PvP similar to EVE Online

I want PvP in this game to be similar to EVE Online.

Where there are guarded areas where you can flag for PvP if you wish. Loot is almost full loot or full loot. The best resources and some crucial resources are only in full PvP areas. The routes between some major towns are full PvP so that when you are transferring goods, you need an escort or you need to be sneaky.

That would make this game great.

 

Welcome Musaab Osman to Shroud of the Avatar. Well I have not played EVE Online, but I've heard some like it. There are many PVP posts on here with pages and pages of discussion. There are definitely PVP areas and PVP can go anywhere amd duel anywhere.
It is concentual only. The full loot question has been debated and at first was shot down but I know many want it so there may be a slider. The game is still in development so hopefully you will try out what we have so far and give your feedback and
thoughts. There are PVP tournaments and contests, we also have arenas set up and much more. The game is not all about PVP but it is one of the core systems getting implemented, but it will be a choice. Anyway I will let you get on with your thread
sorry if I derailed a bit. ***cheers***

 

So putting certain resources in PvP only areas and having routes that area PvP between some towns is out of the question?

 

Oh I think it's a possibility. It has been mentioned that perhaps some resources will be more plentiful in a given PVP area and there will be PvP player owned towns also. Also Guild against Guild PVP. There are many PVPers backing this game
and rallying for what they want to see for PVP. Also some of the Devs were pvp players. There could also be some routes that are dangerous.

 

I would say maybe for PvP area resources and not going to happen for ambushing mid travel.

 

Why not? That would encourage people to travel through dangerous areas in groups and would add value to resources.

 

Mainly due to that fact that they could not have emphasised the point more about people not being forced into PVP. There was mention somewhere about some PVP areas having resources to tempt people into taking a risk though.

 

No one is forcing you to take that route. But if you wanna go there, better bring some friends.

 

Nothing that cuts off story line via a PVP roadblock is likely to be implemented.

 

There are features being implemented into the game eventually which has to do with contested items and areas that are similar to what you are wanting, but not exactly the same.

In EvE, we had the option to go Hi-Sec or Low-Sec, which is short for high and low security areas. The pathways that had more security/guards in the area didn't have any resources that could be used for pvp but rather had less and cheaper materials in those areas.

The low security zones have the best rare materials and hardest pvp, along with warring and humongous battles.

As far as I know, there are going to be areas with rare materials that are 'contested zones' whereas if you are in that area, you can be attacked, how that person is looted determines on their level of pvp, either opt-in pvp (loot 1 random item), open pvp(not sure how many random items yet), or hardcore pvp (full loot). I am assuming the coloration of the name will tell you who is full loot and who is not. Full loot is dependent on them actually adding hardcore pvp to the options/Oracle.

Anyway, the rare materials/ore contained within the contested zones/pathways/caves/dungeons/open land WILL be more valuable and more useful towards pvp than it would be on the more casual side. The more casual parts of the land will have less valuable items towards pvp and will be more valuable towards crafting items that are in relation to the pve side. However I think there will be benefits to gathering and fighting for resources on both sides of the spectrum.

There are also going to be contested items that are quest related, take this object but you will be hunted kinds of quests, so I believe this game will definitely pique your EvE PvP interest.

 

I forgot to mention that there may be a cap on how many can be in an instance at any point but there is a realistic expectation of how many people would be allowed in an instance at a time depending on the circumstances.

Dungeons would be 1-16 people, probably 1-8 per party running 2 parties in a dungeon, so technically it could be an 8v8 if you are thinking about stealing resource node spots.

Cities would be 1-60
outer lands could be 1-60 or 1-16 depending on the size of the instance.
Warring lands or contested lands are up for discussion to how many should be allowed in those, but all of this is pure speculation aside from the current ideas.

The devs said they were using a cap but were removing it for certain events and to test capacity.
All of it could change depending on what they need to keep their servers from overloading and also for load times, etc etc.

 

Welcome Musaab Osman!

 

The problem with Eve's model is that 80% of the player population never leaves HiSec, which means the majority of the content of the game is denied to 80% of the population.

Also, Eve is, and was always intended to be, a PvP-centric game. Shroud of the Avatar is not. It is, primarily a story driven game where denying access to the majority of the map would not work as that would mean denying access to the story to a large segment of the player population... presumably 80% if the statistics from Eve hold true. I'm doubtful that's a valid comparison, however.

Additionally, PvP in Shroud of the Avatar was, from the outset, intended to be Fully Consensual. There is to be a mechanism by which those who wish to may flag themselves for Open PvP, and be able to fight with each other anywhere on the map, even in guarded cities, though that may attract the attention of the local constabulary. Additionally, there are to be Open PvP areas on the map where rare resources (While not exclusive to these areas) will be more plentiful. Lastly, Player Owned Settlements may flag their (at the Owner's discretion) scene as Open PvP.

The sum total of all of this is that while PvP is supported, it is not the primary focus of the game, and those flagged for PvP will, at all times, have access to 100% of the map, while those who do not wish to participate will be excluded from the PvP areas and PvP+ Player Owned Settlements.

How much more content do you wish to deny those who do not desire to play your game?

 

Also, there are Courier missions planned for implementation that have players transporting items across the world, flagging them for PvP and notifying other players, Bounty Hunters if you will, to try and stop them from completing the delivery. That sounds like exactly what you are asking for. It may not happen as organically as it does in EVE, because 100% PvP doesn't exist here, but I think many of the Dev (especially Chris) are very passionate about PvP systems.

 

You can use the same logic in reverse, by asking people that don't like pvp the same question about the people that like pvp.

I'm not suggesting that pvp be non-consensual. But PVP is supposed to be MEANINGFUL, per the developers. You can't have meaningful pvp if there's not a good reason to do it.

 

I don't see your point. Anyone that chooses to flag for open PvP will have free access to all areas of the map at all times. Those who do not wish to participate will be denied access to some areas of the map unless they consent to something they may not wish to do. I fail to see how this can be reversed.

 

If someone's preferred playing style is open-pvp, and you make 80% of the world non-open pvp, there you go. I know your argument is that the "content" of the game is still available, but that's content that can only be seen if the player is not truly in an open-pvp world. For example, in a Shardfall anyone that enters has to accept open pvp. So what you're saying is not good for you and your playing style (non-pvp) is apparently fine for people that don't share your playing style.

I know and agree that SOTA is not going to have non-consensual pvp. But your argument is basically saying that you can't accept a middle ground because the moment that something in the game seems worth going into an open pvp area - that's somehow taking your "content" away from you.

The middle ground would be to take turns. Much like Archeage does where sometimes areas are open pvp and other times they are not.

 

Incorrect.

I fully accept the fact that portions of the map will be unaccessible to me unless I flag (either permanently or temporarily) as PvP+ at the currently proposed levels. Should some large percentage of the map be made unavailable without having to choose PvP, then I will object.

Accusing me of being unwilling to compromise is a strawman. You're attempting to conflate a statement of fact with an objection to the facts at hand.

 

Welcome Musaab Osman!

Oh, good job in sparking another PvP debate It has been a while since we had one.

 

The best resources/crafting mats will be on maps that are open-PvP. There are PvP control points on certain key routes.

This game however will not be full loot. That is a rather contentious issue here with some really wanting it, and some refusing to play a game with it. In general that is an option used to grief and abuse new players. Eve is famous for scams, griefing and some pretty terrible behavior. To compete you almost need 6 accounts and to multi-box.

SotA's loot compromise is that when you defeat someone in PvP you will be able to loot one item randomly. The player losing them can pay a gold ransom to keep the item, losing the equivalent in gold instead.