Suggestions for PvP

.

 

Very nice. I like a lot of your ideas about Pvp quest, guard interaction, criminal system/justice system features, and looting the gravestone. We are missing so many details that have consequences and interesting interactions in the game. *crosses fingers* for lots of your good ideas.

 

This really stuck out to me as an interesting observation about the dynamic of players attacking other players.

 

This was a well thought out post, however, the development cycles to implement this added to the fact it fundamentally changes the game in many ways probably makes it unfeasible. Add to that the fact the bounty system would just be gamed by people to have their friends/alts collect their own bounty giving them a win-win.

Im not sure in this system who would go "unprotected" that arent "PKs". Plus I feel "PvP" vs "unprotected" is mostly semantics.

I really think we need to not associate PvP with "PKing" as its connotation is negative. I understand in many circumstances in this game they can be seen as the same as there is no deterrent against "griefing".

I really see the issue around PvP in this game is quite simple - some people dont like PvP or are afraid to try it. So what prevents people from trying it?

In my humble opinion its twofold:
1) The risk of losing gear. Yes it can be returned at a price but depending on items and such this can be a very costly endevour. Also one can lose pride, yes really, not many love losing over and over.
2) This will get me flamed to no end... - The PvP community. No one wants to go to a PvP zone and get repeatedly killed by the same person or group of people. Here is the concept of griefing.. Now not all PvP players in this community are like this - but there are many. Add in insults, videos made of you, etc, etc - its understanding why those that are not proficient at PvP are apprehensive. I understand the justification that those flagged PvP are consenting to the possibility of this, thus why many dont flag.

Many propose the fact there is not enough reward for PvP - I dont think thats the issue. Several things have been tried in that regard; PvP only loot in the fall, enhanced XP, enhanced material drops, even now a contest in Blood Bay. I think its a fundamental human trait to have loss aversion and thats how people react - they see what they can lose vs what they can gain - refer to point 1.

My proposal? Eliminate losing gear as loot + 50% XP gain in Blood Bay for a month. People will still lose skulls and jaws and such but not have costly ransoms. Coupled with enhanced XP and perhaps better bundle drops people may be more interested in going there and participating in PvP battles that are bound to happen. Once people get to experience PvP in a less negative way perhaps they will like it. Then we can work on better reward systems for PvP. Lets just get people in the door.

I understand the downside to this is there is "no reward" for killing people. But this could be combined with the current event to give something to the winners. This proposal is to get people in to PvP, not create easy fodder for top PvPers to gain more money.

 

PVP needs to be objective based. Meaning a common goal that needs to be achieved... territory held, resources gained.. better XP gains. But this needs to be done by groups, not by individuals. The game doesn't promote that currently. Have guilds protect zones and reward them enough for it. If some guild gets to strong, make alliances a next step to balance that out. Of course there will always be bigger fish in the tank, but as I said there are mechanics possible to cope with such problems.

Second I agree with the aversion thing.. but on the other hand loss NEEDS to be in there as well, because there is also griefing from people constantly trying to spawn near you and steal XP/loot. This goes both ways.

 

Why are people affraid? You can run around in store bought gear and lose nothing. Risk nothing. You dont have to carry around anyting to pvp and if you need reagents, just use small stacks and dont buy them back when you die.

 

I agree, however I feel your first point just leads to zergs - this is the way it has been in pretty much every game with that kind of system. Perhaps something can be designed to help that....

Second point is valid, but that exists now really.

 

You can fight zergs in this game by limiting raids and make them attack each other through friendly fire.. Already in place with 2 groups. I would love to have player run alliances in this game... if you put a reward in those PVP zones conflict will happen on itself and alliances will fight each other for contested land.

In another thread it was suggested to make PVP zones claimable, so that only an alliance or guild could farm it, and those scenes become vulnerable at certain windows... Also a good idea. A guild can conquer a zone... then the PVE crafter get in and farm every node there is until its vulnerable again.

 

I also hope this. But there is also help needed by others to develop such ideas to a workable state. To have a complete design at the end that may be presented to the devs. If enough like it.

Well, thanks. I always forgot about the multi accounts. And how selfish some can be. Not helping to have a virtual place for us all for their own sake.
Players that get the bounty with their own alt-chars would turn the bounty system in the opposite. The weaker ones become more hunted to max out the profit instead of that the ones that are able to kill only the weakest become the most wanted. Removing the system bounty would help but not finally solve the problem.

I like to see a bounty and criminal system. Go back to my table/papers and re-think it. May there is a workable state also for multi accounting.

What may make the game unplayable is that an area do not keep care on their transports and have a nearly crashed economy. No-one wants to live there, except the NPC they left behind. The ones that do not have a choice.

PvP and unprotected are not synonyms. Unprotected is the surrounding., like the virtual world in UO prior the renaissance patch. Or the real world you are living in. If it where synonym you are HvH (human vs. humans) flagged and have committed to be greifed or killed and of course do it on your own.
But i think you are not going to kill other humans.
PvP is a playing style. It meant you are searching opponents not victims. Like PvE is a playing style. Also thieving, greifing, murdering, hospitalling, protecting, crafting and and and. Not everything of this can take place in a protected world but in an unprotected.
I have chosen to be perma-PvP flagged to be able to live in a unprotected world. To have a free play. That also include helping others. I do crafting and PvEing almost all the time. PvP is nice from time to time. But i do not have committed to PKing or thieving. I am also not skilled for the latter.
But everyone thing who has chosen PvP is a PK (red names) or a greifer. Also PvP means Player vs. Player not more not less.
What is needed here in my opinion is to change it from PvP to unprotected. Also towns should have the label changed. To support free play. And also there are some actions/quest/systems needed that makes the unprotected world more meaningfull. A way that unprotected also seen as helpers.

Yes, PvP should not seen as PKing. PKing is one of the PvP styles.

I do not think we should try to change the mind of the ones that want to do PvE only and want to be protected. Applying some force here is the wrong way. The protected play-style is also valid. May some of them use a event from time to time to fight against other players, but it is not their world.
On the other side their may be enough people out there that like a unprotected world / free play but currently not attracted to what SotA offers. Also the mind did not to be changed here, they are already minded like that.

We should not only think how to get the best rewards at the cheapest way. We should think what we can do, what protected can not do, to help to have a better virtual world.
That why we should be able to heal and rezz everyone. Protected can not do this, without loosing their protection. (Except in a group)
And also have some world events, but no dividing, where one have something to defend against other players. That also allow the protected ones to help.

Remember. Greifers and such only exists when something is wrong in a community. It is also a way to "ask" for changes.

 

When you mine a node of IRON.... are you greifing the IRON???? No.... you are collecting ressources. Why call a PK a greifer when he is just collecting ressources? Griefing is very distinct... collecting gold is not griefing....

 

@CatweazleX , nice post, i also definitely like your ideas, not only on pvp but also on crafting, they are very reasonable and balanced and would IMHO really increase the depth of this game.
SOTA has become a griefing pvp area lately. Some pvpers have decided to play it the PK way (what I call psychopath killers ) and are gradually breaking their toy. We definitely need to implement ideas that limit them and increase the community game play in the PVP domain, and I believe yours idea definitely go in the right direction. I am linking your post to one of the SOTA pvp channel (blood Bay) as i think it could be a really good base for discussion

To address some of the issues Fruck is pointing, there are some few things that can be added to the system you propose:
bounty claimed should be public (the name of the person who successfully got the bounty is public)
a member of your guild (or guild alliance if implemented) cannot claim your bounty,
another char from the same account cannot claim a bounty.
A known alt claiming ransom should be reported to the guards, investigated and eventually asked to return the ransom (hard to implement, maybe a request by SOTA to link all alts to one account when using the same IP address?)

 

Ore nodes are dead things. Players are not. I hate the term "Human Resources" even humans are a life form, like animals and trees/plants also.
Some steer the wheel so far that people quit the game or switch off the PvP tag forever.

If you are marked PvP while on ransom hunt i would not call you greifer. You are a PK and when there is an RP background for your char you are called murderer. If you look beforehand that your opponent has a chance your a called PvP'er. If you leave the weak alone you are a honorable PK.
Currently i call the ones greifers that marked protected and wait until they extremely save can kill/greif. That is due the fact that the system restrict attacking them first, even you know the name. Without the system invention i would call them coward PK.
As this becomes more prominent in the last time it is indicating a failure in the system.
But there also greifers in the forum. That are trying to get more reward/ransom for less risk by using this situation.

In my unprotected life here in SotA i only meet one greifer. But this simply added a goal (head) i want to reach (have). And of course not enough to grovel before the oracle to ask for protection and get her strings attached. I do not want to be one of her pets that are allowed to misuse the protection only to drive the ones back to her golden cage that have decided to be free.

You are right, that calling someone a greifer is subjective and sometimes misused to get someone owns goals put through.

I have read that someone marked herself PvP to have the thrill of possible get Pk'ed, but where is this coming from if this game are not allowing PK'ing and thieving?

@istyrl
Thank you.

PK will ever exists in an unprotected world. But for many it seems to be the only reason to switch PvP on. What else one will do in a world that is not per default unprotected? How many are living unprotected and how many are tourists?
When there are enough unprotected may the count of PKs become meaningless without changing their actual count.

"The Oracle knows what is best for you" - Think about it

 

Great post! Even If the top-half of the OP was implemented, the combat system would be 1000% better off. As a side note, bonus XP should be at the bottom of the list in promoting PvP. Not that I don't like it. =P

 

.

 

See, I disagree with this. The ransom system is the number 1 thing that puts me off about engaging in PvP at all. It would be 1 thing to flag up and have some fun. Its another to have to strip down my inventory of crap I don't wanna have to pay for, put on crappy gear, etc. Just like it used to be annoying to have to unstack all my reagents into little bitty piles and make a mess of my inventory. Its inconvenient, and not wanting to deal with it is the number 1 reason I don't bother to engage.

If you enjoy PvP combat I don't understand why the ransom nonsense is even needed. The game has enough cash sinks without adding a voluntary one. And all this 'insurance this and that' stuff just makes it even more fiddly, more complicated, and more crap to have to deal with. It can't simply be "Huh, I fancy going and fighting some players today" it has to be this huge loss prevention / mitigation routine beforehand. Personally I think you'd see a lot more participation in PvP if you did away with ransom completely.

For someone who isn't necessarily specialized, or geared for PvP, the ransom is just a huge barrier to entry since its very likely you're going to lose, a lot, which just translates into more grind time required to replace the lost money. We say we want more people running around doing PvP things then why do we make so many downsides to doing so?

 

Nothing to lose, equals nothing to win in a sandbox. I agree that there need to be mechanics like guild wars etc that maybe are without ransom etc... but open PVP should stay as it is. Not everyone is made to be a criminal, sadly this game has no real good vs evil mechanics. Big lack of design that virtues mean nothing.

 

Yeah, and there's a difference between 'open world' (which as currently implemented, I will 100% avoid) and if they were to add some sort of guild war / territory control / siege / faction / something. Something like that (PVP with a PURPOSE) would be fun, and I think ransom exemptions in those scenarios, where its a team vs. team sort of event, would be appropriate and a good encourager to draw in more folks.

 

If there is a reward in the end.. Yes. Maybe you need to use resources as a guild to build siege engines etc. and if you lose you lose that. PVP without loss doesn't work in a sandbox.

 

PvP flagged already gives you a +10% xp bonus. Why do you need more? 50% wt?

 

An open world where both, the protected and the unprotected, "lives" in is a good thing.
Well controlled player vs player fights are already implemented, one do not even need to leave her mother - the oracle -. If you want entertainment then ask another player for a duel. Such a duel can take place at any time at any location. It is on the players to plunder the gravestone or leave it alone. On friendly PvP there should no loss or preparation be involved. It is also far from complicated to right click someone and press "invite to an duel". It can also be used by PvP-Tourists.

It is not ok to take without giving something. You do not want to leave a gravestone behind, nor you are available when we want enjoy entertainment with you because you switched back to protected mode when satisfied. You are really expect that humans are there, that do not even get payed by Port. for your personal enjoyment?

But you enlighten one point and this is PURPOSE. The purpose to switch to unprotected mode should be far more then killing other players or ransom hunt. There should be content and that should be little deeper, so that the ones that have left the oracles protection have more to do as fulfilling kill-jobs. It should also be weaved that way that protected are included without giving up there protected state or only for a limited period of time.
And once again i ask that unprotected/perma PvP tagged can heal, buff and rezz everyone without grouping first. Or, please, someone explain me why this is restricted.