposite. consider this: WoW's success has led to a host of themepark games (that's not a pejorative phrase btw, it's the accepted shorthand) with similar trivial consequences for death and minimal risk out in the world; so in 2013 there are already a large number of high quality games of that nature where each and every inch of the world is explorable in the knowledge that you will only ever encounter enemies generated by the game. the number of games with sandbox elements is drastically smaller - the only significant planet to to have survived the huge gravity pull of WoW seems to be eve online.

The express intent of this game, as explained on the kickstarter page during the kickstarter, and as described on the website here and in live chats, and indeed as expressed earlier in this thread by Richard, can be summarised in three pillars of:

storyline even more compelling than U4-7;
interactive virtual world even richer than U7; and
rich multiplayer options catering to as many players as possible, aimed at maximising the number of players who choose to play in open online mode

the first two bits - story and interactive world - are attempted by the existing themeparks to variable degrees of success. so for players who do not want their games to make any attempt at all to entice them into elevated danger or ever have the possibility of being killed by another player, it is just a fact to say that there are already many games of that nature out there with trivial consequences for death and danger only from ai enemies. i'm not belittling those games - i play a couple of them.

so then if players don't consider themselves interested in more open sandbox style elements, but are drawn here more than to the preponderance of themepark games, then the reason for that must be the unique elements of previous ultimas, i.e. the virtue system with the game keeping track of decisions, freedom to follow the particular path you deem appropriate for your character, virtual world recreation with for example, day/night cycles, weather, objects which 'work' etc. for those players, it's already been made clear that single player online, friends online and friends of friends online will be available on the slider to remove the possibility of interaction from random players.

what i think has caused UA's frustration is that despite the availability of those other theme park games, and the fact that a variety of levels of onlineness will be offered by this game, some posters are suggesting that if there's anything at all about open online mode which makes it different from the other modes or which encourages players to play in it, that will drive them away from the game. it's just as unproductive a position to complain about the existence of open online as it is to complain about the existence of single player, friends or friends of friends online.

the challenge the developers face is the *integration* of all three pillars including players more and less drawn by particular pillars. i'd be very surprised if any of those three pillars were to be abandoned over the game's development so if i think to myself, if i have no interest in pillar a b or c, i might want to look elsewhere and play another game where 1/3 of the focus isn't outside my area of interest. however, i don't believe that there are many players who truly have zero interest in any of those pillars. online games have stagnated over the last ten years or so and i think player expectations have calcified with that. this is a new game, with new possibilities, new systems, aiming to break new ground. a lot of players seem embittered due to experiences in uo, either their own or those reported by others (and often exagerrated ove the passage of time), but this isn't uo and there's a whole host of tech, experience and wisdom available now which was not available in 1997.

we can all go on the journey with richard and co, or we can sit underneath an old bridge which leads elsewhere and complain about how many trolls there are.

 

It makes no sense to me why anyone would want three of the exact same game modes for multi-player.

We will have the greatest single player game in history (SP)

We will allow single players to observe a living world (SPO)

Up to this point everyone agrees yes?

The next step baffles me: with only your friends you can place a house inside a world that persists and is shared with the entire gaming population. You can reap every economic reward of the game as a merchant. FPO

At this point the game has already given to much; the next step will have to be extreme for the game to shake up the gaming world. It has already met all objectives.

There is nothing left to strive for if OPO is a multi-player repeat of SP mode.

This is why I support RGs vision. I only hope he is being tough enough to gain the respect he deserves.

As Machiavelli would say, "we love him, but do we fear him"? If not, he is not our lord!

 

@Helicon - I agree with much of what you are saying however

<blockquote>
what i think has caused UA?s frustration is that despite the availability of those other theme park games, and the fact that a variety of levels of onlineness will be offered by this game, some posters are suggesting that if there?s anything at all about open online mode which makes it different from the other modes or which encourages players to play in it, that will drive them away from the game. it?s just as unproductive a position to complain about the existence of open online as it is to complain about the existence of single player, friends or friends of friends online.
</blockquote>

I do not think anyone is actively arguing against there being a distinct open online mode with PvP focus. This gets back to giving each other the benefit of the doubt and questioning what we assume people are saying, aka selection bias.

There are people arguing that the rewards need to be comparable and that there are no PvE content they can't get online in some way (with friends/etc). I.E. there are people arguing for parity. The fear some of the PvE people have is that past attempts to do stuff like this have sometimes resulted in quests that are interesting story content that are unique to PvP that PvEers (who tend to be completionists, have to see all the stories, etc) can't view due to their lack of PvP. SO basically they are asking not to get the same unique PvP rewards (those are needed to differentiate and encourage cross play) but that they too get access to the stories in an NPC fashion.

So to take an example. Lets talk about a quest where you have to storm a keep. There are two ways to do this, one you could get PCs to guard the keep. That is a great quest for a PvP option. However since the story behind why you are invading the quest or guarding it is interesting to PvErs, they want an option to play through (for different rewards) where the opposing invaders/defenders are NPCs instead of PCs. So they and their friends act as one party and the computer as the other.

That kind of content is the kind of thing appropriate for FPO as well as PvP, the problem is when one of the PvEers talks about it, they might mean it for FPO and others who reply might assume they mean OPO or mean they get the same rewards, or mean any number of interpretations that are not actually being said by the poster but are assumed by the reader.