Can I build a better PvP(mouse) trap?

<b>Treatise on Open PvP:</b>

What this does not cover:
PvP impact on economy. - another day another dollar (start a new thread for economy please)
How loot should be handled. - Risk vs Reward, win or lose, ??? profit (This can open up lots of discussion, new thread please)
Purple underwear. - Did someone say neon?! (I don't wanna know and it doesn't belong here, new thread please)

What this will cover:
PvP in all modes of play; Offline/SP/FP/OP. - Like it of love it, PvP is a valid play style but should not be forced on the uninterested/unwilling
PvP notoriety. - Fear me one and all
PvP visibility. - I got you, now you see me now you don't
Uninterested. The player that does not desire PvP
Unwilling. The player that is interested in PvP but is other wise engaged. (IE Questing with friends or guild)

<b>Offline Play:</b>
Obviously you will not get into PvP while offline. Unless they add a LAN option. In a LAN situation you will be fully aware of PvP visibility.
PvP notoriety, will not follow you to the other modes so it not tracked even if LAN play is an option.
PvP visibility, no one can see you, even if you wanted them to.

<b>Single Play Online.</b>
PvP in this mode is obvious in the same way as offline mode.
PvP notoriety has little value in Single Play. It is online so your notoriety is retained in case the mode changes
PvP visibility, In this mode I propose a hard setting of PvP on or PvP off.

Off.) No PvP
On.) If set to on then you can have a chance of entering into PvP with another player. This player is not someone you can choose or invite (that would be friend play) The number of PvP players possible would be something to discuss but likely set to 1 person encounters.
System Controlled.) Discussed in later

<b>Friend Play Online:</b>
PvP in this mode is slightly more complicated.
PvP notoriety still has little value but is noted for mode changes.
PvP visibility, In this mode I propose 2 settings.
1.) Player controlled, the same hard setting as Single Play.
2.) System controlled, An internal setting that decays with time or PvP loss.

Setting 1.) User controlled, A group of 4 friends want to PvP and set up 2 teams of 2. Team 1 is the contraband smuggling team. Team 2 is the bounty hunter team. There is no desire for outside contact with unknown players.
Take the same group only they have 1 group and they want to smuggle contraband while allowing the unknown group of bounty hunters to engage them in PvP.
Setting 2.) System controlled, You have been playing in Open Play doing a lot of PvP. You are in the fight but now it's time to hang with friends. Toggling to Friend Play to avoid PvP is an area of concern, this should give a graceful way to bow out. When your pvp visibility is high, it will still make you visible to Open Play PvPers, only with time this will decay till the point that you are no longer visible. Also, each death due to PvP will hasten the decay.

<b>Open Play Online:</b>
Pvp in Open Play is fully open PvP. Yet still, there will be those that are not interested or unwilling.
Pvp notoriety is finally coming into play. Assuming the system for filtering the upper limit is "the Friends score crazy high, guild mates high, people you've shared scenes with recently, PvP gets some points, etc, down to the people who have no real importance to you and then we'll fill in those ranks with people near your power level so you can find adventure friends" I propose that PvP notoriety should be used as an offset. The higher the notoriety the higher it ranks on the upper limit filter. Notoriety can eventually out value friends and guild members (with low notoriety and visibility).
PvP Visibility, In this mode it is similar to Friend Play. The only difference is that the decay could be slower if your notoriety is very high.

I have labeled this a treatise but this is only a meager outline. The treatise is something that should be built on the discussion I hope this will bring.

I look forward to everyone's input.

 

When it comes to the filter, I would hope that it can be player configured rather than one size fits all. As an Anti-PK, I am interested in my guild mates, and in adversaries. Everyone else is a lower priority. Crafters, perhaps lowest priority of all, since I can buy from their vendors. I do not need to see them, unless perhaps they need to hire a bodyguard.

 

After a long discussion on PvP, risk vs reward, I am looking to address the disparity between players that PvP full time and players that use PvE to advance then switch to PvP.

I propose another use for PvP Notoriety.

PvP Reward Level: The higher the players PvP Notoriety the higher access to rewards from engaging in PvP events and succeeding.

I also suggest that equal level PvP Notoriety players should be matched up more often in this case. As to allow for more risk vs reward.

I want to stay away from trying to suggest some crazy algorithm to check player PvP skill. Skill shouldn't be part of the equation, only the desire to partake. Low skill vs high skill PvP is a good thing, uneven number opponents could be tossed in also.

 

reposting:
@Ristra
I like your proposal and I can see several advantages to it.
- The amount of PvP you do governs how often you?re challenged.
- Noobs get a gradual introduction into it instead of just paying dues by countless ganks.
- The amount of risk is player governed. This addresses my biggest peeve. I enjoy the risk of open PvP, I don?t enjoy the frequency of it.
- It?s gradual, so you can?t exploit mode switching.
- more freedom to the players to create the game they want.

 

This could be as simple as you kill a friend to turn on PvP. Now you can run into a max of one PvPer. For each kill you add one to the max. Since # of kills is already tracked, you can use it and tune it to govern difficulty and frequency of foes. In groups you would just combine each players kill#.

Any player can add as much as they want to their kill# but they can't subtract from it. This allows someone to jump right in without having to go through the "tutorial".

Kills eventually expire so leaving PvP is possible but not instantaneous.

 

As someone suggested in the PvP thread, easy expiration of kills isn't necessarily a good idea. This game is supposed to be centered on Virtues. Such a serious violation of the virtues that murder represents should have serious consequences. A player should seriously reflect upon that before committing such a crime.

An easy 'get out of jail free card' isn't much of a deterrent, and I think it teaches the wrong lesson in a game about virtue.

 

@Owain, I was going to bring this up cause it was brought to my attention that PvP Notoriety can easily be confused with Fame/Infamy. (haven't had the chance to check other threads yet)

I would like to rename the term PvP Activity.

PvP Activity is not tied to the morality system, no titles, no running away from your actions. This actually should be a hidden tracker that the system uses to log desire to PvP.

PvP Activity: Grouping, High activity groups with high activity and low activity groups with low.
PvP Visibility: Similar to the log out delay but only for switching between FPO/OPO

 

No, no easy forgiveness for heinous crime, but only slight penalty for hitting my newbie buddy with my skullcrusher when I meant to hit him with my rubber ducky.

 

Your newbie buddy would never be in the same event as a PvP player unless the newbie chooses. If the newbie is choosing to partake in PvP, bring ice.

 

Ristra, in a game pattered after Virtues, surely there has to be a distinction between a person who murders an innocent, and the person who defends innocents. That was the whole notion behind the PK/Anti-PK wars, and very much in line with the idea of the Ultima Virtues. If that is not the case in SotA, that is a pathological perversion of the notion of virtue.

 

@Owain, exactly. This system has no impact on the virtues. The Virtues system does what it does, regardless of PvP. Yes, if you kill someone in PvP it easily can harm your standing with a virtue, it also could improve your standing also.

PvP Activity is only for gauging PvP interest.

Suck at PvP, that's OK, you can have a high PvP Activity. PvP Pro, still high PvP Activity. Good with the Virtues, Good with the Virtues of the nefarious, still you can have high PvP Virtues.

Every play style and player level of skill can have high PvP Activity.

What will never happen is low/null PvP Activity grouped up with high PvP Activity. You engage in PvP for the first time, the players with lower PvP Activity will be the ones you encounter.

The pace at how fast you progress from low to high would have to be fleshed out.

 

If killing people or defending people has no impact on the virtues, you and I have a very different definition of virtue. I'm hoping Lord British agrees with me.

 

I think what he is saying is that PvP Activity is divorced from any virtue system, not that it replaces it. It is a gauge of how willing you are to participate in PvP, not what you've done to get there.

[edit]

On closer look I can see how this might throw a wrench into a PK/Anti conflict. By definition every PvP participant is there willingly - not much room for the classic PK. Who knows, maybe the devs could give the dastardly some orphans to up their kills.

 

Not what I am saying, it will have impact on the virtues, good or bad.

PvP Activity and Vitrues are not tied. Good Vitrue PvP or bad Virtue PvP both raise PvP Activity equally.

Abstaining from PvP allows PvP Activity to decay, albeit slowly. Thus knocking you out of the higher reward opportunities.

 

<i>On closer look I can see how this might throw a wrench into a PK/Anti conflict.</i>

If you are saying that anti-PK's only roll is protecting those that abstain from PvP, there is no system out there that can be designed to recreate this.

You either have to force the unwilling into PvP, they will mass exodus.
Or you have to hope they are ignorant of what they will be getting into

Anti-PK's roll IMO is helping those that are either weak and geared or lacking in warrior skills, but willing to partake in the PvP scene.

 

"You either have to force the unwilling into PvP, they will mass exodus."

The system would work better in the suggestion I made in the SotA wish list for an additional play mode that I've called SPO, Siege Perilous Online, after the UO shard, Siege perilous. For OPO, Ristra is probably right that it might not be easy to work PvP into the story line as it relates to Virtues, but I'm not counting the dev's out yet.

It would make it a lot easier if we could get a better idea what they have in mind for PvP in OPO.

 

I think one of the reasons we're not getting more details is that the devs themselves are still tossing around ideas. I'm hoping that our discussions are providing some input.

 

@Owain, PvP is right smack in the middle of the Virtues. You attack someone, there is a Good/Neutral/Bad impact on your Virtue.

IE smuggler vs bounty hunter.

My suggestion is to have a system that works independent of the virtues that works for the highly interested in PvP AND the uninterested in PvP.

This in effect will push those that wish full PvP into a shard of their own (High PvP Activity) and those that abstain from PvP into a shard of their own (no PvP Activity)

The Devs are reading the suggestions. @Owain's suggestion is 2 Shards. Mine is the exact same things, only using the addition of a PvP Activity tracker to shard the players out.

 

The terms Shard and Server have been convenient shorthands but I think the game architecture needs to be mentioned, since there are no traditional shards and servers. Portalarium's "server" arranges ad hoc networks of players, each network serving themselves as far as player position, scurrying animals, and other moment-by-moment activities. Portalarium's server tracks and records the status changes of the ad hoc networks.

This is what I've managed to glean from various updates and interviews.

 

Yes, Shard/Server is a legacy term as far as SotA is concerned.

@Owain is suggesting bring back the legacy system to allow for afull PvP server.

Full PvP Shard{----| |----} PvP optional Shard

My suggestion uses the ad hoc system to also filter for PvP preference.

Highly active PvP {--| levels of PvP in between |--} Abstain from PvP

The Virtue system need not get involved in this ad hoc sorting.