The PvP Thread

@Owain - It's a damning argument from the perspective of game designers and publishers. They need players and the fact, as we can see from this thread, is that PKs do - inevitably - ruin some people's game experience. Some people simply do not care about person to person interaction. At a minimum, they want to pick and choose a la carte, what they want from an 'open world'. Many people here are strictly against non-consensual PvP - and they have not even been killed yet. Imagine how this board would look if they had just been killed this morning.

Being 'flagged', in the way some of the people are using it here, is being confused. The raising the pvp flag mechanic is a way of opting in or out of pvp. Being 'flagged', is usually a connotation that you are red (or grey) as opposed to blue. This usually occurred after someone had killed 5 blues, unprovoked - thereby labeling them a murderer. Even open world, consensual pvp had rules - like no fighting in the cities (exception of guilds or chaos/order shields). This is just good business.

 

@Ultima Aficionado:

The players that want to avoid PK aren't trying to impose a play style on the PK; they merely want to not even exist to the PKers. Which seems like a reasonable enough request because, if they don't get it, most of them will actually not exist to the PKers anyway because they will either be playing solo or not playing at all.

The ones that are selfish, IMHO, are the ones that want to impose a specific play style on others. In other words, the PKers that want to force other players to accept having their game ruined by being hunted by PKers.

It's quite telling in this discussion that PKers can't have fun without both having other players together with them on the game, and ruining the game for those other players, while PvE players can have their fun just fine when left alone, without requiring any action, acceptance, etc, from another player. This alone is proof enough of who is being selfish by wanting his play style not only preserved, but forced on the other side.

Sincerely, saying the PKers have a right to attack other players because they like that gameplay style is like saying pranksters and vandals have a right to damage other person's belongings because they have fun doing that. In both cases it's someone attempting to have their own fun at another person's expense, and in both cases I find it wrong.

 

@Silent Strider - again, that is well said. As much as I want open PvP - I understand your argument.

I have two thoughts on it though. First, for those players that do no want interaction with other players, why not just remain in single player or play solely with friends and no one else?

Second, no one has a 'right' to damage other people's belongings (at least in the U.S.). People have the 'choice' to damage my belongings. If they choose to do so, they may escape punishment or they may get caught and punished accordingly. This is the reason why people get a 'rush' when they do something illegal. I would also argue, that it is why the forces of 'good' - police, military, etc... - get a 'rush' when trying to stop the bad from occurring. By taking out fully open pvp - you strip that experience from the game. Even if you don't want that in the game - there is still a dynamic of the game that disappears - rightly or wrongly.

 

@Ender:

<blockquote cite="https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/?topic=the-pvp-thread&amp;paged=7#post-12985">First, for those players that do no want interaction with other players, why not just remain in single player or play solely with friends and no one else?</blockquote>

- Players that don't want PvP might want multiplayer. If that wasn't the case, do you think there would be PvE servers in other MMOs, or even MMOs where there is no PvP server option at all? If you want, I can readily list over a dozen MMOs with strong group content but no non-consensual PvP, starting with the ever-present WoW, down to recent games like GW2 and TSW.

- If players can completely avoid PvP by just switching to solo (or friend) play online, what is even the use of forcing them into PvP whenever in OPO? More so if, as you say, no one would play OPO except to PvP; if your scenario is the case, players in OPO with PvP disabled will merely experience something very similar to FPO, since the game shouldn't show them players with PvP enabled.

- Getting players to try OPO is desirable in itself, as it can strengthen the community bonds and make players play longer. Barriers to trying OPO - such as forcing PvP on any player that tries it - can be harmful to the game's longevity.

<blockquote cite="https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/?topic=the-pvp-thread&amp;paged=7#post-12985">Second, no one has a ?right? to damage other people?s belongings (at least in the U.S.). People have the ?choice? to damage my belongings. If they choose to do so, they may escape punishment or they may get caught and punished accordingly. This is the reason why people get a ?rush? when they do something illegal. I would also argue, that it is why the forces of ?good? ? police, military, etc? ? get a ?rush? when trying to stop the bad from occurring. By taking out fully open pvp ? you strip that experience from the game. Even if you don?t want that in the game ? there is still a dynamic of the game that disappears ? rightly or wrongly.</blockquote>

- Allowing players a way to avoid a game dynamic they legitimately dislike is often a good thing. It means those players are kept happier and have a larger chance to stay playing. If this can be done cheaply enough, and the benefit it brings those players more than make up for any potential harm to other players, it should usually be done.
("Legitimately dislike" does have some caveats; sometimes the players might say they dislike something, but like the game with that element included better than without it. Making the right calls for when something should re included or removed is often one of the hardest tasks for game developers. In this case, though, based both on my own experiences and external data floating around the Internet, I believe the dislike is legitimate.)

- That game dynamic won't necessarily disappear, it will just be restricted to willing players. The devs are even planning extra compensation for players engaging in it, to make up for the risk and the loses due to PvP.

- If there aren't enough willing players to keep it going, in a game that doesn't charge subscription and doesn't segregate players in multiple shards, then that makes a compelling argument that the mechanic wasn't that popular in the first place and removing it was the right choice anyway.

 

@SilentStrider

Again, your argument regarding why open PvP is generally bad for sales/sustainment of a game is both noted AND understood. I don't want anyone's play experiences ruined. Both the PvP'ers and the non-PvP'ers. There is probably a middle ground, but I don't see it. The reality of what you say, the two steps into the future, is the use of non-pvp account alt's to scout for pvp enabled groups. The mechanic breaks down here. The mechanic you want is then exploited and ruins the play experience of the PvP'ers.

Also, I don't think I said that people will only PvP in OPO - I would hope that the crowning jewel of that mode will be a sustainable economy predicated upon a strong crafting player base. This, more than pvp, will be the hardest things for SOTA to achieve.

Lots of games do PvE only. Lots of games are also currently moving from subscription to F2P.

 

@Ender:

If what is planned for SotA works, then a non-PvP character scouting for PvP ones will simply not work. To even see a PvP character you will need to be "flagged" for PvP yourself, so a PvE character scouting will simply be unable to garner any information about PvP characters.

Even just scouting the terrain might not work. Characters going to a single place in the zoomed out map might end up in different places if they are flagged differently. This seems specially likely whenever a PvP-only event is happening there, which is exactly when scouting would be most useful.

There are a few undefined scenarios yet, of course; we are still during early development. But it should be possible to achieve a set of rules that prevents PvP players from being nagged by "invulnerable" PvE players (unless the PvP players intentionally use grouping and friend lists to go to the PvE "version" of a place, of course).

As for the economy, as currently planned it will be influenced by every online player, including the ones that play single player online or friends play online exclusively; OPO is not segregated from the other online modes. It has a good chance to work, though, because, among other things, the devs seem intent to offer enough extra rewards to PvPers to make up for the extra PvP deaths, so economy should be roughly balanced between PvP and PvE, allowing both sides to be together and contribute to the game as a whole.

 

Strider, you brought up an excellent post and listed several other games with completely consensual PVP. Ultima has always been and will continue to be an open world, sandbox game. A sandbox game does not interfere with a player's experience by creating invisible barriers around the player, rendering him invulnerable to other players.

The truth of the matter is PVP will either make or break this game for several players. A big proportion of old Ultima fans, who enjoyed non-consensual PVP will not play. We are not looking for a hand-holding, theme-park simulation. We are looking for an open world where anything is possible without restriction of freedom.

I would be disappointed to see SoTA follow the route of every other MMORPG since WoW. I haven't really enjoyed an MMORPG since Ultima Online circa T2A; there are many others who share these feelings. I know several large roleplaying guilds only interested in this type of experience (Yew Militia, Shadowclan Orcs, UD) just to name a few.

 

@Ender said " It?s a damning argument from the perspective of game designers and publishers. They need players and the fact, as we can see from this thread, is that PKs do ? inevitably ? ruin some people?s game experience."

Still not seeing the damnation, and still not seeing how PKs in SotA will ruin anyone's game experience, given that PvP will be consensual.

Part of the problem is with definitions. You use PK and 'greifer' synonymously. To me, a PK is someone who (however this works) would be flagged as a murderer in game, having killed another player unprovoked, entirely within the design of the PvP system. It is a role playing distinction that a player takes on voluntarily, and Anti-PKs like me role play the people who hunt the murderers down and exact Player Justice.

Not entirely sure that is how things will work out in SotA, but I hope so.

 

<blockquote>Ultima has always been and will continue to be an open world, sandbox game. A sandbox game does not interfere with a player?s experience by creating invisible barriers around the player, rendering him invulnerable to other players.</blockquote>

Well there was the abyss in U4 you couldn't enter without the three part key, that was an invisible barrier... oh right and you had to unseal the dungeons with words of power in U5... oh wait... you were talking UO...

UO is not all of Ultima. This game is billed as the spiritual successor to the trilogy of trilogies... in case you missed what that is it is Ultima 1-9... of which UO isn't even a part. UO didn't have a story as its core aspect... this does.... this game is not UO. They are bringing online elements into it as a part of the story. This is not a self-deterministic world, this is a world that has a story to tell and the PCs play a part in that story... the PCs don't however define the story... that is RG and Tracy Hickman's job.

You liked UO, we get it, we really do. This is not UO and one of the key elements of this game is that they are giving the individual the choice how to play the game, either with everyone, just their friends or just themselves. Don't like it, that's fine... but that is what they have said from the beginning and that is what you pledged for. Want a pure PvP game, there are /plenty/ of those out there now. Want a true Ultima that happens to include online elements, you will have to deal with the fact that there is /a lot/ more to Ultima than UO.

 

We ll be in RPG and we must be FREE !

Full PvP !
Full Loot !
Full Craft !
Full Social Skill !
Full FREE !

Do what u wan in RPG.

 

@Abydos:

You do know that PvP is about as rare as a hen's teeth in real, pen and paper RPGs, yes? And that non-consensual PvP is even rarer because anyone intentionally disrupting the group is likely to be removed from it before long, not to mention that the GM/DM/whatever can simply overrule or undo player actions, specially when they threaten to destroy the player group?

Full, non-consensual PvP is not really a RPG feature. It's something that only really exists in some MMOs, those coin op arcade machines that allows anyone to challenge the current player, and a few rare online-enabled games. And it seems to not be really wanted, since most games that attempted to implement it languished with tiny player bases.

BTW: Wargames are not RPGs. Neither are those board games where a "game master" has to defeat the other players. And the mobs controlled by the DM/GM don't count as PvP because the DM/GM objective is not to defeat the players, but (when controlling mobs) to provide adequate challenge and an engaging story.

 

I have another view. Anyway, PvP ll be the most important part of SotA ( look the forum pvp ) and i lot of people looking for a Full pvp/loot game. I dont wanna kill newbies or carebears (no fun) but i dont wanna see pleople i cant get full interact whit them. Juste create a unique server for carebears.

In the other way, if someone wan a be a peace guy, he can play solo/whith friends.
All pleople i know waiting PvP and full loot into SotA. We dont looking for a game man,but for a great LB game. For me, UO was the best RPG ever. We was FREE.

 

" I dont wanna kill newbies or carebears (no fun) but i dont wanna see pleople i cant get full interact whit them. Juste create a unique server for carebears. "

I think this has been covered, @Abydos. If you are flagged for PvP, you won't see them. No need for there to be a unique server for PvE players, because the single server is always creating a unique instance on your machine, and is populating it with people you should be seeing. In your case, that is other PvPers. You may see a merchant in town, but I don't think there will be PvP in towns. Everywhere else, it's just PvPers all the way down.

 

Great !

 

Strider, many of the things you are saying simply are not true.

There have been several successful MMORPGS with a central focus on PVP, in fact the most popular game in the world is exclusively PVP. League of Legends has 1 mode only and it's 1 player against another in an arena type setting. The game also currently has more active players than WoW.

I have played many games of D&amp;D, where the DM did not restrict player behavior. That said, often players did not chose to attack one another, but it did happen on occasion. The fun of the game for many players is the unrestricted freedom present.

I think full, open PVP and loot will distinguish this game from the rest in a positive way. It will be just more remarkable trait of SoTA that other games do not have. All of this stuff about PVP games causing the player base to dwindle is just hogwash, I would like to see some concrete facts that open PVP causes players to leave the game. The only thing I have to go on are games that do feature it (ie. League of Legends, EVE Online, etc.).

 

@Elvish Dragon

I'm not sure what version of Ultima you played. Every version I have played, especially U7, featured an unrestricted world. I could attack shopkeepers if I wanted to, I could get on a boat and follow play a nonlinear sandbox game.

I remember in Ultima 2 I think it was that I had to kill guards to get a key to steal a ship for space travel. So, not only did Ultima not restrict your play you were rewarded for it in the early games. After Ultima 4 a virtue system was implemented where you could still do those things but you lost virtue.

Again, which Ultima game are you referring to?

 

@Ultima Aficionado:

The difference is that games like LoL, as well as any other game fully based on PvP, are by definition games based on <b><i>consensual</i></b> PvP. After all, there's nothing else to do in the game, so if you are logged, it's for PvP.

Consensual PvP works for many players, perhaps most of them, and is a lot of fun. As you mentioned, some of the most played games nowadays are based in consensual PvP, and even I typically play something with fully consensual PvP almost every day

The one that is rare, often unwanted, and that I really don't want to see in SotA is <b><i>non-consensual</i></b> PvP. The only large successful game with it I know about is EVE; every other game I've ever heard about with non-consensual PvP either abandoned that model (Ultima Online), closed down (more than I care to list), quickly burned through it's player base and is languishing with barely enough players to scrape by (Mortal Online and Darkfall, to the point the next version of Darkfall is implementing no-PvP zones in an attempt to better retain players), or else was made from the start as a niche game with a tiny budget that can survive on just a handful of players (Vendetta Online).

(Or else is an Asian game; seems to me like Asian players are, as a whole, way more interested in non-consensual PvP than occidental players. Some cultural thing, perhaps. It's telling that most of those games never make it to the US.)

As for freedom in pen and paper RPGs: it's a relative freedom, tied with the responsibility to keep the game fun for everyone involved. After all, if someone makes the game not fun for the other players, he will either be booted from the game or else the group will end. As such, except on deviant groups prone to disintegrating at a moment's notice, any PvP that happens in the game is in fact consensual, since it won't happen if any player has any strong reservations about it. If PvP happens in your RPG group it's because every single player, plus the GM, is OK with it, because otherwise you won't have that group together for long.

As for non-consensual PvP making the player base dwindle: ask RG. He has faced first hand the problem of trying to retain subscribers in the early days of Ultima Online, when PK seems to have been the #1 reason for players to leave the game. That bit of data is not my guess, BTW, but a quote form Chris, who likely got the info from RG himself.

 

@Ultima Afficiando -
<blockquote> Ultima has always been and will continue to be an open world, sandbox game. A sandbox game does not interfere with a player's experience by creating invisible barriers around the player, rendering him invulnerable to other players.</blockquote>

So I turn your question around on you, what Ultima game outside of UO were /you/ talking about when you claimed that it didn't render you "invulnerable to other players". I recall pretty much all the Ultimas you were invulnerable to other players... as they were just not there. Unless you knew of some BBS door hack I didn't.

All of the other games when you killed a guard or the like were PvE by definition. The specific line I referred to in my post by talking about invisible barriers was in direct reference to your statement above about invisible barriers. In most of the ultima games there were areas you couldn't just get to sandbox style without doing something before hand (In effect a flag being set). You couldn't get to space without freeing the princess, you couldn't get to the abyss without getting the three part key, you couldn't get to the dungeons without having the words of power.

In SotA you can't PvP with me without getting my permission.

All games have limitations on sandbox. Some of them are technical (hey this game doesn't let me perform handstands and fire my M16 with my feet, what a flagrant invisible barrier, I thought it was sandbox), some of them are plot drive (can't get to a quest area without getting the quest or performing another quest) and some of them are as a part of making the game possible to enjoy by more than just you (can't pvp unless they too are pvpers).

What this game seeks to do is create a situation where all the types of gameplay can coexist without stepping on each other's gamestyle. It does this with the instancing.

Everyone is talking about "flags". At no time have they talked about flags. What they have talked about is the dynamic sharding where if I set it so I play only with friends and friends of friends, I never see you and you never see me. If you are in the full online mode (which is the default mode) you are vulnerable. This is not conjecture, I have direct quotes in videos that cover all of that.

So address the system they are making and tell me why you feel it is necessary to interrupt my game play when I have set it to friends only to satisfy your need to terrorize non-PvPers when there are a lot of PvPers out there to interact with. Go on, give me one good reason why /your needs/ are more important than anyone else's?

I know people who literally cannot PvP. One has a medical condition that keeps his reactions slower than others because his hands shake, constantly. He can keep up with most PvE content just fine but not that guy running around him in a circle, because his hands shake too much there is literally no way for him to keep up with him. Answer me why he shouldn't be able to play this game with his friends in a cooperative fashion just because you want to bash some noobs?

What RG has proposed here is a system that could easily revolutionize the MMO market, it is a way for the same game to be enjoyable to everyone involved, not just one subset of users. You propose dumbing this system down to allow for only one type of play, give your reasons.

UO isn't the base from which we argue here. RG has already detailed out the system he plans to use. Explain to us why your system is better than that.

[edit: I removed a part about him editing his earlier post because he hadn't... this forum is just too clunky that I couldn't find his original post to quote, if anyone saw the original of this post, I apologize]

 

I'm not sure that League of Legends can be classified as a roleplaying game. No character progressive from session to session, no real storyline, no activities other than fighting in the same arena over and over again. It's a great game, I loved it back when it was called DotA, but it's not a RPG in my book. Your fighter levels up in battle, and your account gets upgrades over time, but that's about all it shared with RPGs. Levels aren't the defining feature of an RPG, or else Battlefield 3 would be considered one as well.

EVE Online is the only successful PvP focused MMORPG that I can think of right now.

Mortal Online has a tiny population. Darkfall Online had a tiny population as well, and its re-release in the next week or so might give it a bit of a bump (but they're adding some more safety measures I believe). I can't really think of any other PvP focused MMOs out there.

The "PvP as a side game" MMOs are by far more successful though.

I don't understand the motivation behind open pvp though. As a PvPer, why would I want to attack someone who isn't interested in PvP? They are not going to be very good at it, and they aren't going to pose much of a challenge. It would just be ganking them for the lulz. If some crafter out there was opposed to PvE content and hated dungeons, why the heck would I want to force him to heal my group in a dungeon? He'd probably be terrible at it. So why do people want to force this guy into PvP? What does he add to your experience other than an easy kill and free loot?

 

@marthos - Guild Wars. Rift. City of Heros/Villains maybe, never played them and EVE are the only ones I think right now although there are several coming down the pipe from kickstarter.