PVP defaults and other questions answered ? (Dev) Replied

@Acrylic 300, going back to my city siege example: How I would like to see things across each mode.

1.) A player(SPO) enters the city siege event can either follow along with the General (this is the catalyst for the story) or break away and risk larger forces of PvE than would be possible solo. (Great place for rogueish style play)

2.) Players(FPO) have about the same only the larger forces become more managable.
Depending on PvP being allowed in FPO, PvP can be in place of some areas of large forces. (Where the General's forces are not so strong to keep PvP at bay)

3.) Players(OPO) intermix in PvE/PvP as I posted in my last post

 

@Helicon:

Absolutely, I stand by what I said. There are a plethora of "theme-park" style online games out there. My understanding is that this is not going to be one of them, I think it is important to get that out of the way. If anyone was offended by being told to go play another game then I feel sorry for them. I really do.

@Elvish Dragon:

It really is impossible to make everyone happy, it simply cannot be done. However, there has to be a medium where everyone can be satisfied. It's just an easy goal to accomplish.

The virtue system should provide consequence enough for the PK's. In a SANDBOX game it is not the developer's responsibility to attempt to force player behavior one way or another.

However,

I am interested to see how the slider feature will work and I honestly hope there are areas that are both PvE and PvP. This seems to be the best route to take and some of PvE players may cry about it, but it seems to me they have already made up their mind. They are not willing to provide an alternative and seem to be approaching the matter with a narrow mindset of: THIS GAME BETTER BE "X, Y, Z" or I'm taking my money back.

Regardless,

If multiplayer is ruined then the single player experience better live up to the premise its built upon and truly be a "spiritual" successor to the Ultima series. Either way, I backed the game and look forward to playing even if it's just single player.

 

*not an easy goal

 

There is definitely some more clarification needed about the different online game modes and how they will fit together. The reason, why so many players here are concerned is simply, because Lord British only talked about the Open PvP mode (I don't think, they should call it Open Player Online) and ignored the other game modes.

There are still many questions unclear.

For example: Why should anyone, who doesn't like PvP (for whatever reason) go to Open Online Mode, where he is confined to safe heavens and safe paths? He would probably choose FPO or SPO over this.

So, how do you want to bring this guy to OPO, like Lord British wishes (see page 1)? One idea, that got stated was, to put the rarest materials in PvP areas only (don't know if it was Chris or Lord British saying it). I think, that's the wrong way, because it destroys the balancing (PvP + PK guilds would surely have an advantage in this content) and forces people to do this content, if they want to keep up.

In my opinion, there should be as challenging, difficult (no easy mode!) and rewarding content in the other game modes as well, to keep the balance between the playstyles and allow players to change when they want to the Open PvP mode without being disadvantaged (a problem, you encounter in many MMOs especially in the raiding content).

Then, how do you balance the different game modes? Will all areas, that are in OPO PvP areas, be free to explore and discover in FPO and SPO-mode (I sincerely hope so)? How will those areas be different in the three playstyles. How will the quests change in those modes and the rewards for those quests? How do you keep all game modes equally challenging and difficult (what I don't want to see is easy mode content without challenge; I hope the dual scale map allows a much better monster AI than other MMOs)?

Whatever you do, you have to pay attention, that players of a particular playstyle don't feel like second class players and get frustrated. But I'm confident, that the team of Portalarium is already looking for solutions for those problems.

But how do I think, that you can bring people to play PvP and even join the Open PvP mode? In my opinion, there can be only one way: By making it fun! Reduce Zerging and Ganking as much as possible and punish Player Killing hard (automatic bounty in cities and maybe even teleport stones for Gold for bounty hunters like in Dark Souls). Try to reduce the frustrating elements as good as you can. Behavior like Corpse jumping and insults against other players should be punished with at least weekly bans (you get imprisoned in the game during that time), after you got caught through the bounty system. Always work on the balancing, etc. Include fun and challenging PvP content like Battle Zones with control points, something like Capture the Flag, Castle Sieges, Villain Hunting scenarios, infiltration and thievery scenarios etc. etc.). But even then you have to accept, that some people aren't interested in PvP at all and stick to the other game modes.

Cheers,
Andreas

 

No, you can not make everyone happy. You can only attempt to coax people out of their comfort zones. Telling players to go away and play something else is not going to do that.

For main story events I can see lots of ways of meshing the PvE with the PvP.

The hard part is how to bring the 2 together in other, less active, hexes on the map.

An open plains hex with sparse trees, for example, someone is out harvesting logs.

1.) non PvPer can harvest without seeing PvPers.
2.) PvPers can attack other PvPers there harvesting

Suddenly, an meteorite crashes to the ground at that hex. This is a PvP event in the begging stage.

1. does the non PvPer see this event?
2. PvPer come running from all over, PvP goodness all around.

How I would like to see this:

The PvP doesn't start just as the meteorite makes landfall. There should be a story line reason for this conflict. Similar to the city siege with the General, there could be a General for the forces of both good and evil in the land that starts the PvP.

This gives the non PvPer in chance to watch the meteorite land, see this event start to unfold, decide "hey this looks pretty awesome, I think I will join in." or exit stage left as they have no interest in PvP.

No major harm to the non PvPer, there are several hexes in the area they can step into and pick up their logging venture.

 

Or the Non PvP player thinks: "Hey, that meteorite looks awesome! I want to play that content!" Then he goes to the meteorite and sees: "Oh, it's a PvP-only event. I'd love to see it, but I don't like being killed by other players." So he goes away and is frustrated, because he was locked out of fun looking content, that could have an alternative version, by letting NPC controlled forces of evil attack instead of human players [So the PvP players get their fun content and the Non PvP-players, too (only a bit different); and nobody is forced to do a playstyle they don't want].

P.S. But I get your idea. Make fun content, that others want to join (there are some good ideas in other threads).

 

@AndiZ275 the trick here will be to not make all the dynamic content such as this completely PvP. Some times the meteorite doesn't have forces of Good/Evil present. Or maybe the forces show up late.

Variety, the spice of life.

 

I think you can do all of these things, you just keep trying to paint the game into impossible hypothetical situations.

The answer is to design a game that doesn't do that.

Either:
1) You go full open PvP like UO and people just senselessly murder each other all day. You can't really allow people to opt out or there'd be no one to go red on and start the war.
2) You lock the factions in a fixed way. So to avoid PvP, you simply avoid the other faction's area of the map. (WoW or any faction game)
3) You have a game driven by economics, where the zones of control shift and are ultimately controlled by players. (EvE or something like Civilization)

 

@PrimeRib, since you didn't say who you were directing this at I will to guess you mean this as a reply to my posts.

What I am trying to do is to visualize situations and apply some of what has been said by Richard and team.

What I am not doing is putting up impassable barriers like, make it open PvP or it will fail, or, if I see PvP I will uninstall.

I am not painting anything impossible, yes it's hypothetical, but that is what we are here to do.

I guess we can just shut this topic down and wait for RG and teams final word? No thanks, I will put out my thoughts, hypothetically in nature, till the game is finished.

 

@Ristra

Not really picking on you.

Once the single player story runs out, I expect PvP to drive the entire game. But PvP doesn't have to mean standing next to someone and mashing buttons. It means that players will drive the economy. Players will drive factions and zones of control. Players will control much of the territory and resources.

If guild x controls a mining operation somewhere, you can't shut off your PvP flag and go mine. You need to find a way to get friendly with the guild and negotiate terms to help mine. Or just buy the ore. If you enable PvP, you can just go attack the guild. That's really the choice.

Turning off PvP doesn't just allow you to ignore the entire game and do whatever you want without consequences. If it feels more restrictive, it should. I can go to the store and buy someone or I can go to the store and shoot the owner to take what I want. But I cannot just go into the store and take what I want.

 

@PrimeRib, one thing we need to know is how the upper limit is handled.

If a hex with a mine is full of players to the upper limit. Is the hex locked out? Or will a new instance of that hex be created.

If a new instance is created, no guild will be able to own a mine.

If the hex is locked out, guild ownership is possible, PvP flagging would be bad.

I can't see why a hex would not be instanced, as that is what is happening when you go to SPO/FPO.

 

@Ristra
I'm assuming that some hex falls under some territory control. If I own a piece of land, I control the mineral rights. I control them in every instance. There's no point in having castles if they cannot watch and guard territory. I shouldn't we able to just switch to another instance and attack Lord British (or whatever). The instances are to manage population, not so people can bypass the game.

 

@PrimeRib, That's a great conversation to have. Richard has expressed that he would like control points as in Tabula Rasa.

A mine as a control point would be fitting, a great PvP interest.

That brings in the questions:

1.) are all mines control points

2.) are the best resources in the game only at control points

If all the best resources are PvP only via this methods we are back to butting heads with PvP vs non PvP

 

@Ristra

I think I mentioned this somewhere but:
1) There's a friendly territory. You may have to talk to the lord to get a license. You may pay a tax or % of resources. You may get some protection. I'm more than happy to see someone completely opted out of PvP here. But they may face NPC bandits.
2) There's enemy territory. You're in a hex adjacent to the castle belong to a group of people who are your arch enemies. You're most likely going to have to fight your way in.
3) Somewhere in the middle there's a wild west. Perhaps there's a small guild attempting to control the area who you can negotiate with. Perhaps it's free for all PvP. Perhaps the game rolls for you to have a chance to get in unmolested and failing that you have a long cooldown to try again. (assuming you were unwilling to try to fight)


I feel that each castle in the game to have meaning should control the vast majority of a certain, valuable resource. This is what makes them valuable. e.g. one controls "spice", one controls "adamantium ore", sheep with golden fleece, etc. This really shouldn't be a large bonus to anything. It's bragging rights, it looks cooler. Maybe it make the gear like 1% better. But it's enough so people fight and die to control the castles.

This isn't about PvP vs non PvP. Many types of players are useful in a siege. Many types of players are useful in running an empire. But you will have to prove that use to the guild owning the territory - not to the game mechanics.

 

Absolutely, I think lore can be created behind PvP. I also think and feel strongly that some areas should be PvP only, possibly on the outer fringes of the continent. There should be some motivation for players to go there, but not absolutely necessary.

Of course with the slider a player can choose how much PvP he wants to experience elsewhere. Also, guild wars should be able to occur anywhere; regardless of whether or not it's designated as a "safe" zone or not.

 

@Helicon, I have absolutely no problem with PvP being part of this game, as long as I don't ever have to take part in it. The thing I am worried about is the idea that I will lose content because RG has decreed that some resources will be PvP only - so no PvE.

 

<i>This isn?t about PvP vs non PvP. Many types of players are useful in a siege. Many types of players are useful in running an empire. But you will have to prove that use to the guild owning the territory ? not to the game mechanics.</i>

@PrimeRib, While I can get on board with this kind of mechanic you are going to find that non PvP types will still count this in the same distaste as PvP.

Also, how will these player controlled mechanics span across SPO/FPO are these hexes unavailable or are the just not under anyone control for them?

What is the part that pulls the non PvPer into PvP? Is it prove your worth to the "Lord", what's the odds of this Lord being a PvP elitist that tells non PvPers to go play WoW?

--Just tossing out things to keep this ball rolling, the more ideas brain stormed the better.

 

You have a cave with a dragon in it. There is loot behind the dragon. You cannot click the "no dragons" flag and just get the loot. The point is these resources aren't just sitting there for free. They're owned by someone. I cannot pretend that you don't exist and loot your house. SPO/FPO are the same thing. The guild still owns the castle that holds the resources. Again, dragons scare me...I shouldn't have to play with dragons...I just want to walk into his cave with the dragon not there and take it's loot.

The ongoing story of the game is controlled by players. I don't have to PvP them in battle. I can RP and effectively PvP them with my wits. But I cannot pretend they dont exist and take their stuff.

PvP is not just pointless button mashing. It's about control and economics. I can opt out of the button mashing. But I cannot opt out of who controls something.

In L2, Aion, RIFT, Warhammer, Guildwars, WoW...I am affected by castle control whether I was at the siege or not.

 

@PrimeRib, the difference here is people that would want to use a "no dragons" flag would be wanting loot without the hassle of a dragon.

People not wanting to deal with the hassle of PvP is way more complicated.

It's already been listed a few times the many pains of PvP. Dragons do not present these issues.

 

Again, PvP doesn't need to require button mashing. There may be many ways to negotiate my way in. But those are controlled by players / guilds. You can win the game offline all you want. But it doesn't make any sense to play the online game and simply ignore the rules. And in some, tiny % of the map, those rules are written by the players owning that territory. Just like you write the rules on who gets to go into your house and harvest your garden.