PVP defaults and other questions answered ? (Dev) Replied

@primerib they said that you could play the game fully in SPO and see the changes in the map....as well as FPO so those two ways are the online mode...not sure how they would be ignoring the rules?

 

Maybe I wasn't clear. People don't hate PvP because it can be hard, they hate PvP because of the exploits or disrespectful nature of some PvPers. Other reason as well but you get the point I hope.

I am not saying remove a mechanic such as this. I am saying for every PvP mechanic there should be some similar non PvP mechanic. Getting your PvE via permission from some PvP mechanic is defacto PvP mechanic.

 

Right. If someone owns a castle, they own it in any online mode. And if that castle owns resources, it does in any more. And if you want access to those resources, you need to find someway yo negotiate for access for them.

The point is you can't flip your play more of PvP flag and walk by an enemy castle to mine gold on the land. You need to find a way to make them not enemies, or get them out of the castle. It isn't necessary true that you need to go face to face with them displaying your sword skills. But somehow you need to either convince them, trade with them, or get a whole lot of friends to remove them from the castle.

 

@PrimeRib:

<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

I, at least, don't care at all that the dragon exist - if it's a NPC dragon. I'm in for the challenge, as long as it's PvE challenge.

You seem to not have noticed that some players strongly dislike non-consensual PvP even if it's basically the same as PvE - the fact it's another living, breathing person behind the "opponent" makes the experience unbearable for some. Make the PvE version of the content as gruesome as it would be with PvP and I'm completely OK with that; make me face unwanted PvP, even if it's just noobs I can wipe the floor with, and I will leave the game in frustration.

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

In WoW, at least, this has created an interesting, though nasty, side-effect.

The "castle control" in WoW is granted to the winning faction. This means that anyone can be on the "winning team" merely by picking the "right" choice at character creation, or else by paying the fee to change factions or servers. The effect in many, perhaps most, of the servers is that players in the weaker faction just stop playing there, changing factions to the winning faction or transferring to a server where their preferred faction is winning.

Last time I looked, 6 out of the 10 most populous servers had a 30 to 1 faction imbalance or worse - they are, for all intents and purposes, single faction servers where almost everyone gets the benefits for winning in PvP without having to fight (and, in most cases, without even being able to fight, since most players there simply cannot find opponents).

GW2 has a similar effect, if you care to follow the WvW scores on the forums. In GW2 there are week long fights between 3 servers, starting Friday afternoon and lasting until the next Friday. In most cases, if a server starts ahead and can keep ahead through the weekend, the other two servers of that group almost completely stop fighting until next Friday; they simply give up. Doesn't happen all the time, but whenever it happens it basically removes most PvP action for most of the week for all affected servers.

(The plan, at first, in GW2 was for the fights to take two weeks. The devs seem to have aborted that idea, thankfully. 3 days of PvP per week is bad enough, 3 days of PvP in 14 days would be far worse.)

I can't say for sure if that will happen in SotA, not only we don't know enough about the PvP, but the dynamic is likely to be quite different - but, in my case, if I'm getting prevented from getting where I want because some group of players want exclusive access to part of the game, I will just leave the online game and go play exclusively offline. I'm not interested in excluding other players from content, but at the same time I won't accept being excluded from content due to PvP.

<blockquote>The point is you can?t flip your play more of PvP flag and walk by an enemy castle to mine gold on the land. You need to find a way to make them not enemies, or get them out of the castle. It isn?t necessary true that you need to go face to face with them displaying your sword skills. But somehow you need to either convince them, trade with them, or get a whole lot of friends to remove them from the castle.</blockquote>

Which is why I'm waiting for more info to upgrade my main pledge, and might sell my second pledge down the line depending on how PvP works. What I understood, from the KS page and from https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/?p=3955 , was that I would be able to enjoy every bit of PvE content in the game, while playing online, without having to concern myself with the antics of PvPers; if that is not the case then I have absolutely no use for the online mode, as well as my second pledge (made mostly to increase my character slots in online play) or for deeds (only useful in online play anyway).

I wouldn't mind if PvP presence in a place made unfriendly NPCs spawn in the PvE version of that place, as long as a skilled enough player could still get access to it with reasonable effort. But having part of the map made simply unavailable for me, due to my PvE preference, is not my idea of fun (and neither is dominating part of the map and excluding other players, BTW).

 

@Strider: Hopefully, this is, what FPO and the SPO mode is for, to play the game and get access to all areas, without having to worry about non consensual PvP. As long as those three modes work (and according to the dev chat, it looks quite good), I'm convinced, that you find the online playstyle, that you prefer.

Chris stated yesterday, that you won't get better equipment or resources in PvP content than Non PvP players, but more trophies, achievements, etc. He explicitly stated, that he doesn't want to force anybody to go to PvP mode, even if he'd like to see people setting it as the standard mode.

This will take some balancing, to even the different modes out and prevent the economy from collapsing (PvE players grinding easy content, PvP guilds dominating the map, etc.), but nothing is impossible and can't be addressed in Alpha or Beta. Like you said, let NPCs attack earlier, put more of them in Non PvP maps and don't make them braindead as in WoW/Lotro/Everquest/UO etc. Balancing is possible and every playstyle can include challenging, difficult, fun and rewarding content.

Suggestion: I still don't see a reason, why people shouldn't be able to take all quests and let them differ automatically according to the game mode (Solo play with some more riddles/labyrinths/jumping, etc. sequences; Group PvE with more and stronger Monsters, PvP with the danger of being attacked by other players), with some exceptions (Guild Battles, Guild Castle Sieges, PvP Batte grounds, PvP arenas, etc.).

As an example: You find a rare treasure in a chest, that is highly desired by bandits in the area. So your mission is, to get to safety, without being killed by bandits. The game looks now, in what mode you're playing, how many people are in your area or group, and sets the difficulty, etc. afterwards. In SPO you get chased by a bunch of bandits (you are a bit slower, because the treasure is heavy). When you get caught, you may have different options (talk yourself out, attack them, hire companions, bribe them, etc.). And maybe you have to cross a dangerous mountain path, where you need to jump and climb to get to safety. Same for FPO, just with more and harder attacking NPCs, according to the number of players in your group. In OPO mode now, the game looks how many PvP players, that are unfriendly to you ( story-wise it doesn't make sense, to be attacked by guild mates or friends), are in the area. Those people get a notification, that there is an enemy player with a valuable treasure in the map. And they may hunt him or not for the treasure as reward. If there are no unfriendly players in the area, the program can still send a few NPCs after the player, but overall he gets away easier then the FPO and SPO players. So the PvP player takes the risk, that he gets attacked by more human enemies, but with a big luck, he gets to safety without having to fight at all.

Just as a suggestion.

Cheers,
Andreas

 

@AndiZ275 - OOoooh I like that. The solo riddles/etc... idea.

 

@AndiZ275 I think your suggestion is right in line with what I was describing with the city siege example.

OPO mode should have situations what will bring on the PvP element where in SPO/FPO it would have been NPC. While none of the PvP situations are directly blocking story elements. They are extra flare added parallel to the story.

If you are declared full PvP, everything is PvP.

 

Chris wrote this about PvP in another forum: (link: https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/?topic=growing-concerns-about-single-player&amp;paged=3#post-17110)
<cite>
"We have just been answering questions that have been asked in chat or through Google. We have been talking more about multiplayer elements because they have been asking more questions!

I think we?ve been pretty open that on the quest and story side of things, we?re really just focusing on the single player experience and making it a single player experience that can be played with other people around! We?ve also been clear that there will even be parts of the single player quest line that will force you into a single player mode.

If we were just remaking Ultima Online, we would not have brought in a story telling talent like Tracy Hickman. We feel we know what is important to each side of our divided audience and if anything, the single player game people will be getting more dev time total than the online guys in the long run.

The open world is NOT PVP. That rumor is being spread by some trolls in the forums. We?ve been VERY clear that PVP will be consensual and not required. The rewards of PVP will primarily be things that are only valuable to PVP?ers. You will be safe from PK?ers and so will the goods of your house unless you choose to join in.

Join in with questions for the next dev chat and I?ll answer them!

Thanks!
Chris Spears" </cite>

 

Now this is exactly what I would like to see! I am far from a hardcore PVPer. I really cant pvp well at all. I just love laid back gameplay that I can relax to when I come home from work. But sometimes I just like to be exposed to danger, and risk. I more than likely would just want to play out the game as a pure craftsman, explorer, miner, treasure hunter that has no need for fighting ability, but being able to wander into areas where I COULD definitely be exposed to "non consensual" pvp if im not good at being stealthy would be neat. Ive always wanted to get my treasures in dangerous PVP zones by being sneaky and avoiding the murderers who want to get my loot. I think that there should be some reward for a completely innocent miner or treasure hunter to wander were murderers go, like some special ore or loot. Of course, I wouldn't want to have to depend on running to these danger zones to have my little craftsman or treasure hunter career in the game, but the idea of enticing me, a person who is clearly not a powerful wizard or fighter into a pvp zone where he could be pk'd if he doesn't make the right move would be interesting. Even more interesting if this person could get an amazing treasure if the pk's don't catch him!

 

So being that the idea is so everyone gets a fair chunk of there play style and that they don't have to pvp is a great one because entering the pvp area will have a greater risk reward factor which really makes the game that much more interesting. As LB said even the none pvpers will be enticed into entering pvp areas because of the possible benefits. Like in real life you could get somewhere much faster traveling through a bad neighborhood but your taking a risk trying to take the shorter path. Or you could buy something like craigslist because the price is sooo good, but again it's in a high crime rate area and you might possibly get robbed.

In Ultima Online It was a little annoying for pvpers to have a trammel facet, how ever when "trammies" wanted more loot they would come to Felucca to try and get better loot without anyone else farming there because of the possible murderer running in. So they normally wouldn't pvp, but they took the risk to go get a better reward. I think that is a great way for this game to be. People will take their chances to get better resources and loot by entering the pvp area. I think this model will work perfectly for both pvpers and non-pvpers.

 

why do we keep swinging around to this

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/f...s-about-single-player-dev-replied.1144/page-4
He has also said that the rewards for PvP will ONLY be things that matter to PvPers not to PvE players. What that means I'm not 100% sure but as resources to make armour are going to matter to the rest of us that can't be it

 

"He has also said that the rewards for PvP will ONLY be things that matter to PvPers not to PvE players. What that means I'm not 100% sure but as resources to make armour are going to matter to the rest of us that can't be it"

Does this not directly contradict what Lord British said earlier in the thread? Rewards that only matter to pvp or pve would be akin to wow raids and arenas.

I don't see why there can't exist a pvp mode that has slightly raised loot to "entice" people into that mode. Barring special items restricted to pvp mode/zones, should it then really bother people who enjoy a hassle free game play experience? This would be a good compromise both sides would be giving a little and gaining loads. Opposing some reasonable compromise like this from either pvp/pve would be a decision only logicly made through greed/spite.

The best solution would not sit right with either side of the pvp/pve spectrum. I hope their aim is to mostly please everyone and not just completely please the majority.

Just me two cents.
For the little its worth,
Oskie

 

Hey I was just quoting Chris (in fact I quoted him without reading it hence why I repeated what he said in the last few lines )

 

I think the devs have said the rewards for PvP will be intangible, such as achievements, or cosmetic baubles and such. Good for bragging rights, but not much else.

 

Yeah, he missed something. It's rewards exclusive to PvP that will only be things that only matter to PvPers.

PvP will also have other kinds of rewards, rewards that are useful for everyone, though; gold, materials, etc. The point is that anything that can be obtained from PvP and has a PvE use will also be obtainable through pure PvE.

 

That sounds more reasonable.

 

I am an RP PVE-style player. PVP has never integrated well into the games I've tried, primarily because it's always seemed wildly unbalanced, and too easy to die whenever I participate in such actions. Also, combat, whether against players or NP-monsters is never an aspect I like to focus my time and gameplay on, and PVP is simply an extension of combat.

In Ultima style games such as SotA, I feel that it should be an open world where combat could and can occur with both player and non-player characters at anytime that it makes sense in the gameplay. That should include anytime a player instigates it. Ultimas were about immersion and simulation. Therefore, I should be able to attack anyone in the game (NPC or PC), and face the consequences of my actions. That's a simple matter of am I virtuous or not? At the same time, the consequences need to be extremely severe, and effective, to fit in with the simulation and immersion of the experience. This should adequately prevent any individuals or groups from taking advantage of the system, thereby ruining other player's gaming experiences.

To me, the matter is blending together character actions, both NPC and PC. The interactions my avatar has with NPCs and PCs should all feel equal. Example: If I am decidedly a killer (PK or NPK), the result of my actions should be equally realistic and detrimental. This means being able to loot the corpse if no one is there to interfere with the act.. but it also means I should become a known criminal, for both the killing, and the looting. Any unique items should be marked stolen property that can only be traded on a black market and not valid for quests except by criminal quest givers. Every crime I commit should accumulate on my record, raising my bounty, and raising my sentence when I am caught and punished.

Criminals who are sentenced as thieves should be thrown into a local jail for a time, then forced to work off their debt to society to earn their freedom. During this time they should be heavily guarded, and denied access to dangerous weapons to ensure no further crimes are committed.

Criminals who are sentenced as murderers should be thrown into a dungeon / prison, where they might be stripped of experience, wealth and/or items.. they should be wearing prison attire, and must await a trial where their victims are given the opportunity to prosecute, and a judge (or jury of peers is formed) to review the case (hopefully by reviewing the attack footage from both attacker, and victim's perspectives), then a judgement should be made. Depending whether Compassion or Justice is determined by the court, the accused can be given a variety of punishments, or set free.. the punishments could be similar to a thief's, or a range of supervised community service (which would involve a variety of virtue oriented tasks that must be completed before they can be released). They should also be stripped of a portion of their gold, possessions, experience, ect. depending on whether they are a repeat offender.

I feel that as long as there are appropriate consequences to these actions, an open PVP world could exist in harmony with those of us who like to immerse ourselves into a primarily RP / PVE gameplay experience. - it might even prove fun! ("yeah, he killed me and stole all my stuff, and i had to wait to get resurrected by a passing Cleric, but when we successfully hunted him down, I got his bounty, plus he went to prison and practically had to start his life over when he finally got out!") Wouldn't that be satisfying?

(see my post on dying... and looting for my ideas about the Clerics)

 

In addition, valuable stolen property should be 'marked' and able to be tracked, allowing not only a bounty on a criminal, but also a reward system for the return of stolen valuables. There can be many virtue oriented quests actively produced (accessible to non-criminals of course), for the return of these valuables to their rightful owners, as well as completing the bounties by capturing (not killing) and turning in any criminals to the appropriate authorities.

I definitely believe that killing should be allowed in the game, because the option tests everyone's virtue, and ensures an immersive, simulated society.

 

I love this idea and as a PvPer/PK/thief as well as valiant knight (Please let us have two characters!), I could not agree more on all levels. Players should all be able to enjoy their main style of gameplay without being treaded upon by the other community. There are times when PvPers aren't fighting and times when PvEers are, we can all live happily together when our paths cross, but giving us the option to play our game the way we want is brilliant!!!

I look forward to playing this game greatly.

 

This is exactly the kind of PvP I want to see. I have a reason for risking myself, I know I'm doing it, I stand to benefit. And yet, if I just don't feel like it later, or the next day, I can opt to stay in the safe part of the game. Really, my only question on any of this is what penalty I'll be facing for attempting that PvP goal and failing horribly. Obviously, balance will need to be struck so that what I'm after is WORTH what I'm risking, and vice versa.