The Glass is Half Empty - A look inside why people are opposed to Open PvP and Full Loot

Check my edit, I corrected what I said

 

What I think is that a PVP system with no loot, no stealing that includes faction or guild type wars works better in a PVE land then in a full open PK land.

 

Oh really?

In every thread about PvP i can read PvE players trying to dumb down PvP, no full loot, no risk vs reward and no consequences.

There is a battle going on how SotA PvP should turn out and i fear the PvE crowd is winning. Just look at the suggested magic system, a card game.

 

While I want this game to be a smash hit that everyone loves and plays for years, that comment above, prior to anything at all being known about it, suggests to me that maybe this isn't the game you want to play.

 

Sounds good, I would not have either side saying what is best for the other.

 

Definetly.

So there will be 2 types of open PvP games then? One for me and my likes and one for the PvE crowd?

Not something i heard of.

 

The option is always available for those who feel like they can't get an open sandbox open PvP only game to design and build their own.

If it's such a draw, and there's such a lack in the market, then a kickstarter, your effort, and a few good developers could raise millions and create the game you want. I would even pledge to it.

 

Yeah, it more and more looks like that, isnt it.

 

1. PvP debates are too polarized. PvPers vs PvEers fighting for RG's attention is an ineffective way to operate as a community.
2. Forums have ADD. 20 PvP threads are out there and they all spiral through ideas so quickly that none of them accomplish anything.
3. A slider option for everyone sounds nice in theory, but the downside is that we're left with PvEers on one slider, and PvPers on another. I think we can all agree (even if we want or don't want open PvP) that diversity is important.

I post this because I'm tired of combative and useless PvP threads.

 

Moving away from the should or shouldn't we have open PvP conversation I'll like to suggest a method of making players accountable for their actions.

Online communities are going to form guilds so I suggest we use those guilds to police themselves. Crimes committed will reflect on your guild, if you kill someone it will be reported to your officers and in the first instance dropped. If the behavior continues these actions will build against you and your guild in sort of a dual murder count way. So if you kill 3 innocent people your guild will be fined. Kill 5 and you'll be flagged a murderer(with its own penalties) and your guild fines a greater amount. If fines are not played the entire guild as a whole will eventually be flagged because we are the company we keep.

If you want to harbor a fugitive you must pay. If you want a pk guild then this won't hurt your role playing but murderer penalties will target the guild as well as the individual.

Fines collected could be used in a bounty system aimmed at full time murderers and not out of the victims pocket. I think we need to find a method for players to police themselves for the most part rather than magic men in hooded robes.

 

Given that the last official pool, with about 8K players answering, had about half the respondents favoring PvE (as opposed to about a quarter favoring a mix of PvP and PvE, and a bit less favoring PvP), and the vast majority saying that their main play style would be PvE, I somehow doubt that PvP was such a large effect on pledges.

My guess is that most SC players will end playing offline, and of the ones that play online, most will never leave the "safe" systems, just like in EVE. For my part, I will play exclusively offline; from the start I considered my pledge to be for a modern (and offline) version of Privateer, given that for me any online game where I can't completely opt out of PvP is utterly worthless.

 

Open PvPers CAN go into Single Player mode, online or offline, and they can also go into FPO. Just like any other player. Any player can change modes while in a safe area, such as a city.

Has no one already explained how this stuff works yet?

 

I know that.. and I think that should happen just as it is happening. Just like I think his suggestion should happen.

 

Give me the Reader's Digest version of his suggestions, please. It will save time.

Edit: For one thing, I don't know to whom you refer by 'his' suggestions. Your last post quoted 3 people.

 

I wish I could understand why people don't like it , PKing doesn't make a person a griefer. Are most of the people that are truly agenst it people that have had terrible experiences with OpOl ....Games that I grew up on it was me agenst the AI......... and it didn't take me long to figure out when i was hurt run to the back side of something ..... UO comes out and the bad Guy rounded the object and hunted me down and Took my Head......... Wohhhh What just happened ? Yup I just got beat down by a real person . Yup he took my head .... This requires outside the box thinking Why is that bad........ When I was a Noob I would getaway 8 out of ten times I was attacked .....

 

I cannot speak for everyone but what I think its not always the pks and pvp that is greatly disliked but that with open pvp the odds are usually in the favor of the PKs, who can role up at anytime they want with a squad of people and obliterate someone that had no chance. Because of this you always had to watch your back and feel like a rabbit about to be pounced on by a pack of velociraptors.

 

PvEers generally have opinions about how PvP should be run for one of two reasons.

1. In response to a statement that OPO should be PvP only, thus making a PvE person who wants to play (NOT just with their friends or by themselves) have to be flagged for PvP.
2. When the idea is brought up that the Devs want to entice PvE people to try PvP. In which case, it makes sense that you would need some PvE input to figure out what would get them interested in trying it.

I honestly believe that if there is an open mode way to group PvEers so they don't have to PvP but can be public (NOT just Friends or Single Player Online mode), and people weren't set on trying to figure out how to entice PvEers into PvP, that they would stop any comments on how it should be run.

Also, I honestly believe that they are fine with all the PvP crowd who want full loot PvP to be able to be grouped together (since it's already been said on the Kick Start page that this will be somewhat instanced no matter how any of this grouping or non-groupng works), away from strict PvEers, and PvP or RP with PvP in OPO to their hearts desire.. looting away at the dead courpses that fall in droves at the skilled warriors feet, or RPing out a thief/murderer or running a group of bandits, or being a group of bandits.

So.. if you want their opinions on PvP to stop, do two things.

1. Stop suggesting that a PvEer should only be able to play PvP free if they are in Friends or Single Player modes. (I know not everyone is suggesting this, I'm talking in generalizations here)
2. People (and I know some of this is from the Devs as I'm sure there are plenty of PvPers who don't care about this, though some do) need to stop suggesting that PvEers need to be 'enticed' into PvP.

Done, problem solved.

Also, it would be nice if players on both sides of the fence stopped put downs, name calling, and treating people on the opposite side as if they are somehow less because they do or do not like PvP. It's happening both ways. Tempers are running high. Ultimately we have no 'power' over what the Devs choose to do, as we sponsered a game on Kickstart so the designers could take THEIR vision and run with it. It's nice they let us have these forums where we can put up ideas and preferences, but ultimately they will do what they do. I'm not sure that all the bickering is really worth it.

(Edit: Fixed the work of typo demons. Runon stentence demons, however, have won this battle. Next time though...)

 

Tim were all planning to enjoy this game and they have as much stake to comment in the pvp sections. This can appeal to the many, especially with the unique multiplayer system but as far as im concerned there is no way that the makers of Ultima Online could possibly just do away with pvp and make a system catering just to one group. PvPers, Pks, and PvEers need to find common ground because every single group was needed to bring out this games potential over the next 5+ years.

 

You will likely find as many reasons to dislike it as there are persons that dislike PvP, or even just a specific kind of PvP. In my case I dislike any kind of non-consensual conflict between persons, even if through a proxy (in this case, our characters), but you will find people that dislike it due to being unrealistic (often tied to not having meaningful consequences for breaking the law), due to being imbalanced (in open PvP situations the attacker will often only attack when he is certain of his victory), due to wasting time he could be using for the PvE he prefers, due to not being reliable as entertainment (no way to predict when the next fight will happen), due to being inefficient or unreliable for progression, and even due to drawing people away from other kinds of PvP.

This doesn't mean that a person that dislike one kind of PvP dislike all others. I can't enjoy non-consensual PvP at all, I prefer when PvP doesn't have much in the way of consequences, and I tend to stay away from PvP that requires every player to join as part of an organized group, but otherwise I play quite a bit of PvP.

 

Show me where I called people in the forum immature. It's easy to read into comments that are precisely made to indicate perspectives and attitudes I find immature. I would not call a specific person immature directly as I don't know them and I don't believe in ad hominem attacks. Such is the nature of debate that we should be able to give our opinions about ideas and other opinions, but not make blanket statements about the other person. I hope you can appreciate this distinction, as it's pretty important. And I hope this distinction isn't lost on moderators either.