SotA has to make a tough decision... GO FOR IT!

I don't see how a new term can help in any way (unless the objective was to confuse players and distract them away from a meaningful conversation on this topic, which I don't think is your intent).

BTW, aversion to PvP doesn't necessarily have anything to do with challenge. In my own case I just (though absolutely) reject non-consensual conflict with other persons in the context of a game (in other words, an activity I can leave at will with no real negtive consequence for me). I don't have any issue with consensual PvP, though; in fact I like fully consensual PvP quite a bit, with a fair number of PvP-only games in my games library and seeing consistent use.

Making the areas too enticing, perhaps even seemingly "necessary" by having exclusive useful resources, taints the consent. The moment a player enters that area just to get the PvE reward, despite disliking PvP, he isn't actually consenting anymore with the PvP, he is just being forced into it to remain competitive.

Making PvP-only ways to obtain resources is fine, as long as they aren't either exclusive, or else efficient enough to compel players that actually dislike PvP into oppening themselves for PvP (and, thus, having a bad experience).

To the best of my knowledge PvP zones (defined as overland map hexes where players can't avoid PvP) where never promised. What has been promised are PvP events and quests.

PvP "zones" do seem to have been used as examples, but without much context, so no way to know how they interact with the PvP "slider", with the multiplayer mode, etc. Also, the instancing tech allows Portalarium to have completely different maps associated with the same hex, with the map the player sees potentially chosen according to the player's PvP preferences, so it would be actually possible to have a forced PvP map and a PvE map sharing the same overland hex.

Not to mention that a specific example given for a system that is not even through the planning stages do has a good chance of being changed...

 

There was an interesting article on the secondage forums that seems to cover this very topic (and rather well IMO). you can check it out here. Personally, I think segregating the areas is a good idea, but creating a simple mirror world just divides the playerbases.

 

Well i guess regardless there won't be a mirror world. It would be the same world but you just wouldn't run into the other type of person.

RE-EVALUATING MY STANCE BASED ON FEEDBACK:

Yet this appears it is such a touchy subject I may have to reevaluate my stance that SotA be truly neutral allowing everybody to choose their own destiny and be able to play the full world without PvP entirely. My concern is that the PvP would be made up of only player vs player combatants rather than a mix of roleplay and PvP. I feel like throwing out ideas whenever possible, but I'm also willing to be persuaded otherwise. If my idea isn't good for SotA then I hope it isn't used, and sorry for wasting any body's time.

My hope was to stretch peoples comfort zones into take the risk, but I don't want to force people to do something that they are totally opposed to. I see the logic that some of the other people like Owain is saying. If there was still a possibility to stretch the comfort zones without making people feel forced into PvP I would be for it, but I'm going to formally retract my words asking for PvP only zones for the sake that others have persuaded me that it may be a bad idea.

 

Okay, well I have a legit question that I would love for a pve'er to answer..

As billroy said.. Imagine.. You're mining.. A mob of monsters comes at you... Now, whole you are fighting this mob off, a hidden player appears, mines the remainder of the ore (lets say it's a rare, one time a day spawn) and runs off with it. Do you not wish to be able to kill that player and take it back? Because you won't be able to if you have it 100% your way. He can laugh in your face and run off.

What if you're fighting a rare, one a day monster with exceptional loot. When it gets down to 5% hp, the same guy gets the last few hits in (lets say he's a fencer/dexxer) and takes the loot since its technically his kill?

What if someone trains (makes a mob follow him) to you, and they kill you? I imagine this will happen a LOT in a pve environment.. Even if you do not want non consensual pvp, people WILL FIND WAYS to kill you somehow, the only difference is that you can't do a damn thing about it.


Someone please go through each of these situations and tell me what you would do or how you would feel about it? How would you feel KNOWING that if you were flagged for pvp, you could get a group together and get revenge, but since you're not, you have to just sit and watch him use your ore, etc?

 

1) If a mob randomly spawned on top of me while I was somehow halfway through draining a node and some random leaps into the area after I was engaged with the mob, and that guy takes "my" node because the node still had more on it then too bad, it's just a bunch of pixels in a game...put player on ignore if it annoyed you enough. If it really annoyed you and you weren't 100% adverse to pvp (and he was flagged) then I guess just flag yourself for pvp and kill him, I really don't see how this causes any issue at all.

2) A game that allows a player to ks you is poorly coded. A mob should be tagged to first player to hit, with a timeout so players can't tag all mobs in the vicinity.

3) A game should not allow players to train mobs onto other players, as that is a poorly coded game. Games with decent coding make mobs that are following a player stick to that player (unless you aoe the mobs and take them off him, in which case it's your own fault, you should be more situationally aware).

 

How about this...


In pure PvE mode it happens exactly as you say. The other guy comes and steals all the stuff, and laughes in your face as he runs off. However there may be a way for the person who was mining to be able to get some or all of that ore back...

***however this might be a real long shot idea and I don't know if it would fly with the dev staff or not...***

For them to to have a chance to get something back from a person that is not PvP, perhaps they can submit a lawsuit in the Justice system. Since justice is or at least was a virtue in the Ultimas, why not have a functioning court system? The court system could have some scripts for the criminal system, and maybe they could write some dialogue and scripts for certain basic lawsuits based upon variables that can be verified by the server. (in this case you were mining an ore that somebody else mined while you fought off a large mob). If the server can verify that this is true, then perhaps the case can be brought before an NPC judge. Then if the court determines that the original player was entitled to all or part of that oar, the other player has to return the ore or the monetary equivalent. If the defendant used the ore, and also has no money then perhapse it could lead to a criminal charge against the defendant.

However this would mean players might want to go to the library to read a book or two on legal terms, and your rights in courtrooms. Then people can defend their position and make basic objections based upon the law of the land. I believe this might work if it can be kept as simple as possible.

To help keep this type of system reasonable in a technical sense there might have to be some kind of tool similar to the way players can call upon GMs to report violations in the game. Except this tool creates some kind of log that can be verified by the server, and then queues a court case that is overseen by an NPC judge or a governor, or even appealed to Lord British himself (the NPC version). It doesn't have to have a jury system or real humans to oversee the proceedings. it could just be an old fashion type ruler that has absolute final authority which will make court cases go very fast.

Let the court case have the potential to go either way. So sometimes there just might not be enough evidence or maybe the jerk knew the legal system better and the case gets dropped. Either way it will be a way to deal with this type of issue without people calling on GMs about griefers taking their loot all the time.

***one more thing. Maybe this system can have limitations. So people don't file lawsuits for stupid stuff like somebody looting the skins they just cut off of a pig or something stupid. Let this system only apply for the rare oar, and specific scenarios. So when they try to log the case it will give you feedback that this case has been dismissed by the court if it doesn't meet certain criteria. Let people learn what the criteria is, and all other things pertaining to lawsuits by doing their own research in the librarys. It could be one of the discoverable aspects of the game.*** Also maybe the defendant has the choice to appear before the court or not, but if they don't appear it might hurt their case.

***EDIT***
This court system could also apply to the person looting a rare item and loots it by killing the monster with the last few hits. It can also be used in the case of trains of mobs, in which you can bring criminal charges against this person giving them a murder count just as if he were a PK in PvP since his actions lead to murder, or manslaughter which could even be an unintentional kill!

 

Personal harvesting solves that social problem, which is why GW2 uses it. I'm not saying the method used to spawn nodes in GW2 is a good one, but at least they have personal harvesting. Same goes for personal loot. You can skip all this concern and move on to innovative mechanics that make the game fun and challening.

 

So basically have no chance to interact with a random player even in OPO mode?

 

Also when dealing with difficult or rare to mine items. A person in SPO would have an advantage unless they adjust the difficlty settings in PvE for SPO, and less difficult in OPO, and even less difficlult and even more ore in the spot when flagged for PvP (due to the threat of danger of PvP).

 

If by "interact" you mean unsolicited and negatively for this one particular in-game system, then you're correct, yes.

And it's freaking awesome, in practice, in my personal experience.

 

You should be aware that, based on most interviews and hangouts, RG shares the same intent to convince players to leave their comfort zones without forcing them into PvP against their wishes. In other words, RG - and, likely, the rest of the devs - will be basically trying to realize your hope .

As long as this isn't overdone, it's basically what I've been asking for when it comes to balancing out the game; tweak the challenge in order to have everyone progress at roughly the same speed, with no single play style having a meaningful advantage.

 

In OPO, people you see will be prioritized depending your settings. You'll first see people on your friends list. if you are in a guild, then you'll probably see guild members (who may or may not be on your friends list). In town, you'll probably see vendors. If you are flagged for a guild war, you'll see members of the opposing guilds. If not, then depending on how many people SotA will let you see at once, then you'll start seeing random players close to your skill level. At least, that's how I'm assuming things will work. A lot depends on how many people SotA allows you to see at once.

 

Actually I would really like to hear your input regarding a player filter being active while we are flagged for PvP. Would you mind if every PK in the game blocked everybody on your guild roster? Or are you also of the persuasion that the filter is bad for PvP?

 

If you are flagged for PvP, there should be no block function, in that you are telling the server you never want to be matched with that person. You should be able to /mute someone, but not /block them. In OPO PvE, why not, but not in PvP.

 

One interesting thing to consider: players doing a PvP mission should always meet their targets if they are in the same place. So, if bounty hunting PvP missions are added...

 

PvP bounties would make a nice new thread. I think it's a great idea. maybe even have some kind of tolken or scroll with the formal bounty written on it. Dead or alive. That PK would then become quite relevant to you. lol

In fact PK hunting might even be more fun in SotA because of the selective multiplayer relevancy filter.

 

I'm for Open PvP as many of you know. I also want people to turn off pvp if they don't want to participate, if only so i don't have to listen to their massive amounts of whining on the forums.

I will play this game *a lot* if I can slaughter people who don't want to be killed at that time (PK). If I can't do that I'll probably sell my in game content and play it single player.

 

I think there will be people who will be ripe for being PKed. Even if somebody is a full time PvPer in a PvP guild you might be able to catch them in a trap some place walking alone. Many times I would go PvPing alone in UO. I was in a Chaos guild for a while so PvPing alone was an option because even if people from my guild weren't around some other chaos guys might be able to help even the odds if there were Order people haunting a town.

However that doesn't mean there weren't times I was alone. I would find myself alone quite often and a few times I would get surprised by a couple of reds in an area I never wanted to visit again. The biggest trap was them trying to lure me over near their homes. Taunting and raving. I knew if I followed them I would get hit by some mages or something. Either way if those guys killed me it would have been a murder because they weren't at war with my guild, and I was just some dude crossing through their territory.

I'm hoping that more people opt in for PvP just for the sake of experiencing the world though. I believe I will do that even though I'm not intending on joining a PvP guild at the release of the game. So you may find some people to catch in your web that aren't just hardened soldiers.

 

@Isaiah MGT470
I didn't mean I want to PK newbs, or not-hardened soldiers. I just mean I want to be able to PK, which is kinda by definition non-consensual in the sense that no one wants to get killed on their way to a dungeon, even if they are PvP flagged. I guess what I am saying is I'd love the game to have a system in which things don't always go your way... where players can and do get the upper hand on you. Where the most dangerous thing in the wild, isn't a dragon, but another player.

 

I think I understood what you said. I totally agree with this statement.