PvP Requests to Portalarium

Not to stir any pots too terribly but I think that's kind of at the core of it - (IN GENERAL) PvE players want rules all follow and (IN GENERAL) PvP/PK players don't want any rules for anyone. So it follows that you'd listen to that forum rule and others wouldn't

 

Huh? How is that non-consensual. I'm on a PvP server. I'm in a contested zone. Either one of us is free to attack the other at will.

It's not that I want to be attacked by a player any more that I want to be attacked by some mob. But stuff happens, that's the risk I took. He's certainly not a criminal for attacking me. In WoW, he'd be getting an honorable kill.

 

This is still consensual IMO. Unless there is no option to remove consent. If there is that option and you didn't remove the consent, you are still consenting.

 

Okay, this is how it isn't exactly consenual. If you dual you agree to fight someone, in a pvp area you agree to fight someone, in the open world with open pvp I didn't agree to fight that person, but I joined a server that allows that to happen. I could pick mutual fights, where I'm Horde, and i hit an alliance and stand back, and if they hit me back, I know we are ready to fight. those would be consensual, but instead most fights in the open world are not consensual. Those would be a sort of a PK situation.

So when Portalarium says there will be no non-consensual pvp, I don't think they mean in that style, they would call that consensual even though I would consider it a PK or non-consensual. Which is fine, it's a good system to have in place so that we can experience that thrill of being attacked unexpectedly.

 

"PvP everywhere, not isolated to certain areas so long as its consensual" - contradiction

 

No. This is exactly what consensual means. This is purely PvP. There's no PK at all. We're playing by the same rules. PvP absolutely has the element of surprise. Ambushes are fair game unless there's some weird exploit, which we try to avoid.

I couldn't care less about duals. That's just button mashing with no real purpose.

 

"Consent" is a matter of degrees, which tends to cloud the issue. In my mind, there is no such thing as "non-consensual".

In Pre-Trammel UO, "Consent" was given when you purchased the game. It was a known quantity that the game contained free-for-all PvP with the only means of avoidance being in towns.

That concept drove a lot of customers away to games with different rulesets, prompting EA to change the manner in which someone consented in the game.

----

Mishri defines consent at a closer level to the conflict then myself, which is fine. However, the definition of where "Consent" arises can cause a lot of unintentional arguments in these threads.

 

Personally, I think opting into PVP would mean that anyone could attack anyone. The consensual piece in my opinion would be accepting to enter an area with PVP enabled. Anything where you are in a PVP area and only people that checkboxes to fight can just lead to tons of issue and other needed checks and balances. You don't want people that "opted out" of the fight to be able to heal or buff those that did, etc. Not to mention my biggest concern Friendly Fire. I might not mean to attack someone, but I also should not be able to just spam fireballs at the monsters surrounding all the melee folks.

In the early days when the Devs talked about consensual PVP, they spoke of it more as you being aware of when you could be attacked and being able to avoid that quest or area. In this scenario PKs can exist in the PVP world without issue even if they have to join a PK guild to do it.

Honestly if PVP in SOTA is a "I check a box" then "person B checks a box" then I probably won't bother with it at all. That is just too much work and would be a nightmare for any kind of guild warfare. I doubt it will be like that and be more free form when in a PVP enabled zone.

 

No because I didn't want to fight, I frequently didn't even fight back, tried running away, but they killed me. So then I log on with my main character and corpse camp him, that'll teach 'em for running down my lowbie alt.

How much of that encounter sounds consensual? Compared to I'm running around I see an AC, they run towards me, and we attack each other.

Very different feelings, attitudes and ways of engaging each other.

 

Getting caught with your pants down and saying "time out" I am fishing is not going to cut it. You don't want PvP set out of PvP. Consent is you are aware you are open to attack and you have a choice to be there.

 

Did you have the option to remove consent?

 

No contradiction at all. Pvpers can whack each other anywhere, they just can't grief a non consensual pvp player. Simple.

 

You just described the exact reason why there should be no forced exclusive pvp areas at all. Pvp should be everywhere, but only against others who have consented.

 

I don't like the term "consensual" either. We're only using it because it's their term.

The reason I hate the karma system isn't because I can be attacked without consent. It's because I need consent to fight back. If I'm a "good guy" player, I have to play the "would you like to PvP today?" "why yes I'd like to PvP today" dance. Because I don't want karma. So I have to play by silly rules to PvP with someone. He doesn't. He's happy to go red, so he can attack whenever he wants. So the karma system, which was intended to give the "good guys" an advantage over the PK, does the opposite. It ties your hands you you can't really initiate combat. So he can always play for tactical advantages including surprise, 2v1, quick escapes, or anthing else. As I've said before, "if you outlaw PvP, only outlaws will PvP."

A faction system has none of this mess. We play by the same rules. In something like WoW, I have tons of lore telling me why I hate the other faction. In something like Eve or L2, people just make their own.

 

Well we still gotta wait for the Devs to release something on this.
Meanwhile at the PVP threads....

 

I just pretty much described the plan for PVP in SOTA, as I have heard it, from the beginning of the campaign. The Devs have mentioned areas being contested, so there may be area which are temporarily flagged as PVP only. I imagine if there are any other PVP only areas these would be Guild wargrounds.

Most of people that support PVP expect to not see PVE players until they opted in for PVP. Also, not all PKs want to gank newbs or people that want to opt-out: they just want to RP evil and attack any PVPer without having to declare an affiliation.

 

You don't want to, you've made that clear, but thats not going to be the case in game with many others (not all others, but many).

Fact is, with 30k+ players, it is inevitable that there will be tons of ganking and griefing if its allowed. You may think otherwise, but I assure you thats not the case.

 

Name a game that doesn't. If a person can type in words which you can see, or even if you can just see their character, they can find a way to grief you. Whether its allowed or not its going to happen, and regardless of whether there is PVP. No human to human contact is beyond exploitation, and Portalarium can not do anything to avoid it.

Very few people in this community truly want to force PVP on people that don't want it; Just as a very few people don't want any PVP in the game at all. However, the plan from the beginning was to give people the choice via the way Selective Multiplayer works. In the end, you won't have to engage in PVP if you don't want so what PVP players want will not affect you.

 

words and people can be ignored. Being griefed when your peacefully fishing in a lake cannot. to compare the two things is like apples and oranges.

 

Some people have an easier time ignoring things they don't like than others do. They may be apples and oranges to you, but some people classify all those things together as fruit. The point that bad players will find ways to skirt the norms, but that doesn't mean you throw out the baby with the bathwater.