Poll for Non-PvPers/ Idea for "Open World" compromise [UNOFFICIAL]

The problem I have with PvP are purely roleplaying issues.

If your PvP style is to roleplay a murderer then it should not matter if your victim are NPC or PC because from a roleplaying standpoint they are the same. Even if your PvP style is more of a bounty hunter type it should not matter if your target is PC or NPC.


Then we have the next issue; PvP is just that Player vs PLayer and do not necessarily need to involve attacking each other. Two weaponsmiths competing to get their swords sold on a open market is also PvP.

 

3 Pages of this since Midnight.
I'm impressed.

 

He might not, but he wants to be potentially subject to being the target of PvP, and to keep the game "fair" he wants to force everyone else to accept the same thing.

It boils down to not caring at all if the game is ruined for everyone that can't stand non-consensual PvP the same way, just so he can have his fix of dangerous play.

Thankfully the devs seem aware that many players feel like their game is ruined if they can be targeted by PvPers. And, sincerely, if it seems like I will be forced to engage in PvP in order to play all PvE content online, I will likely just sell my two most expensive pledges and keep my Digital Explorer one to play the game offline.

BTW, I'm all for parity between PvPers and PvE players as far as average progression speed goes. I do think the devs should monitor how fast PvPers and PvE players accumulate rewards and implement bonuses to bring PvPers to the same progression speed as PvE players — or, better yet, build into the game systems to automatically find the correct bonus and implement it in real time. This would allow players to choose whether to flag for PvP or not based on what they prefer, rather than based on metagaming reasons like progression speed or efficiency.

 

See, this is exactly what I personally DON'T want to happen. To me, this implies a gear grind and the only way to play competitively is to obtain and own the best gear in game. While I understand that this is one incentive to the PvEers ( ie: get better gear to fight harder NPCs ) this should NOT influence PvP. If I wanted gear-based PvP I'd play SWTOR or WoW.

Those PvPers that DO wish to see this implemented are usually the players that like a gear-based advantage over lower geared players to either compensate for their own lack of skill or because they simply enjoy dominating noobies.

I'm all for the creation of small incentives and bonuses for both play styles - for example, a +2 Sword of Strength, which wouldn't provide excessive abilities, a massive advantage, or must-have gear. However, balance must be maintained to prevent one style from having an advantage over the other as well as preventing a barrier to entry.

 

The whole economy is PvP, and again is an example of the best of both worlds for the price of one playstyle.

There are still PvE-Only players arguing that PvP should not have any tangible rewards.

The double standards are hilariously hypocritical at times. The same people who complain about how much they hate PvP will usually ..at some point.. turn their story around and bring "the joy of PvP" into the argument of why they deserve everything in the game that PvP players get. To them, the sentimental value of PvP is enough.

Having to buy something that only a PvP player can get often equates to sore losing.

I'm not saying that you are one of these people, I'm glad you recognize the player economy as PvP.

The economy is the number one reason a lot of players would prefer real open PvP. Knowing just how many players feel this way will never happen. To say you like real open PvP is a social death sentence on the forums.

The amount of people who have viewed this poll compared to voting in it, may be some indication of how players really feel.

 

I'm open to compromise and here's what I'd accept:

1- no PVP until level 10 in combat skills. You are in PVP after that.
2- spontaneous PVP can only be initiated with player +/- 2 levels of each other.
3- rewards for PVP are only available for organized PVP, not open world; random encounter stuff.
4- full loot is optional. You can flag yourself for it if you want to set an example.
5- duels and organized events can have looting rules pre-defined from none to full.
6- battlegrounds, sieges and PVP raids will give experience, rank and rewards, random encounters give nothing.
7- towns and two hexes around towns in all directions are safe zones, unless there is some sort of sanctioned event (i.e.- duel, arena,etc.).

I'd settle for that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Why all the victim cards here? No one is picking on anyone. It's just the way the game was designed to be played.

 

Is that "your" one's self or others? Build a system around non consensual PvP and it's both. There are people that do not wish others to control their game experience. So until they can build the perfect PvP system, it's consensual PvP.

Just because I am not supporting your statements and sentiments does not mean I don't understand them. What you wish to be in this game has been specifically said is not desired by the devs.

You have been attempting to turn yourself into some kind of target for a while, going for martyrdom? No one has accused Rezulm of griefing, there is no reason to attempt to use the current topic as an opportunity to have another example for your campaign against the forum Mods.

In fact, this is a microcosm of where you have a disconnect with the Mods stance. You are injecting an attack where there is none.

The play style Rezulm is asking for is a double edged sword. The freedom desired is the oppression despised.

 

A poll on what you HATE about open world PvP....and I'm trying to make a martyr out of myself.

It's always been a microcosm (SotA forums in relation to the actual game population), I'm not the one who is disconnected here.

You really think I'm dreaming up hatred in a Poll on what players HATE. Maybe I should seek professional help as some have suggested. *wispers* before it's too late and I become a real life murderer.

 

Really. I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill....No one here hates you. Or is picking on you. I just wish you would stop making it sound like we are.

 

I could settle for being able to completely opt out of looting (and trophies) and not having death penalties if I was killed in PvP.

But then I would do exactly like I did in WoW: if attacked I would just suicide my character, rez, and resume playing as if nothing had happened.

If I'm not able to do the above, then I'm not open to compromise at all, and would simply not play if other players could attack me.

 

Have fun depopulating your microcosm. As Pink Floyd sang, "Get them up against the wall"!

I'm out of here!

I LOVE YOU ALL!

And that's not the Stockholm's Syndrome talking!

 

I don't even bother reading thread titles when I see you posting your agenda, it's been cross thread for a while.

 

I don't see what PvP players have to complain about with the current design, or PvE players, either. Both sides can enjoy the style of play they prefer, with the players they prefer. The only limitation, if it can be called that, is there is no non consensual PvP.

If you want to PvP on the entire map, declare open PvP, and you have it. If you never want to participate in Open PvP, you can have that as well, although if there are PvP zones, you can't play on the entire map, which I don't think should be the case. If there is a PvP zone, and you are not flagged for PvP, then you enter a PvE instance of the zone. You can't access any special resource drops that are the carrot in that zone, but the zone would still be yours to play in.

The only limitation I would place on this is that if you enter the zone in PvE mode, you have to stay in PvE mode. No sneaking in and switching modes. If you want the carrots, you have to exit the zone, flag for PvP, then enter the zone again, and fight your way through to the rewards, just like everyone else.

 

Which is why IMHO the real PvP "flag" should be in the instance, and not on the player. The flag on the player should only influence whether the player enters a PvE or a PvP instance.

 

I agree.

 

You got one of my points, PvP is not only killing each other.

But you miss my other point:
This is a roleplaying game and therefore you need a world that is somewhat realistic. When looking at killing each other you need to get some kind of limit or else the whole roleplaying experience will be lost. Perhaps SotA are more ruthless than anything our world ever experienced but if we have too many killers (murderer or those that chase murders) the world will be unbelievable and it will be impossible to roleplay in that world. If more than a certain percentage of the citizen dies every day the population will eventually die out and nothing will be left, you can go above that killing point some because it's a game but if you go about to much a lot of roleplayers will be leaving the game.

Then take note if what GR said is one of the videos during the "deep dive" about how all items in the game will be PC manufactured you need those roleplayers to drive the game forward.

 

I don't think that he stated gear ANYWHERE in that post. You implied it, and then tore it apart. That is called the "strawman" argument technique, and it really proves nothing. If instead of implying gear, we imply skill points derived from play, or wealth, there is no horrid grind, and both PvE and PvP players can have it without issue.

 

I've no complaints about the proposed system. It meets my minimum requirement.

I'm happy.

 

The system is basically Trammel and Felucca. Except without bothering to say it is two separate worlds, and you'll run into those playing a different ruleset than you more often.