PVP defaults and other questions answered ? (Dev) Replied

What I am saying is if the average player has base PvP skill of 1000. We can determent an AI level for each portion of the game. If an area is designed around a skill level of 500 and players of relative skill are in that area should they be open to skill level 2500+ PvPers?

1.) What is the learning curve for a 500 player to up their skill.
2.) What "risk" does the 2500+ player have for these attacks?
3.) Should there be a reward for PvP against such a cap in competitiveness?
4.) Will the 2500+ player get bored and more on?

#4 is an easy answer IF there is content for 2500+ to compete. But what about the 2000 player, will they have room to compete with the 2500+ or will they feel they have no chance against the 2500+ and prey on the 500 players?

This is not a simple answer, lets make it open PvP, and the players will sort it out. Not if you want to retain players and not if you want a constant flow of new players.

 

@Regi, please, please, do not confuse my intentions by implying a desire to eliminate PvP.

I am highly active in PvP. I speak from a neutral stance. Open PvP will push players away, just as much as no PvP.

 

Skill level is one of the modifiers for the game engines grouping system. They may have this covered all ready.

Without completely abolishing want for PVP.

 

@Acrylic 300, I hope so too. PvP should have a solid home in SotA. PvE again silly AI or PvP against a dramatically lower skilled player is just pointless. Players will move on.

The issue I think is people have AI from most MMO's as an example. No one makes AI for tic tac toe. It's just not needed. And that about sums it up, combat in most MMO's is no more challenging than tic tac toe.

Build a better combat system a stronger AI is possible.

 

@Ristra: Open PvP will push players away.


Based on what ??


**It would be fair to say that the Open PvP will bring a lot of new players too**

 

@Abydos, Based on history and I really don't feel like boring people with years of data collected on this issue as people will always find a straw man argument to try and cloud the discussion.

 

@Ristra:

Does not distort my thinking. Your opinion are subjective. But I respect it. However, in my experience, open PvP will bring a lot more players to SOTA. There are so many people who are disgusted to be restricting their acts in the RPG. They will certainly be happy in a Open PvP SandBox

 

Richard Garriott lived the other side of this issue. His game hosted open PvP and now he as stated a few changes that break away from open PvP.

If he did not agree with the statement that open PvP will drive away player then why doesn't he make the game open PvP?

What we must do is find a method of getting as close to open PvP and entice players to desire it.

Bring on your ideas for getting players to want PvP. Tell me what you would do to get @rune_74 to PvP, not just say he must.

 

@Ristra: We are on the same road my friend ....


For me, the filter is the solution. However, all players must accept that there will be Open PvP zones forced, as there will be areas for NoN-PvP for new players for example.

 

I think it would be cool to have a mechanic that allowed players to take on the role of NPC monsters. Make a word script so nothing out of character could be said.

For instance in UO you could polymorph into different monsters but no one really used it.

Let's say I don't like PvP, but a treasure chest surrounded by lizard men is calling my name, "Acrylic enter the PVP zone...loooooot meee".

I polymorph into a lizard man, enter the PVP zone, and loot the chest.

The devs can and will, hopefully entice players into thrilling situation.

 

*ganks @Abydos* should watch were you are walking

WHAT?! No loot?! Ugh, why did I bother? Oh wait, controlling this road could be valuable.

Might be worthy of a different thread but if there is no full loot what is the reason for PvP.

 

@Ristra
I'm sure Abydos had an Acrylic 300 head in his backpack
cast detect hidden.

 

There are a few features that naturally bring out PvP. Such as the 2.0 mil stretch goal.

I think the plan is to tie in PvP with the virtues. How they do that is likely still up in the air.

PK took life in UO and anti-PK emerged out of necessity. PK can represent a Virtue (or 2 or 3) while anti-PK represents the opposing virtues.

The filter system could take these virtues into account. Things like the 2.0 mil stretch goal where guild can declare full time PvP could declare this based on a specific virtue they wish to follow.

As long as a player does not walk the path of any of those virtues for very long they should not be so deep into PvP they can not find their way out.

More detail on the virtues is in order as building a PvP system that reflects these virtues is a lot of guess work.

 

Back to my spiel about polymorph:

1) As an "NPC" monster I may accidentally be killed by a friendly player. The risk for sneaking past mobs.

2) Was I killed and looted by a monster or a player? I may never know. Hmmm that monster acted differently.

I think anything to blur the lines between PvE and PvP might help players get past feelings of the personal nature.

Some people's feelings hurt more easily knowing a real person is trying to kill them. I predict that 3 days into beta we will hear tales of kids who where traumatized. When in reality it's no different than being killed by an npc.

 

Chess is a game of pure tactics, in the levels I've discussed. Nothing you can do gives you more pieces or makes them stronger before the match. So it's balanced like a battleground. But the execution isn't there either. Once a piece moves into the square, it wins. The queen will lose to the pawn even though it should be better an PvP.

@Ristra
I generally agree with you that PvP won't really be about PK. It will be about some combination of virtue/faction/guild as motivation. I see as two levels, just like our two level map. It's "open" at the top level where you effectively chose your side, but when you load the hex, you're tagged to a side and fight from there.

So some guy give you a quest to steal sheep. You're warned that he's like you more but the shepherd and his friends wont. And you will effectively be in a PK vs Anti PK type scenario where you're trying to steal sheep and other are trying to stop you. The moral dilemma happened when you took the quest to help the faction, not at the moment you decided who to shoot. By doing this, you're advancing your own story - not just a red PK outlaw who's only motivation is to ruin someone's day. Over time you may realize that this guy who "needed to feed his family", isn't all that nice a guy and may be able to take more quests to make up with the shepherd...or you may choose to continue to advance his cause.

 

" all players must accept that there will be Open PvP zones forced"

Why do all players have to accept that? What if I'm playing SPO? What if I'm SFO? The way you make it sound you think the majority of the game will be like that. Nothing you have said has convinced me it will be this way.

 

@Ristra

I'm sure that your statement that open pvp will push players away is wrong. Sure it will push casual players away, but their place will be taken by those who are less causal and generally like any possibility to replace grind by a nice shootout with real players.

I even have a good example, bad this game is unknown to western players... lets name it BFG.
BFG was born as a lineage 2 free shard/mod. Let me remind you, lineage 2 has very nice pseudo-seamless map... It has race vs race system and pvp zone everywhere (xept towns and outposts which are protected by guards, being still pvp zones). So, all races xept yours may attack you anywhere apart towns/outposts. So, lots and lots of open pvp, newbie killing, ganking an so on.

This idea turned to be brilliant. Everything else in game is very bad: realisation is awful, admin stuff is disgusting, donate system is horrifying (full gear-up will cost 2-3k $), lots of bugs and rmt. And despite all this bad things game still pushes on thanks to great idea that was founded at the beginning of the game.

Let me say it again in two words: properly implemented open pvp may be great attraction for players.

 

What if we are not playing for grind or a shoot out...what if we are playing for a living breathing world with a great story? Should we be forced to play the other two ways?

 

Living breathing world? For me it is world with real players.
Real players automatically mean competition and/or cooperation.
PvP and agreements/contracts/diplomacy in other words.

And what is living breathing world for you @rune_74 ?

 

Ultima 7 to me was a living breathing world for SP...which I was told this game would play like in the single player online game...I want npc and players changing a bit but I don't need to be ganked to make it interesting to me. I should be able to see the changes that other players do to the map, but I should also be able to play my game with those changes in the back ground.

I'm not sure how contracts/diplomacy and agreements will work while I'm in the story.