The PvP Thread

I would like to bring up one other side of the pk'ing dynamic - the end game. There was little that was more satisfying in UO, then to be one of the blues rushing in after hearing that Deceit had been overrun by PKs. This is an important consideration that we need to recognize in this debate, and in others - that sometimes without x there can be no y. Thus, without evil (pks) there can be no good (blues). Following that, without good and evil, there can be no meaningful end game.

I know, you say - 'this does not include crafters'. I concur. I totally understand Calem's argument. How many times did I mine ore, smelt it into ingots, and then have it looted from my dead body? A lot. Too many times to say without being embarrassed. But, for each one of those instances, there is another where I successfully made the run back into the town boundary yelling 'GUARDS!'. Or, there were the times someone would up to me while I was happily mining away, and strike up a conversation. Were they going to kill me? Maybe. Should I run? Maybe. Did I know? No. And that is part of the overall formula. Foreknowledge excludes excitement. Or, as above, without mystery there can be no excitement.

Obviously, I don't have the answer. No one who played UO is coming at this from a neutral viewpoint. I never murdered another player, but I definitely killed reds (and was killed back in turn), and I was glad they existed, because it gave me a sense of adventure.

I do want open PvP, I really do. But, like Caleb pointed out (and I believe), if implemented on a UO level, it will ruin others' play experience. I don't think it should, but I am a realist. I think the best we can hope for, in the current state of MMO gaming, would be a system that allows for open PvP, but retains several 'safe zones' where farmers, woodsmen, and miners can go and do their thing. The idea that a crafter is fighting a pitched battle against a fighter is natural - of course they are - two different goals in life. Likewise, a crafter should not be able to travel to far off lands - outside of the safe zones - without complete impunity. Would you walk around the outskirts of Brittannia with nothing but a tunic and an axe? By allowing for open world pvp, you also allow the good (e.g., alignment) players to shuttle crafters to far off destinations. To encourage cooperation, while not stifling competition.

Cheers!

 

Calem, you bring up some excellent points. The pre-Trammel UO has several flaws but it really was a beautiful thing at times as well. I have accepted that there will never be another "Ultima Online" the way it was. It just isn't plausible, the greatest thing about UO was its novelty. There was no other experience that came before it. Sure, there were MUDs but it wasn't the same. However, don't forget how fun and exciting those times could be as well.

I don't want the game to be intentionally buggy and exploitable. I want there to be real freedom and to enjoy a sandbox style MMORPG. Every single Ultima game was a sandbox, where you could do almost anything. I don't want invisible barriers ruining my gaming experience. This is something that "John the lumberjack" and I both have in common; just as I should not be able to have fun at John's expense he should not be able to have fun at my expense.

The fact is that publishing companies are primarily interested in making profit. Companies choose to follow a paradigm that is proven to work and make money. This is why they followed in the footsteps of EQ. Every single MMORPG released has basically the same exact gameplay. There are several of these games readily available, I hope this isn't one of them.

The difference between ruining John's experience and ruining a PK's experience is that the player ruins John's experience, whereas the developers ruin the PK's experience. You are approaching the issue from one side only. You must take into consideration both group's considerations; in-game mechanisms to prevent the PK from doing what he enjoys ruin his experience and hinders the capacity to roleplay.

I am concerned how PVP will work in this game as well. It isn't an easy feat to accomplish, because there are so many sides to consider. I refuse to play this game if it adopts an EQ/WOW model. I am not interested in that type of game, there are hundreds of them I could play right now. The one person who is capable of creating a game which favors both sides is probably Richard Garriott. The original Ultima series has influenced the modern roleplaying industry in a lot of ways. I am sure this will be a unique experience and bring back some of that novelty felt with Ultima Online, which is part of what made it so great.

 

Good points Ender, a virtue system cannot work without evil!

 

The fact is, even in a fully opted in, PvP warzone, there's plenty of opportunities to grief. You can ambush, zerg, snipe, exploit terrain to kite people away or into guards.

This just give people an opportunity to fully opt out. Or to say, that might be fun some other day, but I really want something different right now.


And a virtue system absolutely works without evil. In fact it works even better. You're choosing to side with honesty over compassion in a classic morale dilemma.

 

@Ultima Aficionado:

The difference between the PK experience and the PvE experience is that the PK experience requires ruining the game for the PvE players in order to be "fun"; this is a destructive process that makes the PvE players leave the game (Chris went as far as saying PK was the #1 reason for players stopping playing pre-Trammel UO), and when enough PvE players have left the game also stops being fun for the PKers.

On the other hand, the PvE experience is self-contained; it doesn't requires ruining other player's experiences to continue. You might say that it ruins the PK experience, but it doesn't require ruining the PK experience to be fun; the PvE experience will continue being fun for PvE players long after the PKs have left the game, without the self-destructive streak of the PK experience.

There's another experience that will be included: the consensual PvP experience. It does require other players engaged in the consensual PvP to be fun, but contrary to the PK experience, it doesn't ruin the game for those other players; rather, it makes the experience better for everyone involved. It should, thus, be also perfectly sustainable.

So, the way I see it, by removing the PK, the game removes those players that actively work to make the game worse for a part of the player base, and is left with only the content where multiplayer makes the game better for everyone. Only the PK loses, everyone else wins, and the game is better for it, more able to retain all kinds of players except PKers, and to provide fun for those players longer.

And, for those that say they want the risk, you will be able to effectively flag yourself for PvP all the time, so you get that risky experience too. It's also likely you will get increased rewards for doing game content while flagged for PvP to make up for the chance of being killed in PvP.

BTW: the crafting and combat progressions won't hinder one another. A crafter can get as good at fighting as a pure fighter character if he wants, without limiting his prowess as a crafter in any way. Thus, it will be far less likely to find defenseless craft-focused characters in SotA than in UO.

 

"The fact is, even in a fully opted in, PvP warzone, there?s plenty of opportunities to grief. You can ambush, zerg, snipe, exploit terrain to kite people away or into guards. "

None of the above are examples of grief play. Those are tactics, all of them valid.

 

@Owain

Which is why I'm OK with it. People will still complain and make excuses, but in the end there were lots of ways around it. And if they really wanted to avoid PvP, they could opt out.

 

Strider, flags are unacceptable. You simply do not walk up to someone and say, "Excuse me sire, will you lower thine flag so we may engage in some friendly consensual PVP combat?" That is just silly.

I am not sure what caused players to leave but Chris undoubtedly has more insight than I do on that matter. The problem with pre-Trammel was there were no consequences for a PK. A virtue system would ensure evil doers are punished appropriately.

I have read nothing about crafters having fighting abilities as well as crafting abilities. Where are you getting your information from? Even if that is the case, that's fine. I think a crafter should be able to defend himself from a PK in one way or another.

 

@Ultima Aficionado - the comment about crafter's having fighting skills came out during one of the online dev chats or during the final 24 hour countdown. I believe the idea was that since there will be no alts, your one character will have a crafting skill tree and a fighting skill tree

As for virtues existing without evil, it is not plausible. If there is no evil, there is no standard with which to judge good. Goodness is the basis of the virtues. Therefore, if there is no evil, there is also no basis for the virtues. Following your thoughts on honesty and compassion - those terms have no definition if the inverse does not exist.

How do you define honesty? Probably in one of two ways: a) acting or speaking in a truthful manner; b) not acting in a deceitful manner. If there is no deceit, there is only honesty. If there is only honesty, then honesty no longer has meaning as it is a constant. The virtues, are 'the virtues', because they are 'ideals' set forth against a backdrop of the 'less virtuous' - the evil.

All I'm saying, is that if there are no player controlled anti-heroes in the game - the game's moral choices are nothing more than 'would' or 'could' dos. Why? Because there is nothing on the line. A blue who runs into battle to help another player makes a real moral decision - one with real stakes (that being loss of gear, notoriety, fame/karma).

People in this thread mentioned that they felt that pk's ruined the game because a death, and the subsequent loss of loot/resources, represented real 'time' lost. Well, I agree. It is time lost. But that time is also what is at stake in a real moral dilemma - help another player or turn a blind eye.

 

@Ultima Aficionado:

If the instancing as proposed by Chris & RG works you won't walk up to someone and ask him if he wants to PvP; instead, while you are "flagged" for PvP, you shouldn't even see players that are not similarly "flagged". You will be able to attack any player you can see (unless you actively manipulate the matchmaking system to be put in the same instance as PvE players, but that is effectively asking to see players you can't attack).

RG apparently dislikes the concept of setting a flag on the UI, so multiple ways for "flagging" oneself will exist: participating in a PvP event, accepting a PvP mission, joining a PvP guild, and so on. Also, doing tasks while PvP flagged should provide enough extra rewards to compensate for the extra risk, so if there are enough players that actually like being exposed to PvP, you should see enough targets to enjoy something similar to the PK gameplay, but where all targets have actually accepted that role and, supposedly, actually enjoy the thrill and the risk.

(There will likely be a way to set yourself for PvP on an ongoing basis without joining a guild, though, since some players seem to be asking for that.)

If this works, the only dissatisfied players should be the ones that simply want to ruin other player's experience, to force into PvP players that legitimately don't want to experience it. If the concept works, players looking for a fight, players that want the extra risk of being vulnerable to PvP, and even players that look for weaker targets to defeat should all get what they want, without the need to ruin the game for players that don't want to participate in PvP.

And even if it doesn't completely work, it's likely that the advantage of keeping the PvE players happy out-weights any potential lack of targets to predator-type players, keeping in mind that other kinds of PvPers - in other words, those that accept fairer fights, as well as those that enjoy the risk of being attacked by more powerful ones - will likely have more than enough sparring partners and "Predators" willing to oblige them.

@Ender:

A player can be evil without ruining other player's experiences, as long as he only attacks players that have consented with the risk, plus NPCs. Which is what the currently described PvP/instancing system should provide: the players that enjoy being at a risk get some extra reward to make up for their extra losses or lower gains, providing targets for those that want to portray evil characters, and those evil-portraying players can supplement their intake of evil by attacking good NPCs and doing other non-combat villainous acts. He shouldn't even have immersion broken for him due to "invulnerable" players he can't attack, since he shouldn't even be able to see those unflagged players anyway.

BTW, the issue with PK isn't merely the loss; it's also the fact that another player is controlling the attacker. There's an extra psychological aspect when the fight involves a human opponent, one that for many players sharply amplifies some emotions attached to the event, including the bad ones. For example, while not exactly pleasant, I don't really mind being "ganked" by unpredictable NPCs, but I can't stand being subject to non-consensual PvP even if it's actually a fair fight.

 

I just don't think there will be a PK. The whole concept only existed when there was no story. There's a story now.

You'll ally yourself with some guild or faction and their friends and enemies will be yours. It will be similarly to WoW, Aion, RIFT or any other faction game. They're red to you and you are to them. Both sides will be morally justified in killing.

And again, virtues work without good or evil just fine. That was the whole point of ultima "is it OK to stead bread to feed your starving family?" No one is evil in this case. And you build a whole game on both sides believe they have the morale high ground. (All the major faction MMOs do this. One side may look darker but they're not at all evil, they believe they are right.)

I think this game can work with dynamic and player controlled factions. So that it doesn't suffer from the inherent imbalance of two locked factions. You can even be associated with many sides of many faction conflicts. I've used the Sid Meier's Pirates! example of this.

 

Primerib, that was not the point of Ultima at all. The point of Ultima was that it was a sandbox game, in which YOU chose which path to follow. Attacking an enemy of your guild is not against any certain virtue. It is what you are expected to do, it does not create evil. In Ultima 7 the choice was up to you.

I do not want to see this game follow the footsteps of WoW, Aion, or RIFT; if it does, then I will not play it. Those games are essentially theme-park games, in which everyone experiences a similar play experience. This is sandbox game, I suggest you do some research on the differences between the two.

VIRTUES do not work without good/evil. GOOD defines virtue in one direction, whereas EVIL defines virtue in the other direction. There are 2 ends, hence the scales of justice, which is also a virtue. The last time I checked Ultima is not a "major faction" MMO. Ultima Online existed long before factions.

You should not be required to join a faction to participate in PVP. The game should be an open, sandbox style as was the original Ultima. The original Ultima was immensely successful regardless of what anyone says about it. It was the first graphic MMORPG and is essentially the grandfather of the MMORPG industry.

 

@Ultima Aficionado
I guess you played a very different ultima. There's a set of questions where you pick one virtue over the other. Neither is wrong. There isn't evil. This was made ultima IV-VI such great games. Choosing justice over compassion (or vice versa) happens all the time.

Sandbox was an excuse for having no real story. There's a story now. I dont want the rigid factions of WoW. But factions are what enables PvP with purpose. And it doesn't need to be good vs. evil. As I've said, there's no major good vs evil MMO. Everyone has followed Ultima IV's example of having everything morally justifiable.

 

In UO, PK was a player designation. The UO game designation was murderer, and it was a necessary designation that was/is applicable to an online multiplayer game. Whether SotA designates them as PKs, or by some other description entirely, I think there has to be a mechanism to separate players who support and defend the Virtue frp, those who do not. So I think yes, there will be PKs in SotA, players who prey off other players, who violate the Virtues, and who become outlaws as the result of their actions.

I would be amazed if in a game that is designed around Virtues if there WEREN'T the equivalent of UO PKs.

 

@Silent Strider - I can't disagree with that. I think that reasoning is the basis for the systems implemented in most mmo's currently.

@Prime Rib - What you are talking about is moral relativism. Were the 9/11 hi-jacker's doing something unethical? You may argue on a religious front that what they did was justified. You may also argue on a western-style of morality that what they did was wrong. That is relativism. The reality, is that we, as rational people, know the act was morally wrong. Guilds are no different that the relativism argument, it is all a matter of where you are standing as to what is justified.

In regards to the starving family dilemma - I don't think I understood your first comment (regarding honesty over compassion), but that clarified it. And, I think I can buy some of what you are saying as well. Virtues have to be ordered by the individual, there is no universal right or wrong. My only concern is still the idea that virtues lose meaning if there is not an opposite force. Because, the choice is not just honesty or compassion, but also dishonesty and callousness. Again, without the latter, your actions go from being honorable and virtuous, to simply logical and at best, noble. The virtues are only virtues because only a few people possess them. If this were not true, then every NPC should be the equivalent of the avatar.

Lastly, there will be PKs. There are always PKs. And this is the most damning argument for open PvP. There will always be PKs because some people are jerks (the real world equivalent of evil) and will join the game with the intent of griefing players. I don't know how to solve that, but I do like the ideas proposed by some earlier posters regarding sanctions (ie: 20% stat/skill loss to murderers).

 

@Ender, if PvP in SotA is all consensual, how is the existance of PKs damning. They are just players, playing within the rules of the game, role playing villians. It isn't any more damning than someone deciding to become a blacksmith.

People have odd ideas about PvP...

 

I'm not saying there isn't evil somewhere.

But from the start of Ultima IV, through every faction MMO, through many of the deeper characters such as in Tracy Hickman's books, it's simply not that clear cut. If there's really just a good and an evil, it's a boring story. Conflict comes from interesting choices which simply aren't that black and white.

It's possible that they will still have PK in this game. But it simply isn't needed.

Better than your hijacker's example would be United States vs Native Americans. If you're a settler on the prairie savages are raiding your home. From your PoV you've done nothing to justify the attacks. But from point of view of the native Americans, someone built their house on your land and you want them to leave.

It's really not hard to create these little conflicts all over the game. Helping either side can make you give you the same thrill as a PK or anti-pk but both sides are actually not evil, and advancing the story. Rather than just griefing noobs until they leave the game.

 

I would say murderers are pretty much evil. Killing innocents? Yeah, that's evil.

 

A "PK" should be brandished as a murderer and an outlaw. A PK also should not be able to enter towns unharmed. However, in-game mechanisms should prevent a player from PKing someone. This COMPLETELY removes a style of play for an individual or an entire group of people, an example of which is the ORC guild in Ultima Online.

People who are seeking another game similar to WoW providing a similar experience for all players have plenty of options. Every Ultima game has been a sandbox MMORPG which is not an "excuse" for lack of plot or anything else. A sandbox game is intended to be free and exist in a world with a multitude of possibilities, not every experience will be the same.

Players who want an in-game mechanism to exclude PK's are selfish. They simply want to prevent an entire type of gameplay because they don't enjoy it. Again, invisible barriers to completely restrict a PK entirely remove an entire group of players.

The reasoning that many games have adopted a "********" style is not sufficient. A game created properly with the element of PK'ing is just as likely to thrive as one that does not permit it. The "carebears" are being selfish and relying on in-game mechanisms to eliminate an entire style of play.

 

"However, in-game mechanisms should prevent a player from PKing someone."

Why would this be? I may be flagged for PvP (however that works) but that doesn't give every Joe Bag O'donuts walking down the the street the right to try to kill me. An attack unprovoked that results in death is still a murder, and murderers (PKs) are outlaws who should be able to be killed on sight with impunity.