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

Discussion in 'PvP Gameplay' started by antalicus, Aug 28, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Silent Strider

    Silent Strider Avatar

    Messages:
    1,067
    Likes Received:
    1,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Regarding land, the dev team is supposed to roll out more plots of land if too few plots remain, AFAIK. So, in this specific regard, I don't think this idea has a meaningful advantage.

    I'm not against separating PvP and PvE shards, but I don't think it will have the effect you seem to desire. By making it far harder to jump between PvP and PvE, I believe it will result in the vast majority of players opting to stay in the PvE shard, and it will prevent PvE players from making short forays into the PvP one when they feel inclined to fight, bringing down the number of targets. More so if the consequences for defeat in PvP are meaningful, which would make PvE players even more wary of giving PvP a try.

    Also, it would force friends or family members that want to play together, but have different preferences regarding PvP, to either not play together or to have part of them go to a kind of shard he dislikes in order to play together. This is likely to increase burnout and/or reduce interest from that kind of player.

    There's also the matter of the selective multiplayer. The kind of PvP shard you seem to want would require selective multiplayer to be turned off for the PvP shard, something I'm not sure is easy, or even feasible in a game where the server architecture can't allow a too large amount of player characters in the same instance.

    Besides, the PvE shard would likely still have consensual PvP included, making it even less likely for many players to try the PvP one. I'm somewhat biased in this, but if a player can experience PvP anyway, at a time and place of his choosing in the PvE shard (and both anytime and anyplace are valid choices) or randomly without any control over it in the PvP shard, why would he choose to relinquish control over his experience?

    In short, if the shards are separated like this, I believe the number of players in the "Felucca" shard will be, proportionally, even lower than in current day UO. It might very well look like a ghost town when compared with the PvE shard.
     
    TemplarAssassin and Grayhawk like this.
  2. Knasers

    Knasers Avatar

    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    3
    The reason I liked UO is because I lost this control (and admittedly, other's lost the control as well). I enjoyed playing PvE and PvP but I mostly played both types of characters in Felucia. It is much more intense of a game when there is threats out there.

    I cant see pvp staying active without full loot or some other bonus. With no real gain for pvp (cant raid dungeons to make money or do idocs or things of that nature) and the fact that we can have only one character, most people will just have a PvE character.

    I played UO till Trammel and I quit and started to play on the freeshards then for a few years. It was only once I went to freeshards I could attempt to compete in pvp. I still participated because it was 100x more exciting than pve.

    I brought up the idea of pvp being within the same area as pve earlier today as well (where everyone is an active target of pvp) but where people who are participating in pvp usually lose their mount (they are killed) and new mounts take a while to train (stay mounted). This would allow for pve characters to escape easier.
     
    TemplarAssassin likes this.
  3. Silent Strider

    Silent Strider Avatar

    Messages:
    1,067
    Likes Received:
    1,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Different players have different preferences. I myself enjoy both PvP and PvE, but only when they are kept separate, with no way for anyone to bring me into PvP while I'm doing PvE (the opposite would also be true, but I have never played a game where I can be forced into PvE while I'm happily engaging in PvP:p). Mixing PvP with PvE is the kind of thing that can make me quickly leave the game, or - more often than not - not even give it a try.

    I see it differently. IMHO the existence of real loss in PvP, without a way to opt out, would keep most players away from PvP; if each account can only have one character, and the choice between PvP and PvE had to be made at the character level, IMHO the risk of loss would make most players go with a PvE character, giving up on the PvP aspect of the game in the name of keeping some control over when they can be engaged in PvP.

    I have no problem putting that theory to the test; not only I think the PvE side would be far more popular than the PvP one if things like player looting are not optional in PvP, even if I'm wrong and the PvE side ends empty it wouldn't really affect me that much, since I plan to be self-sufficient anyway. For PvP players, though, if I'm not wrong, separating PvP and PvE into different shards, and making player looting mandatory in the PvP one, might bring the number of players doing PvP way down, perhaps even below what is needed to spark spontaneous PvP in the open world.


    I don't think that is going to fly. For my part, I simply won't play any game mode where I can be attacked by other players without first opting in to the PvP; I'll play exclusively offline if that is what it takes to do most of the content without being subjected to unwanted PvP. And I don't think I'm alone; while I might have a somewhat extreme point of view, to the best of my knowledge Portalarium itself believes about half the player base don't want much to do with PvP.

    Portalarium wants to make players that typically play offline instead choose to play online. IMHO that simply can't be done if those players can be attacked against their wishes while online.
     
  4. MagiK

    MagiK Avatar

    Messages:
    624
    Likes Received:
    644
    Trophy Points:
    105
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA, Maryland
    Some of you seem to have missed the official announcement of how PvE and PvP is going to be handled....PvP is by consent only, they have it figured out. And no need for condecending "rainbows and unicorns" remark was required.

    Just because I like my GAMES to be free from other HUMANS causing me grief, does not mean I am some soft squishie civilian who has never been in any kind of danger in my life.
     
    Veskandar, Sir Albert, Koldar and 6 others like this.
  5. CaptainJackSparrow

    CaptainJackSparrow Avatar

    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    1,561
    Trophy Points:
    93
    What this girl has posted here is proof that this thread seems to have continued on far longer than it should have. You can't just call PvP players sociopathic. It is not accurate and certanily unjustifiable without any reference. Continuing on and mentioning anger mangement, it is clear this woman is just trolling. Can't we just shut this thread down and move on?
     
  6. MalakBrightpalm

    MalakBrightpalm Avatar

    Messages:
    1,342
    Likes Received:
    1,480
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sol system.
    No, Jack, we can't. Largely because every time we beat this horse into a fine paste, someone starts yet another thread on the exact same topic.
     
  7. Adiun Tesserande

    Adiun Tesserande Avatar

    Messages:
    577
    Likes Received:
    670
    Trophy Points:
    75
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    College of Arms Building, Kingsport
    I'm practically the exact opposite of Cap'n Jack on the topic of PvP. I'll never do it under any circumstances, for any reason, and being unable to avoid it is a surefire way to lose me from a game. I mention this because, frankly, I couldn't possibly agree more with his last comment. We're not just beating a dead horse at this point, we're operating a bloody glue factory.
     
  8. MagiK

    MagiK Avatar

    Messages:
    624
    Likes Received:
    644
    Trophy Points:
    105
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA, Maryland
    Nicely done, you took the entire context out of my post. If you wish to quote me, then do so in context, I did not call ALL PvP players sociopathic. And Technically all gamers who kill HUMANS AI or Real in games are still exhibiting sociopathic behavior. To go around slaugheting humans is unacceptable in the real world, and thuse we act in our "Fantasies" a way that would be considered Sociopathic in the real world. Don't be so touchy....be accurate and use your reading comprehension. The way YOU took my quote and twisted it out of context would be seen as passive agressive :) Don't you just hate people who are actually educated :D (How one uses other peoples quotes can be illuminating as to exactly what type of person they are....if you misquote them or twist the inent of their words.... it is something to think about.)


    As for beating a dead horse....if the post is there I will comment as I see fit. If there is no post...I make no comment.

    Also I am not a "girl" If I were in fact female I would be a WOMAN and secondly I am a G.I.R.L. Avatar's are not necessarily about ego or self identification. I happened to like the 1980's Marvel Mutant, MagiK thus the avatar.
     
    Trebion likes this.
  9. Silent Strider

    Silent Strider Avatar

    Messages:
    1,067
    Likes Received:
    1,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not exactly what she has done. And, while I do agree that she cut a bit too close to using the argument in an insulting way, the fact non-consensual PvP tends to be more attractive to people with some sociopath tendencies is well known. After all, someone that is emphatic will find it difficulty to do harm to other players even through the proxy of a character, and so will be driven away from non-consensual PvP.

    Do take into account that having some sociopath tendencies is not an illness nor a crime, it's just a psychological aspect of the person. And also keep in mind that attracting sociopaths is not exclusive of non-consensual PvP; quite a few real world professions absolutely required in a working society tend to be a better fit for persons with some degree of sociopathy. As an example, leaders tend to have some sociopath tendencies, specially the ones that are able to make decisions for the good of the collective in detriment of individual persons (firing someone to save the company, for example).
     
    nightshadow and MagiK like this.
  10. MagiK

    MagiK Avatar

    Messages:
    624
    Likes Received:
    644
    Trophy Points:
    105
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA, Maryland
    Finally someone who GETS the concepts.

    Great post Silent Strider.
     
  11. MagiK

    MagiK Avatar

    Messages:
    624
    Likes Received:
    644
    Trophy Points:
    105
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA, Maryland
    CaptainJackSparrow You know....this could go on forever since you seem hell bent on making an issue out of things. For my part. I appologize if you took my comments as a personal insult. I do not understand your response in this quote...it makes no rational sense to me. You are name calling, I was using professional descriptive terminology. I cannot equate the two. As for "Solid Studies" that involve fictional cartoon charaters (care bears) Im not aware of those studies. I hope you find some peace of mind and soul along your way to Virtues espoused in this game.
     
  12. Sir Tim

    Sir Tim Avatar

    Messages:
    312
    Likes Received:
    181
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I wasnt sure if this topic would be bannable but I see that implying being for non-consentual PvP lends itself to being a sociopath doesnt seem to have the mods upset as you are not banned. So I will make the same argument with counter point. While remaining obscrure in my description as you have.

    By your description you can say that limiting Open PvP tends to be more attractive to people with some sociopath tendencies as well. If you use the definition in the Random House Dictionary:
    Being against people to have the right to choose how they want to play is described right there:
    • antisocial - Limiting how others wish to socialize through game play is also antisocial. It doesnt just hurt the people that want to disrupt others game play, it hurts the people that genuenly want to role play a theif.
    • criminal - Forcing someone to do something is salvery, which in most societies is a crimal act. One should not be forcing people to play a game the way one see fit.
    • lacks a sense of moral responsibility - Its a game, it should be our duty to provide immersion that follows the same nature of the world we know. It is a point that, it is morally irrisponsible of us to say 'no, the game can not be played how you want'. Espcially when it is a game and such an easy thing to code for open PvP.
    • lacks a social conscience - Not taking into acount this is just a game and not seeing how the above mentioned would be wrong, fits into this description. Further more not just, not caring, but actually going out of ones way to prevent it.

    So you can see the argument on sociopaths is on both sides.
     
    Bubblewrath and MagiK like this.
  13. MalakBrightpalm

    MalakBrightpalm Avatar

    Messages:
    1,342
    Likes Received:
    1,480
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sol system.
    @Sir_Tim You're doing it again, Tim. Someone stating that they don't want to personally encounter forced PvP does not constitute an unreasonable limit placed on those who do. Even if the entire world united under a single government, and that government, in it's constitution, gave you the right to have access to non-consensual PvP in any game you played, that still wouldn't mean that she, or I, or anyone else on these forums was required to play against you. Nobody is limiting your access, they are arguing for their own rights.

    Also, just because what you wrote is causing me physical pain:
    Limiting how they want to play is NOT antisocial. Specific limits may be, but the entire category of "limiting" will include some very social, and very necessary limits. A blanket definition should be seen for what it is: a weak and unsupportable arguement.
    • Slavery is very clearly defined in those societies that regard it as a crime, and messing with someone's video game doesn't make the cut. You'll have to try a little harder to make limiting PvP into a criminal act.
    • Ok, wait, are you actually saying it's our MORAL DUTY to make games PvP?? Seriously? This counter actually writes itself.
    • Again, Tim, you are basing your arguement on the dubious notion that PvP is actually a moral necessity, an inalienable right of all mankind. It IS just a game. Which means that you don't have any special humanistic rights derived from it, and it's not immoral to make it any which way. Anybody who's social conscience is actually bugging them about not wanting forced PvP actually DOES need professional help.
     
  14. MagiK

    MagiK Avatar

    Messages:
    624
    Likes Received:
    644
    Trophy Points:
    105
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA, Maryland

    Actually yes I agree with you. To an extent all Fantasy role playing that includes doing violent acts, or criminal acts against other human characters, PC or NPC entails what can be termed Sociopathic in nature... HOWEVER, the involuntary PvP option is chosing to do these acts against other REAL humans against their wishes bringing it a degree closer to actual real Sociopathy....whereas Consensual PvP is a mutually agreed to act (akin perhaps to the whole BDSM culture), and PvE play removes those aggressions to harmless inanimate object and fanatasy setting moving farther from REAL sociopathy and bringing it into the realm of pure fantasy.

    As for this JUST being a game, well yes it is, but working hard to achieve a goal only to have someone* come along and take from you that which you worked hard for is STILL a real harm to you especially if you have no desire for the PvP mechanic. I dont see any of the PvP crowd jumping in championing the Consensual PvP mechanic...what I see is the PvP crowd that is trying to MANDATE that they be allowed to force their will on ALL other players. I might have missed the champions of Consensual PvP posts....but there is a limited set of responders here.

    *edited for content/stereotyping ~ FireLotus
     
  15. menkje

    menkje Avatar

    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Consensual PvP? Its not sex.
     
    TemplarAssassin likes this.
  16. MagiK

    MagiK Avatar

    Messages:
    624
    Likes Received:
    644
    Trophy Points:
    105
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA, Maryland
    The game is slated to have a consensual PvP model, where those who wish the PvP experience may have it, and those who do not will be free of it.... I was making an analogy not saying they were the same kinda thing...though from one point of view it could be considered much the same thing....but that is a whole different philosophical discussion. :D
     
  17. menkje

    menkje Avatar

    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Interesting. So your saying we need an arena system so that people with PvP urges can satisfy their urges and gain the recognition they crave whilst protecting general society. :eek: o_O
     
  18. MalakBrightpalm

    MalakBrightpalm Avatar

    Messages:
    1,342
    Likes Received:
    1,480
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sol system.
    I'm pretty sure the words "arena system", and the associated concepts, appear NOWHERE in her post.

    There IS a middle ground between open world PvP with full loot and an arena. Unless of course, you imagine an arena slightly larger than the entire game world, that contains said game world. That would be SLIGHTLY like what she said.
     
  19. CountessCaterina

    CountessCaterina Avatar

    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Ladies and gentleman, I don't get a lot of chances to post but after checking out Starr today on another forum I frequent often(MMORPG)I felt I needed to post here.

    A direct link to this thread was posted in the SotA discussion area on MMORPG, well I will just quote the person so you can see what I am speaking of.

    Aragon100
    Elite Member
    Joined: 2/06/08
    Posts: 2027
    OP 10/12/13 1:21:10 PM#1
    One word that isnt allowed over at SotA website is the word ********. That is a forbidden word to use when describing the PvE players. Ridicolous to say the least.
    And here is a good example of what moderators at SotA allow when it comes to carebears describing the PvP players that enjoy non-consensual PvP and i quote -
    " I know of (that is of, not personally) MILLIONS who have managed to RP without any form of PvP They came from before a time of Computer RPG's and they existed for a couple of decades AFTER CRPGs were invented....and they still exist today. I will allow that people who wish consensual PvP have a legitimate right to that style, however I will maintain and studies have been done to indicate that those who prefer non consensual PvP are frequently exhibiting sociopathic tendencies....and may in fact need help. Also Anger Management classes may be of use to some of those individuals. " end qoute.
    https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-glass-is-half-empty-a-look-inside-why-people-are-opposed-to-open-pvp-and-full-loot.3140/page-8#post-59484
    This character named magiK on the SotA forums is allowed to put all these players together and call them sick people. Players that indeed enjoy a risk vs reward game with consequences should seek help cause they just are'nt not well.


    It is clear guys that generalization on either side of the coin and continuous bickering about it is extending outward from this site and into other sites(this is the internet after all). It isn't doing anyone here, or Shroud of the Avatar, any good what so ever. Please keep this in mind when you are speaking here or on other sites, try to be the best representative for SotA you can at all times.
     
    TemplarAssassin likes this.
  20. Silent Strider

    Silent Strider Avatar

    Messages:
    1,067
    Likes Received:
    1,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    @Sir_Tim:

    I agree that "sociopath" is a very loaded word. Many persons see it and immediately think of the most extreme examples, not taking into account that almost every single person - and I do include myself in this - has sociopath characteristics to some degree. Unfortunately, in this specific discussion, I don't think the word itself can be avoided; no reasonable substitute I can think of, or at least none that isn't as loaded as that word.

    Do notice that no one in the discussion went as far as calling anyone else a sociopath as in that dictionary definition, though. The talk was about some sociopath characteristics being related to enjoying non-consensual PvP, though I do think MagiK went a bit too far in that first post.

    Also, want to know other such behaviors that have some association with sociopathy? Impulsiveness. Glibness. Egocentricity. Boldness. Disinhibition. High self-confidence. High stress tolerance. Lack of long term goals. And so on. In the end, a lot of the feelings, and behavior, that drive people forward, when exaggerated, can relate with sociopathy. Those were lifted straight from different medical checklists used to determine the degree of sociopathy of a person, BTW.

    As for players that enjoy non-consensual PvP having some sociopath aspects: it's part of the package. Anyone that can actually attack another player without first making sure his target will enjoy the experience, and don't feel regret over it, has demonstrated a kind of behavior that do relate with sociopathy. Not to mention that roleplaying a murderer basically means roleplaying a sociopath. That alone isn't enough to classify anyone as a sociopath, of course, and like I said before you will be hard pressed to find anyone, at all, that doesn't has any kind of sociopath behavior at least some of the time.

    In the end, what I want to say is that I don't think there was any intent to insult PvPers, and while some characteristics needed to enjoy non-consensual PvP do relate with sociopathy, that by itself should be meaningless for anyone that isn't a psychologist or psychiatrist, and likely not worth discussing here. It takes a LOT more than just liking PvP to come even close to being the dictionary definition of sociopath.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.