To Those That Do Not Favor Non-Consensual Player Combat

Some of the examples of what people want for full open world PvP are extreme! But I'm assuming that is because they hate the idea of it rather than feel those scenarios may actually occur...

I'm really hopeful that PvP can be meaningful, and encourage as many people as possible to experience it in a way which suits them. Raids or quests that 'flag' you for PvP have great potential I reckon. Especially if there are PKs encouraged to hunt you down (I doubt much encouragement will be required). Otherwise there could be increased harvests in riskier areas. It might take time to balance this but I'm sure it can be done. Let's say you are able to mine 10-20% more ore per hour in a more dangerous area BUT you are on average attacked once every few hours, then it's a trade off?? Get away with it, you're laughing and rich. Die twice in a week and you're worse off... That's a very loose idea but I hope the premise makes sense.

I would hope that with the potential for everyone to be interlinked and with enough people given the right incentive to try/risk PvP that there will be enough 'bait' for the full time PvP crowd.

I maybe wrong and I may be naive but I hope I'm right.

 

Sounds like a good question. How do you KNOW you don' like peas if you won't try them!

Because I don't like player competition-based video games with the exception of few fighting games (and even those suck to play online).

I will not thrive, because it doesn't interest me. I'm not firing up a fantasy role-playing game so that it can devolve into chivalry: medieval warfare (I tried that too... not fun). It just isn't my thing and I believe I should be able to opt out of it. How I opt out of it is more open debate. I like RG's idea about quests. I might brave one of two of those, but OPEN PvP. Never. I hate the whole idea. It destroys my suspension-of-disbelief and it's a form of gaming I don't enjoy.

 

It was already said that they will not make you go into PVP zones for the story but for side quests it wasa possibility. You are also running into an area ofa lot of time spent for potentially little gain.

In other words, there is a supposedly strong adventure game here first which means making PVP mechanisms where either a single player or a group of friends don't have any PVP could mean extra work to provide that for R1 when the goal is to get a game out first. Not that there won't be any but rather simply adding in more emphasis to a system that is more mmo than adventure game first, is probably not wise.

You guys are seemingly caught up in the mmo aspects of something that was and is emphatically started to be less about mmo. Which I do frankly find contradictory to what portalarium are doing considering the major emphasis on housing and crafting over a quest system and combat in the first nine months.

Who knows maybe they are silently working on those, but, it still had not been changed (i.e. This is not an mmo) in anything they have said since the ks ended.

 

None would be acceptable as this is not a PVP centric MMO but a story centric RPG and I have no interest in dealing with all the pointless annoyances that go with progression based PVP.

If you want to PVP go play a competitive PVP game like League of Legends or even World of Tanks. I know it is scary having to deal with balanced PVP and not being able to rely on gear, level, and number imbalances. You will lose a lot at first. But once you get into it skill based battles are great and very satisfying when you win and you know you deserved it.

 

So i guess I can tell you the same if you dont like PVP go play a single player game like Skyrim ..

 

Or I can play a story based RPG like Shroud of the Avatar. But Skyrim is great too same as Witcher, Torchlight, Marvel Heroes Online, etc. A lot of good RPGs available now both single player or multi-player. Lots of good competitive PVP too. Not just Counter Strike any more. Check them out.

 

It will be difficult to fully RP in a multiplayer world without the ability to resort to the last resort of diplomacy. Opening that gate allows wolves to enter, and makes the task of design and programming exponentially more difficult (assuming you don't want the wolves to own the game). Is the reward worth the risks?

 

If you look what they say in the kick starter:

Well I can continue to quote the kick-starter, RG and the rest of the dev team on how they focus on the story and fantasy role-playing while PvP are hardly mentioned in the kick-starter. What you can find about PvP are like this:

Or in the Pledge that says:

So the game they promised in the kick-starter and a lot of people start giving them money for is not a heavy PvP game.

 

FFA PvP in a diverse community, is that even possible anymore ... (imo) perhaps the biggest issue holding back true Sandbox games.

People have different expectations when they join a FFA PvP RPG, those that expect the community to act somewhat like they would in real life,
friendly social with some negative, soon realize they made a bad choice in game selection and leave.

Party Poopers will kick Nostalgia in the rear.

 

Me? Let's start by calling any deaths during PVP without 'consent' a PK.

Anyone who is PKed should not lose 'stats' when they die, and should 'respawn' however that works, rather swiftly. sure they lose their 'loot', but other than that they are back in the game rather quickly.

The PKer, should be flagged such (permanently), and that flag should enter them into 'perma-death' mode. now if they are killed, they have to create a new character, losing all items in their bank that aren't attached to their account, and start the game over from the beginning. Also, all stolen items from their previous character (their PK loot) whether they still had them, or gave them away or sold them doesn't matter.. the 'worth' of these items will be added up, and subtracted from their new character's balance. (so their new character will have a negative account balance, and will serve time in the Clink until that debt from their previous character is paid to society.)

With these consequences in place, i would gladly accept the option for full and open non-consensual player combat.

 

I don't think solves the problem.

Let's say you're playing a crafter gathering resources. I'm grouped with a group of PKers out to grief random people. We come kill you, and you lose everything. We will likely lose our characters, but we don't care. We're only motivated by the desire to troll/grief others and frankly don't care about our disposable characters. And when our PK characters are eventually permanently killed, we roll another and group with other PKers to go right back at it.

The PKer isn't really dissuaded from their behavior, but we potentially drive the other player away from the game.

How is this a good thing?

 

Thing is that it will take time to re-level your characters once they died so the mount of grief you will be able to inflict are limited.

 

That one all depends on how high in level one needs to successfully "grief random people".

If the user is simply out for easy lols, killing low-level newbies would be fairly simple with a low-level character.

 

Even if you could systemically distinguish between a murderer and someone who is simply roleplaying to the hilt (literally), the consequence of imposing permadeath on player killers would only serve to make the PK more selective. He would only initiate a fight he knows he can win. His alt would casually observe his prospective victims and only log the PK character in at the opportune time. Once he got his rocks off he would log that character and resume his observation alt. The problem grows when you have entire guilds behaving like that.

In short I don't believe it will solve the problem.

So I think it will all hinge on those incentives you cited and probably some disincentives. You will not be rid of those people. It may be that the only way it can be dealt with is to somehow make those who have a psychological need to kill innocents a special regulated way to do that. Make them the content for the rest of us. If they PK then the next time they log that character into the server they discover they are a kobold, who only understands the language of kobolds. Sure he will metagame, but most likely only with kobolds and other monsters, along with a scattering of alt spies.

It might actually work pretty well.

 

Especially in a group.

 

Perma Death

No, not perma death for the murderer, for the victim.

What you say?!

Yes, when you get killed by a murderer you are given an option to report the crime. A bounty is placed on the murderer. Until the bounty is collected the victim is filtered out by the match making system. Effectively perma dead. Once the bounty is collected the victim is given the option to unfilter or leave it.

This gives the people that just can't deal with PK the way out. It will be slower, they will get PK'd, but it will happen less and less. Eventually the PK's will chase off all the victims, only with this method they do not have to quit the game.

 

Ha, cute.

Though, I can't really tell if you are being serious or not.

Seriously though: A "Blame the Victim" approach tends to alienate the people you are attempting to protect.

It was noted by the devs that singular blacklist filtering is not technically feasible. If the "Killer" sorts into the most populous instance first, that effective blocks the Victim from entering that instance.

Get enough of those blacklisting entries going, and eventually the victim simply falls into an SPO instance every time, effectively isolating the player from the multiplayer system altogether.

Another win for the griefer.

 

This.

 

Very drool then. Very drool indeed.

 

Actually.... Why don't do the opposite? If the killer can't be sorted in to an instance where his previous victim are he will be sorted in to an SPO instance. That would it risky for the PK because if he really are a griefer all his victim will "ban" and he must stop grifing or stuck in SPO. This would be account bound so there is no way to get around it.