What is the line between PvP and Griefing?

I agree, I like true consensual PvP. But res/spawn killing, ambushing, and outright criminal attitudes being played in a game just shouldn't be there.

 

I wouldnt want gold to come out of the killer's pockets. I'm saying that the player puts a bounty on the killer, but that's the old UO style. I'm sure there could be a more SotA way of doing bounties, however most of those features would be ok, imo.

 

IMO I think it just puts the burden of consequences on the PKr. make them think twice about their actions. The idea is to eliminate griefing not PvP.

 

I still don't understand why we have to try to encourage people that obviously don't like pvp, and will avoid that part of the game regardless of what is dangled at them to entice them. It seems to me pvp isn't that popular in games like this and we want to force those that don't like it to participate by getting better and rarer resources in pvp zones only, only so we have more people to kill. It seems selfish to me to try and force non pvp'ers into something they don't want because we need more people to kill. That's catering to one side over the other.

That's not going to work. If people don't like to pvp, there's nothing in the world that will entice them to do so. If we think all of a sudden they're going to magically want to pvp because of resources we're wrong. They'll do whatever they have to to avoid pvp in those areas. If that means getting up at 4 am in the morning and gathering on the off hours while there are less people in pvp zones, that's what they'll do, or they'll just buy the resources from someone. I honestly don't understand why a game would try to cater to the least amount of people (pvp'ers) over the most amount of players (pve'ers).

UO was a good example. When Trammel was available everyone flocked to it, and left the pvp'ers on our own, and rarely ever visited Felucca because they didn't want to be griefed constantly by us. People wanted to enjoy the game their way and weren't forced into going to Felucca if they didn't want to. Look at WoW, the pve servers were always packed more than any pvp server I ever played on (years ago when I played). That's how it should be. If people don't like pvp we should respect that and not try to force them into it, because we don't have enough people to kill. We that do like pvp should just deal with it, that there will always be less of us, and we'll see the same people day in and day out and that's all we got, or if we can't deal with that don't bother.

In my opinion there shouldn't be any pvp zones, if you want to pvp you flag pvp, if you don't you don't. I don't see the point in pvp zones except to force pve'ers into it when they obviously don't like pvp.

 

May I sig this?

 

That's a positive solution too. But since Portalarium has used the reference of sheep and wolves, I am afraid we are stuck with it.

I can remember when Felucca was empty too. When PvPrs crafted, mined etc... it seems most did it in Trammel. Housing became the only reason people went there anymore. So eliminate griefing and PvP might actually gain a role in the game. People might participate or might not. But clean up the idea from gankers and reclaim it as a viable form of gaming would be nice to see.

 

Well you go into a PVP zone, that's your risk.
But where I draw the line is as follows.
Kill a player once, that's fine.
After you kill them once that should be it, I mean people talk about realism. Well he's dead to you....period.

Griefing - standing in the rez area and rez killing him till you get bored.

My suggestion was make it a little more like real life.
You kill a guy once then that guy is invisible/untouchable by you or anyone else your currently grouped with for a certain amount of time. He is dead to you. And every time you kill him the time increases by x amount. If it's on the same real time day the time increases exponentially the same week it just doubles. The system would reset every week or so.
Of course if he attacks you, he then voids the above and you're free to kill him once again and if he attacks and you kill him again there is no invis/untouchable time.

 

At the moment, the game isn't really setup for pvp...

I went to get my hat....got killed by someone...no big deal...wait to respawn....screen comes up, dead again before I can even move....

Ok log out, log back in SPO and got my hat....I could have kept dieing, but why?

 

Quick question: is the only threat in a PvP area just other players?

Why not have PvE hazards present in a PvP area, especially ones that become more and more prone to attack those who camp in a particular area? And, perhaps, have the difficulty of said threat grow accordingly if it's repelled? Perhaps have said antagonists "locked" onto the characters who triggered it, so the foes can't be led away and dumped on someone else?

I think a bounty system would work fine, and I think the types of victories in PvP should impact a character's Virtues. Having a group of PvPers/PKers attack a solo low-level character? Goodbye Courage rating, hello Cowardice rating. Lead someone into a PvP area as an ally and then and attack the character? Goodbye Truth rating, hello Falsehood rating. Things like that. In turn, such actions could impair/affect a character's ability to get or achieve quests, because they're not virtuous enough.

I get some folks like talking the role of the villain, even though some games have ample enough villains already. However, I think that, in order to truly get a villainous feel going, it needs to go beyond Red v. Blue/Alliance v. Horde/Republic v. Sith attitudes. Sure, you can be a villain, alongside other villains, but that should never mean a villain is safe—they should have to be on the lookout for betrayal, targeted by other criminals, etc., and not just retaliation from the "other side."

Then again, why not hire veteran PvPers/PKers to do the dirty work of retrieving rare items from dangerous areas? Instead of hapless new characters going to a dangerous area where they're going to be preyed upon, have a SotA A-Team equivalent go in, deal with the hoodlums, and get the MacGuffin for you, for a nominal fee?

Though I don't care for PvP play, it should be allowed in some aspect. However, I do think that if it is allowed, PvP players should not be allowed to become the big fish in a little pond.

 

No but right now they are easily avoidable.
As to player ratings they are only effective IMO if the player cares about them. A lot of PK and griefing types do not care much about quests, crafting, etc... By the same token if valor was needed by doing PvP I do not see many PvE/RP types sticking around the game either.

 

What I am hearing is people want to impose their own version of rules onto a system that has very few rules.

This is not griefing, and if anything the person claiming to be griefed is griefing themselves.

If you don't like the rules for something don't play it. Because imposing a biased set of rules onto a game is an unrealistic expectation. I use the term bias because it comes from one perspective. What should be used to frame the rules is a balance the game devs intend to deliver.

Right now, the purpose this PvP hex serves is to frame out a PvP hex and to frame out the consent nature of the hex.

I don't play tic tac toe. I know that the person that goes first will always win or draw. To lose you either don't understand the rules or you choose to lose. Tic tac toe dies off as a viable game. I could try to come up with some rules to make tic tac toe more viable but it's still only viable from my perspective.

The real issue isn't rules are not in place. The real issue comes down to a person that wants to win at PvP will do everything it takes to ensure the win. If attacking first translate to a win or draw 100% of the time. Then winners attack on sight.

So the question is do you want to win at PvP? If yes, then you adjust to the rules until the rules adjust to you. If no, they why are you there?

Claims of griefing when you are not there to win PvP just seems odds to me. Claiming to be griefed when you are the one stepping into the arena is also odd to me. The productive direction of the descussion is WHY are people that are not interesting in PvP in the PvP hex.

Short answer: people that do not want to PvP will have to come to an understanding that there will be 5% of the map that doesn't fit the rules they are experiencing in the remaining 95%.

 

I think anything done in a PvP zone can't be considered griefing. You have agreed to enter the location and accepted the play style. Anything goes in a PvP zone.

 

I would normally agree. But if the goal is to entice pve into a pvp zone, with a dangling carrot, then it adds another dimension to this discussion, as it involves another play style. If they remove the dangling carrot, IE rare spawns and rare resources, then I would agree whole heartedly. But if the devs want the pve to go into these zones and "like it" then some things might want to be considered.

 

Failure to provide an acceptable balance set of rules from the perspective of those looking for their carrot should not be looked at as griefing.

I think the message needs a slight adjustment. People seem to be going in with the belief that they are there for their carrot. This is not the case. We go into a PvP hex to PvP and access to the carrot is due to success in PvP. That carrot is not free.

 

then you will have an empty hex ex felucca. Your argument is valid. It should not favor pve for the loss of pvp. What I am saying is that people just will not do it. Maybe at first some. But it will get old. You will be left with some of the hardcore pvp in the zone complaining that there is a lack of pvp. This is just my take on it. Its why I suggested that maybe something else might be considered. This scenario has happened before, and it always ends the same way.

 

Nobody is imposing rules on another person except Portalarium. That does not even exist in the game at this point in time except for increased resources catering to the PvP play style.

The issue in this thread concerns people who feel unrestricted ganking, PK, griefing, res killing, and other real life morally wrong attitudes are acceptable but then must be rewarded with increased resources for that.

Could you imagine a world that rewards the criminals for successful murder, muggings, assault? Most people do don't divorce their moral upbringing so easily. To them that behavior is abhorrent in a game or in real life.
If you truly feel they should go elsewhere do you want their development money to also disappear? I do not think this game could be made on just 5% of the money contributed so far.

 

That is what I have been saying since the Kickstater. How we frame PvP from the start can not be based on the established pouncing on the unestablished. Yet this is the road we seem to be following, once again.

PvP with a purpose that is greater than simple successful kills is the key. The risk vs reward draws people away from the rez/spawn points then for those that choose to PvP at those locations are removing themselves from the reward.

 

Acceptable balance... only to 5% of the people involved. Your premise of balance is faulty and incorrect. Adjusting the message. That message is Portalarium's and by their own admission, their design. So if they wanted it presented differently, then why haven't they? They have not because that is the message they want presented.

"The carrot is not free". I thought you said you were not there for the carrot.

 

This I agree with, Portalarium needs a better method of spawning and resurrection. Then PvP becomes risk reward comes into play.

 

I completely agree. I think that resurrection and spawning are a huge part of balancing the PvP areas.