What is the line between PvP and Griefing?

Btw, what is a Virtue world without villains?
Yes we need villains!!!!

 

Sorry it's not a PvP hat. It is obtainable in single player online mode.

Some people are utilizing design flaws by Portalarium. Whether that is considered PvP or griefing will ultimately be up to Portalarium.

What I would like to see in a PvP zone is a flow of battle not a camped spawn and res point. There is no fun in camped locations. After all what challenge is there in that.

I saw this at the park the other day and it made me think of this whole issue....
A little boy looked up at his mother and said, "Look mommy I killed the little ant as he came out of the hole, am I big and strong mommy."

 

I'm sorry, but that isn't even vaguely the same thing.

 

I too was ganked by Envy and his group. They waited patiently for me to start crossing the bridge before they came after me though.
After they killed me, I simply called upon some friends and we all went back to PVP. Sadly, they already left.
That is the risk you take going into PVP zones.

 

That story seems very benign to me. No big deal. Just a small bit of risk (a couple of PKers).

But what if you don't have friends? What if you do but they're not online or you simply don't have enough of them? The problem with open pvp zones like this is that the risk doesn't scale well. If people start to show up in Solace Bridge and find there's always 10 more PK's then they have friends, they'll just stop showing up.

That's why I don't agree with the "that's the risk you take going into pvp zones" answer. I think we need to design the game a little smarter than that.

When you play football (for example), you don't give one team 3 people and the other side 11. If the game is not competitive, then it's no longer a game - that's when people quit playing. At the same time, I understand the want to have an "open world" where fights are not always "fair". I'm ok with that, but it has to be within reason.

I'd say the reasonable solution has to be something that allows players to put the odds in their favor, but not indefinitely. There has to be risk for everyone. So let's say you're part of a group of "bandits", "pirates" or "highwaymen" and you have no interest in a fair fight? That's fine. I have no problem with you running up and down the coasts or the king's road intercepting ships and caravans to your hearts desire!

But you should be worried about something, you should have real risk involved with doing that. Maybe you have to keep your base of operations secret or else risk it being looted? Maybe you have to watch out for bounty hunters? Maybe you have to avoid getting caught or you'll spend time in jail? The point is there has to be some kind of equalizing force that keeps it all in check, otherwise you'll only have some players having "fun" and others just avoiding pvp zones altogether.

 

I think that open pvp areas should be really sandbox, the only rule open pvp is open pvp, no one is forcing you to go to open pvp areas.
You are trying to put your own rules on every single aspect of this game.

 

I'm trying to make PVP meaningful.

Open PVP sandbox's have a fantastic history of failing to attract all but a handful of people. The way the combat system is so heavily dependent on levels and the numbers of people you have on your side...it's predictable what's going to happen. The largest guilds will control the pvp areas and the only pvp that will occur is ganking and rez killing.

What a complete waste of development time, money, and resources.

 

People should really stop with the whole ideal that PvP should be 'fair'........manufacturing a PvP world where everyone is equal, where battle numbers are even leads to very very dull PvP.

Even the lowest levels have a purpose in PvP.........they fall into two camps, healers and cannon fodder. Those who have no guild or friends.....well that is their choice and if they want to PvP should design their template accordingly.

 

I think this speaks for itself.

 

I didn't say it was the same thing, I said (at the risk of quoting myself), "I saw this at the park the other day and it made me think of this whole issue...."

So what is yourstatement "that isn't even vaguely the same thing referring too?"

 

Because the thread you just happen to place it in makes it seem like you are making a comparison.

 

@Envy

My OP is not about fair or not fair. A game would be absolutely boring if all people were equal. However, I do believe it a design flaw to only allow a single entry and exit point at the same location as the resurrection spot into a PvP zone. That speaks to poor programming, poor design choices, and leads people to exploit or take advantage of a design flaw. It also leads people to become disgruntled and unhappy. If we want a successful game then there has to be a balance or a method better than what exists currently. I think the level needs to be redesigned drastically.

If I understand your point; it is, Portalarium made it that way and you are going to take advantage of that. No matter what the cost to the community is? If it makes people leave the game early and drives donors off then so be it?

Is that your point? If not what else are you trying to accomplish?

 

He's having fun. Fun outweighs the other stuff.

Which is exactly why you have to design the game so the other stuff is protected.

It's not Envy's fault, nor is it within his control to built a better game. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

 

You will probably find that the only reason players spawn in the same location is because the death system isn't complete. My real point is that people seem to be freaking out over a system that is not complete because of some weird belief that it actually is, along with over exaggerating it's current effect during what is simply a testing process.

 

I agree that it is his choice. Its my choice to not go there. And I have not because of this reason. I suspect many others do not go there because of this also. But yes, its his choice.

 

I don't hate Envy at all. He found an obvious exploit and used it. Some see it as griefing and some do not. I want Portalarium to come up with a better method. Otherwise we risk all PvP zones becoming monotonous as people camp the arrival and res points. That just seems very boring to me.

 

Point taken on the death system being incomplete.
Yes people are freaking out.
I was hoping in this thread to come up with constructive ideas on how to make PvP more engaging and appealing without watering it down to the masses.

 

Sorry, I didn't think you or anyone else was hating Envy, I was simply using that phrase to make my point.

Open Sandbox PVP is kind of pointless. Darkfall is a great example. If you're not crushing someone you're being crushed. I want more than that.

 

No apology needed. Just wanted others to know my post wasn't a like or dislike of an individual.

Yes there needs to be more than open sandbox PvP.

• There needs to be contested resources, multiple entry and exit points.
• A way to respawn that can not be camped.
• A way to arrive and have your screen loaded before your avatar is dead.
• A bounty system to provide consequences for PK'rs. The hunted gains a reward for being active in game and avoiding the bounty hunters. The bounty hunters gain a reward when they execute the offender. What a game of cat and mouse that would be!
• An arena system with rewards for participation. The reward should be no more or less than what could be gained in a random fight with a similarly leveled mobs.

 

I'd add to that:

• Quest driven PVP
• PVP that scales to individuals or groups. For example, a mountain pass that you can only get through if you're alone. The pass may let ONE more person in that could potentially fight you, but this guarantees that you'll have a 1v1 match up.
• Powerful Artifacts that when carried automatically make the player (open pvp) and can always be looted upon death (or stolen in storage).