PvP similar to EVE Online

That's a much deeper conversation though, rune.

Do you think the regional economy is meaningful? I do. But some people don't like it. They want convenience of travel, they want global banking, they want a canned MMO facebook where it's easy to socialize and nothing is really beyond their reach.

To really make PVP work, the devs are going to have the same type of issue. If they are true to the spirit of roleplaying, then pvp will impact people the same way that a regional economy will. No one has to travel across the whole map, no one has to worry about regional prices. But it's still a reality of the world. The same exact thing is happening with pvp. You don't have to participate, but it impacts you none the less.

Why? Because it's a deeper and richer experience that helps support roleplaying. You can't be a hero if there's nothing to risk.

 

That last line about risk is false that if you don't pvp there is no risk.

There is a risk from PVE monsters and quests. That is a risk people have decided they want to have. Now, having PVP afffect the whole world and decide what can and can't happen, creates a issue of PVP controlling the game.

You meantion that people don't "have" to travel etc, but in this game they really do if they want to play the storyline. What you are effectively asking for is the ability to control where people can be based on control points of PVP....which really takes consensual out of the equation because like it or not you have agreed to it if that is the way it will work. This effectively makes it so that if I want to progress I HAVE to pvp or at least make myself attackable. This is nothing like the economy and it shouldn't be treated that way.

I totally get having areas that have a few more resources or have some significant reason to pvp over that affects all PVP players. That makes it meaningful PVP for players who want to PVP.

Saying that pvpers also have only a small percentage of the world as open pvp is kind of misleading as well in the fact they really can pvp anywhere they want at the moment, I would almost say that at the moment the game offers more to them then it does to those who do not wish that playstyle. For instance, pvp zones speak for themselves I would think, but have very little use for the PVE player.

 

People are assuming that the devs will fail at making PvE challenging. But there are many games out on the market where PvE is challenging, so its not impossible.

I would agree with Drocis though that in order for PvP to have some effect on the larger world, and not just the players, it would have to effect everyone to some extent -- otherwise it just feels like friendly contests between guilds or duels between players. A sort of 'gentlemanly' sport. Truly meaningful PvP would have some effect on the world. However, the devs have already decided against this in large part, though still promising to make it rewarding to players in terms of the resource market and economy.

I'd simply hope, over time, they develop the open PvP (flagged) system so most people who enter into it feel comfortable and not afraid of being ganked all the time, and this would encourage more and more people into the PvP system.

 

Tell me who the heroes of WoW are. Tell me the names of individual players that were noteworthy because of their heroic acts of leveling and grinding all day while socializing with other players that did the same thing?

Notice above that I'm not saying that you have to participate in pvp to have risk (real risk). But instead I'm saying that pvp is required to have real risk that is meaningful. My argument would be that if you don't have PLAYERS impacting the world in meaningful ways, then you don't have a world where there's real risk. I'm not saying you ever have to be involved in pvp directly...I'm just saying that someone has to otherwise you're just in a treadmill where no one will remember what you did, and no one will care about your story because it's going to be the exact same thing that everyone else did.

 

So now, in order to be meaningful in game you have to be involved in PVP? Basically everything you have argued so far has been that PVP should have the overall meaningful impact on the world, which in turn suggests that it should be the driving force on interactions within the game, controlling areas that everyone has to go through. What this will result in is serfdoms where everyone not directly involved with PVP will be beholden to it in order to advance. Large guilds and groups will control how the game is played.

 

You would prefer that people who take no risk have all the control?

I'm using very simple logic here.

PVP = RISK
PVE = RISK
PVP RISK > PVE RISK

You don't have to engage in PVP RISK if you don't want to. But the less risk you take, the less rewards you should get.

Wouldn't you agree?

 

Entirely depends, Drocis. If I'm afraid of running into a dragon in the forest, and they do the combat AI right, its a much larger risk to me than PvP.

 

Not going to step into this trap.

Just wanted to say EVE is a great game, but its PVP model only works for a game where PVP is the main focus of the game. Even though most may never go out of Hi-sec to do it, PVP is still a big part of the design. SOTA was never billed for PVP to have that kind of focus. It is a story based RPG with options for PVP where PVP is its own reward.

The problem is I don't think people understand how little impact PVPers and non-PVPers will actually have on each other as they go off and mind their own business.

 

Umbrae, I take offense to the line "PVP is its own reward".

This is a quote from the original kickstarter:

PVP is not its own reward, otherwise it would not be a contentious topic. Everyone would love it because pvp is its own reward.

Notice that PVP per the kickstarter is INCENTIVE DRIVEN. Which is why when I asked in a recent post mortem "what's the incentive for engaging in pvp?" I was shocked SHOCKED to hear "PVP is its own reward" from the devs. That's just wrong.

 

PvP should be fun on its own, but that's like also saying PvE should be fun on its own, but never involve rewards because those are besides the point Its fun when you can defeat a dragon, its more fun when he's guarding a treasure.

 

Now you are really talking about difference in opinions! For some PvP is it own reward and for some not. For me it's about hunt down those that are attacking innocent and make justice. If I were slay the worst killer in the game I got my satisfaction. So in a way will PvP be it own reward for me and I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking so.

 

No, you're not alone. But you're confusing what the reward is.

PVP is not the reward, hunting down and killing someone is.

PVP is the act of being able to attack and kill other players. But that's not a reward in and of itself. Lord British is another player that walks around with an "OPEN PVP" flag all day long, but he's invulnerable to being killed, so where's your reward? Likewise, there will be a HUGE portion of the population of players that will not be flagged open pvp, and you'll be unable to kill them - so again, where is your reward?

When we talk about INCENTIVE DRIVEN pvp, we can't just mean that if you generally like pvp you'll have enough incentive to participate in it. That's foolish thinking. Just as you need an incentive to do anything in the game, you need an incentive to pvp (and that incentive should be based on the risk you're taking).

 

That really has no bearing on what you are arguing. Isn't more resources in pvp zone areas a reward? What is enough reward?

You argued my point by saying that people in pvp deserve more rewards, I'm not sure how that figures into control points and dictating what people can do regardless of if they pvp.

Your first line is nothing that I said. I said that a person shouldn't be able to control an area that directly affects people completing the storyline or else it effectively forces PVP on them and the affects of this. It also counters the bottom part where you say there is PVE risk but then start of with no risk.

In the world I think you are trying to describe, you would have PVP control the world around us and allow the PVE players to play as long as they were at the mercy of the PVP players to progress.

 

No, that's not what I'm trying to communicate.

I would have pvp impact your world....as opposed to it haven't no "meaning" in your world.

In addition, I would say this...

Suppose you have a choice between going through a control point that is currently open pvp. Or you could travel by foot around a mountain range where you were almost certain to encounter 3 to 5 PVE groups before you got to your intended destination?

That's what I'm talking about. You make the choice, but you can't just say "I'm going to have zero risk".

 

What is the meaning? What kind of impact? And why should I care if you killed so and so?

 

The meaning would be that control point X is now open or close. Which has an indirect impact on your ability to get resources, travel, and otherwise have varying degrees of risk. That's also the impact and the reason you should care.

What's happening is that PVP is being reduced to "part of the environment" by design. But PVE players are not wanting to accept that because it's called PVP. I would encourage people to think about this statement for a while. If you don't have to participate in PVP (and you don't) then why is having pvp impacting the environment such a bad thing? It's just like anything else in PVE - you just have to adjust.

 

The true reason I want PvP is actually RP PvP. You should be able to PvP anywhere if the RP suits it. But I guess you can't force people who don't want to RP to RP...

I'm just dreaming I guess.

 

If control point X is now closed and there is no other way for me to get around that you have forced me to PVP. There is no other option. If I can't proceed to other parts of the story/lands then you have forced me into a PVP situation, where my play would be dependant on PVP. That changes it from a choice to a have to.

By forcing situations like you stated, you force PVP on those that don't want it or they quit. If they can't get to where the story is taking them because a group has taken control of an area then their game is affected.

 

Yeah, I'm the same way. I like RP as much as I like PVP. The two work really well together when the game mechanics support it.

 

You may have missed above where I gave the scenario that you would have a choice between the PVP choke point, or going the long way around where you'd have to spend more time (for sure) and would likely be engaged by multiple PVE encounters. That would be your other option.