PVP & Death: Current Thinking Megapost

By calling PvP zones "murder zones" you insult me as a PvP player.

Crafting, PvE, and PvP are all on separate skill trees. If you want to gather resources without fighting it would be best to ask for a special place where only crafters can gather.

 

I think you are missing the point on this one friend. You said "let people that want full loot flag themselves" I really hope you are not being serious.. That's just a lazy answer thats not at all constructive. People are talking about pvp and making the environment more open and adding a bit of spice to playing in the field. We can't just add a "flag" to everything. Hope we can do better than that..

 

I'm not the person you quoted but I have multiple times said that I want the people who are asking for the added risk of full loot to have that. Personally, I don't think it should be a 'flag', especially not one that can be turned on and off, but instead let guilds, at conception, choose to have the 'standard' loot rules or choose to have the 'full' loot rules. That choice should be permanent, or at least take a lot of time/effort by the guild to change it. I think ALL of the PvP players who choose to go 'full-time' PvP by receiving the Blessing of the Oracle should be full loot rules only.

 

Then that definition freedom has a problem. The difference between a PC and a NPC is that behind the PC there is a person who has paid to have fun playing a game. So if he is forced to interact with other players in a way he doesn't want to (i.e.. he loses his freedom to play his way) he stops having fun. That's why consensual PvP is important, because then nobody can force another to a play style. The main objective is that a person (not a player, not a character, a person) can't unilaterally steal the fun from another person. Everything beyond that it's just mechanics.

Well, as you said, there is a 1% of the cases in which I'm pretty sure that's the case. But that's not the reason I said we should be more specific and I'm sorry if I sounded like that. The thing is, I'm reading this thread and it's reaching a point where I don't know what the people is arguing for or what do they want. The devs have proposed a system, which obviously has it's flaws, and asked of ways to better it. I don't think that speaking in vague terms can help devs know what people want, so I think it's more constructive to state specific ways to better the system or offer specific alternatives to it. The main goal is that, at the end, we can understand what really each one of us want. And because terms like "freedom", "risk" or even "fun" mean very different things for each person, being specific it's the best way to do that.

You are right on that, some people have an almost irrational fear of PvP. But it's naïve to think that,if allowed, there isn't to be some players whose definition of fun is ruining the fun of other players (and I'm talking about these 12 year old with a high lv char that go to starting areas to kill newbies and steal their precious "starter sword of whatever" which has no use for them but meant a lot of work for a lv2). They might not be the majority, but in my opinion, a system that allows that kind of behaviour it's a failure as a balanced system.

I must agree with you on most of this. The main problem here stems from the fact that the 9 single player Ultima games and UO have, actually, very little in common. And, however, RG want to make SotA a game that has everything that was good in a SP Ultima game but also the social interaction of UO, and that is hard, specially since the game is gonna be stronhly story-driven. (multiplayer freedom and story are hard to combine).
And social interaction must not be limited to "commerce" and "cooperation", "conflict"must be a part of it too, and here is where PvP comes in play. We can't, however, expect that it means to have the same PvP system that UO had. It had it's pro and cons, and the devs know them probably better than most of us. They are trying to create a system that would be better for the game as a whole (even if it means being slightly worse for some people). They can be mistaken in some things, of course, and that's why constructive and objective feedback from our part can come in handy.

As I said, that's all mechanics. So as long as every person involved in that mechanic is aware of that (back to my first comment on consensual PvP), the mechanic should be the one that allows for mroe playstyles and the one that is better for the global economy. In this case, I agree that having consensual PvP the loot limitation is too narrow.

It's what I hope too. This game has the potential to be really great. I hope they achieve that potential.

 

Indeed. And ironically, I don't think jumping in to announce whether someone has made a useful contribution (which just means they've been brow-beaten into codifying their comment in order to mollify his extreme uni-directional sensitivity) like some kind of greek god passing down wisdom from olympus, constitutes a useful remark. People can make their own assessment.

 

Of course I'm serious. If you want full loot then you can flag YOURSELF for it and set an example. I wonder how many will follow and opt in for it as well. You should have the complete freedom to do what you want with YOUR character, but you shouldn't get to dictate to others or restrict their freedom. The system as outlined seems fair and equitable; I don't see any reason to change it without testing it first.

There's no 'spice' to having access to an opponents entire inventory of items. That is what scares people away from the game and it has been discussed ad nauseam in this and several other threads. People might want to try PvP and they might want to go for some of those special resources that drop in PvP zones, but they will not do it if they are subjected to being killed and stripped down. It's a moot point here, but I would be willing to bet that if UO had implemented limited looting very early on PvP would have been far more palatable to the masses and would never have been such a huge issue. Instead they allowed the corpses to be stripped down to the unders and then even hacked up! Talk about humiliating!

Personally, when I get immersed in a game I see my character as an extension of myself; I know others who do as well. To have to be subjected to constant humiliation from other players is the absolute bane of any social game and it will have serious consequences if it can't be controlled. That being said, I certainly agree that the winner of a fight should get something and the system as outlined guarantees that, but it goes too far when you can take everything. Defeat is bad enough and if it's not then they should make it (systematically) more harsh via debt, rez sickness, etc. This will be a worse issue in SotA, because we all only have one single character to experience the world with.

IMO this boils down to players deciding the punishment of other players. Full Loot is one punishment and there are tons of others that are thought up for the amusement of the victor... corpse camping, forced begging for return of gear, taunting, slurs and insults. The list goes on! The game should determine the punishments for loss, not players. Some might look at this as just deserts and they don't care about their stuff, but others do care and they quit. Other players are not reliable sources of protection either but that is an entirely different discussion.

This is another of the many issues that are not given equal importance among players and will never be understood by everyone.

My analysis is that there can be absolutely no full consensus on a solution. Everyone buckle up! We are going to be arguing all the way through the 5th game!

 

I don't necessarily agree with the idea in discussing general world pvp, as I still think the choice to simply be immune to being looted or engage in pvp takes a lot away from the elements of the game, but I have to applaud you for throwing an idea out. I think what you said would work great and if SotA had a "terms of engagement" options that guild leaders can toggle and agree on with warring guilds. So good idea!

 

BTW, there is an important detail we're all forgetting: SotA is NOT an open multiplayer game (it's never been, it's never sold otherwise), but an instanced one in which people are put together automatically by the system "according to their play styles".
So, problems to inmersion as "trying to kill a player not PvP-flagged" or "having a non-PvP gatherer walking around in the middle of a furious battle" are actually non existant, as the system will put those kind of players in different instances.
Given how in the last test instances were limited to 64 players (the limit may rise, but not too much), we have to take that into account when trying to judge or envision a PvP system.

 

This is a much better and fuller explanation of what I was beginning to get at in my comments about that 'beyond combat' phrase, thanks Venison. It's those interactions between people ostensibly in different groups which could make this game great.

 

Another conflation of looting, which if it happens is an action by definition mandated by a game's ruleset which all players have chosen to log in to, with a load of random totally unrelated stuff. You may want to imply that players who want to loot other players are bad people, but that's not really OK . If the boot were on the other foot you would be screaming up a storm.

 

Interesting but I don't think you are a particularly valid arbiter of what is and is not irrelevant.

Your condescending tone leads me to believe that you are in favor of Full Loot specifically, because you feel that you should be able to take what you want from whomever you choose. You wish to dictate the terms of your victory and punish the loser by relieving them of their worldly possessions. It's not about good or bad, it's about curbing unnecessary and abusive behavior. You might not see it as an issue, but I would argue that most every game in the industry has decided against you.

No matter how hard you argue your position, I am confident that Full Loot across the board will never happen.

P.S. - Using flowery language doesn't support your ideas any more than speaking plainly.

 

Let's get this straight. Looting a player in a game in which looting is allowed is entirely unrelated to taunting, slurs and insults.

You're reading condescension where it's really just intense weariness of people getting away with saying that people who are pro-open world are bad people IRL. And then you go on to decide what I think, what I want to do, and who I want to punish? After complaining about slurs and insults? It's so absurd. Venison did a good job of explaining it, if you're interested in learning; I'm genuinely sorry that you seem to think the fact that I want the possibility to kill someone means I want to kill people all the time. Gameplay can be so much more nuanced than the black and white you inhabit.

Not sure why you felt the need to comment on my writing style other than frustration at failure to muster a convincing argument against my points.

 

Gotta agree with this. If there's a flag for everything we might as well have ten different servers. K.I.S.S...
The objective is to get everyone playing together in the same, shared space.
A single flag for open PvP always is fine, that allows people who want the freedom to fight anywhere to be able to do so in a lore-based way.
Adding more and more crap to the player, shoving pop-ups in their face every five minutes with nonsense about loot flags, ransoms, and whatever else, is just too much.

Bzus stated it best: As long as the risks are clear, there should be no problem. As long as the rules and conditions/consensuality of PvP are layed out obviously for the player, there should be no problem.

 

Don't really want to butt in, but:
If we're talking about UO, the full loot mechanic combined with the open PK anywhere mechanic brought about some really obvious abusive behavior. Taunting, slurs and insults might hurt your feewings, but abuse of the game systems by the player (yes, this will happen, the second an exploit is found, it will be abused) can completely ruin another person's GAME experience, not just their mood. And remember, "evil PKers" are just a small subset of the player base. Are they important? Sure, but they are not the ONLY kind of player.

Everybody knows it hasn't happened yet in Shroud, the point is to prevent it from happening. It's a game for everyone, dawg!

Personal experience, I've bought this game for three people.
1. The first doesn't like PvP, ever. He likes small group content, exploration, roleplaying. I showed him this thread and he said "well, I'll just never go into PvP areas. Problem solved." This is a very real player, someone who has just as much a right to play this game as myself or anyone else.
2. The second enjoys casual PvP, he hops in Guild Wars 2 pretty frequently and enjoys the WvW. I do too. It's fun playing objective based PvP when we get bored of PvE questing. Note I said FUN without fear of loss of progress. It's still exciting and adrenaline pumping.
3. The third enjoys PvP in and of itself, but she enjoys storylines more. She will play Shroud for the story FIRST, and secondarily to slaughter any player threats she comes across. She will not flag for open PvP, because she thinks that's "stupid", unless she needs to stalk a griefer and murder him.

And myself, I'm a combination of all three. I love PvE, group content, exploration, roleplaying, objective-based PvP, duels, story, and conflict in general. What I don't like is full loot and non-consensual PKing. Neither does anyone I know, regardless of whether or not they are going to play Shroud. Not sure what that means, but there it is.

 

And I want the opposite.
There is the problem here.
BTW, I am ok with a mode for that style of play.

 

If by your tag you are a RP player rate me in RP points the realism on using a thief that cant steal everything he/she wants(with of course restriction to the weight of that he tries steal etc)and even if succeeds using that skill he takes something based on random drop percentage.
Curbing and abusive behaviours are out there in the real society as well.Yet some avoid or bypass the laws and reach the citizen.Only way for a citizen to be fully safe even in the most strict country is be locked up in his/her house and even then you cant know (remember the non linear nature and the random factor that a human adds).But as normal thinking and adult people we go out considering the possible risks and we are ready for the rare encounter of a bad behaviour (which is certain to come up at some point in our usual work-home-work routine).If you go lets say to a ghetto place with very bad fame in your city(and of course a normal adult of ages 20-22 and above will know them) with fancy clothing and a big pack of money in your pocket you either are very certain of your self-defence skills or you challenge your luck.Maybe police will be able to save you maybe not,but as a person i think you have some experience that can drive you away from taking a road that passes from that place and avoiding the majority of unwanted risks such as the example.
Why that cant be the case in your game life?Why should be barriers in player to player interaction?
And no industry hasnt decided against that style of play.Its the motive adapted from WoW and its clones.And its logical that when you have a game so much item oriented you cant have a random player looting your Thunderfury.That would be insane.How can we have a war/siege of a city without the winners take the loot from the bodies?And in the same time a monster can random loot my corpse?Whats the RP value on that?
Why if iam in a X city shouldnt be asked for example if i want to be attacked by a PvE event e.g an undead invasion on that city?
And if paying to play a game means that i want to be protected ,never be bothered if i dont want to and whatever is chosen, so PvE hasnt obstacles why for example PvP flagged players should be bothered by random monsters and not have something like immunity and tag them when they wanted?
Iam confident more or less that full loot wont happen mainly for the reason you said.People are too much used to the WoW motive.They afraid that much with the idea of losing the item that they never really play.And like it or not multiplayer games started based on competition.And yes its nice to get a group to go to a dungeon and kill monsters and get nice gold and shiny items but not all adventurers in the dungeon that you picked are of the same nature as you and you must accept it and be prepared for them.Or is it that difficult if you gather resources near a city to go to a guarded zone if you see a PK or a player with suspicious playstyle?Its all part of a living action-reaction world.
The barriers that people want (if they are the majority or not i dont know)will only lead to a flat world that players do a gaming monologue of actions and the only reaction/feedback is trivial and linear cause it comes from AI (it will reach that level easily after some time of a player playing and farming thus leading him/her to know plus and minus of each monster and its AI).

 

There seems to be a bit of misconception by some posters of who can post thoughts on PVP and this thread in general, I may be wrong, but I was pretty much certain that any of us on the forums have a right to an opinion on here, you don’t have to agree with it. Name calling certainly is not required.

 

Sincerely, if I talked freely about what I actually think of players that initiate non-consensual PvP, I would be risking a ban. Let's just say that, if I get that option, I'm prone to permanently blacklist anyone that I find griefing, by my personal definition of griefing — which is fairly extensive.

And I don't care if 99% of the players that want open PvP are nice and not griefers. The remaining 1% can still ruin the game for me.

It's not an opinion that I've reached lightly. I've been playing video games since Pong, and MMOs since before WoW (though I didn't play UO). I have tried other games with non-consensual PvP before, including EVE and a couple real time mobile games with PvP. I'm too nice to ever become the hunter, and being the prey is not enjoyable. Not at all.

And it's not even the PvP, per see, that I'm against; it's just the non-consensual part. When done on terms I enjoy — a level playing field and no setback for the loser apart from the time he spent losing — I really love PvP, and tend to spend a lot of time playing it.

Take in mind what I said above. Now imagine if I would ever have spent over $500 on a game if I had even a shadow of doubt about whether I would be able to completely avoid PvP online.

There is nothing on the KS page that states that PvP is non-consensual, and a few hints that open PvP is the opt-in exception rather than the rule. Also, take into account selective multiplayer; that would have to be completely removed in order for PvP to be non-consensual.

Non-consensual PvP was never promised. And, while a few statements can be misinterpreted to make it sound like non-consensual PvP would exist, they were countered by other statements clearly saying that non-consensual PvP wasn't part of the plan at all.

Marketing aimed at those players is one thing. Promising non-consensual PvP is a completely different thing.

And for every statement from RG that could be construed to mean that non-consensual PvP was possible, there was a direct statement from Chris Spears clearly stating that non-consensual PvP wouldn't exist in the game. It felt like each of them was leading the marketing push towards a different group of players, actually.

And where, exactly, combat multiplayer capabilities ever imply that said combat is non-consensual?

You have open PvP in 100% of the game world, as long as you opt in to it. PvP isn't restricted to a "tiny subset" of the game world.

If players actually want to engage in PvP you will have all open world PvP you could ever want. If they don't... well, it would speak lots about what players actually want.

The one thing I want, and I will push for it, is for no PvE content, whatsoever — or reward useful in PvE that doesn't have an identically powerful equivalent obtainable through pure PvE — to be locked behind a PvP requirement. This is the core of what I consider not forcing players into PvP. As long as this is met, making PvP truly optional for anyone that is interested just in PvE, I won't be against whichever rules are used in PvP.

I'm trying to understand what you mean here.

If player looting was mandated by the ruleset, in a situation where I can't avoid PvP with 100% certainty, I simply wouldn't be playing. I'm never, ever, going to loot another player in a game; it would make me feel as if I was stealing something in the real world, a deeply disturbing feeling that I'm not going to stand in a game. Like I said earlier, I'm too nice to ever become the hunter in a non-consensual PvP game.

He has also said multiple times that SotA won't be UO2. He isn't just copying UO with a different IP and a new engine, he is making a different game, which certainly means that he can make different PvP rules than the ones that were briefly used in the first two years of a game that is over a decade and half old as of now.

 

Rune you haven't posted any thoughts on PvP, only thoughts about the thoughts of other people.

 

Dont point out the character mate.I had a PK amongst many other characters and i dont consider my self being a bad guy.I just love to have a fully fledge PK character and play from times to times with him.
You may not be the hunter guy.I respect your character and your wishes.But by not being the hunter type doesnt make you a sheep.Like i mentioned above with IRL example to another person posting here,
you have the experience to avoid bad places and gameplay from people that doesnt suit you.Even if you were a peasant in a medieval town and lived in your house you wouldnt be a sheep.Whole raiding armies have been
beaten or driven back by peasants and militia.
All the people that post in favour of a PvP with boundaries write as if they will be the only targets of armies of PK's that will roam the land and on top of it they wont be able to do anything?!
And if so by being such a good tempered guy IRL as you say (and i believe you)would lead you not to defend yourself on a possible bad random encounter ?