Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
PvP
Clive
Member Posts: 65
in Fallen Earth
Whats your view on it, what kinds of things would you like to see? All out no holds barred PvP? Automatic penalty system? Limited PvP? No PvP at all?
Id like to hear what the community thinks about it ...so I can mock them later as I'm blowing their heads off (haha j/k)
Comments
We will not be active on any forums for a while yet, but I wanted to let you know we are watching this thread with interest.
I like PvP
I hate PvP.
I wouldn't know how to make it PvP friendly for both crowds but I do think that having different servers is not a good idea. It really should be mixed together somehow like a huge battlefield (area) with alot of the features in the rest of the world but allowong 100% PvP. Unless of course we get players who actually like to role play and aren't Red vs. Blue kill kill kill type players. I need PvP, but I don't want to have to deal with watching my back everywhere I go.
The server idea: Would be good if they let you have your char on both servers. The thing is, that would be kinda dumb as the game is going to have a huge storyline (hopefully) that involves the players and effects the game world. It would be better to have one group of players instead of two groups.
So to answer your question, NO IDEA. I will just asses, adapt and survive like always.
Clive great topic. PvP really can be the make or break issue when it come to a great MMORPG. I'm going to bring up a few more detailed issues for discussion, then give you my views on them.
1) Who can PvP?
2) Where can you PvP?
3) Penalties of getting killed.
4) Penalties FOR killing.
5) Perks to killing (ie XP, Status/Fame, Loot Rights)
6) Previous mistakes (What have other games done WRONG)
7) Balance issues
Well I'm sure there are a ton of other issues to discuss, but lets start with these. I'll put my responses in my next post
FEDev1 - I'm assuming from the name and nature of the post that you are representing the developers of Fallen Earth, if so, that's awesome that you guys are taking an interest on how the community feels, (even further creedance to my post in the Vaporware thread.) Props to The Endurance!
(By the way if this is just someone impersonating a dev FYI its really not appropriate and kind of pathetic)
At any rate my views on PVP:
Disclaimer, Im a hardcore PvPer and I like to roleplay a criminal or an outcast, on almost every game I play I'm a rogue/theif or something. I'm usually always disapointed about my flexibility in the game world, (Ive never played an MMO where a theif could steal from another player) I'm pro PvP normally unrestircte, not because I love ganking, but because I love realism.
That said,
The way I feel about PvP changes depending on a lot of factors with in each game. For the sake of time I'll break it down into the major ones. The first is death rate. Now in a game like world of warcraft, you die so much that their penalty for getting Pk'd or lack there of is almost justified. Extremely unrealistic, but justified in its own right. A level 60 can come run up on your level 35 butt andkill you in 2 hits, theres next to nothing you can do ...unless you have vanish powder you sneaky rogue
Now if you lost XP for dying or even items, people would be outraged since its almost inevetable you're going to get killed no matter how cautious you are depending on what zone you're in. Is the solution to have it be impossible to kill someone who is more than 5 levels lower than you? Nay, thats just another bandaid solution to a real problem. I propose, and in the context of a post modern game that this works better, that everyone at least has a chance to defend themselves against an agressor. This is where the realism part comes in.
One of the biggest gripes I had about Neocron (the game most similar to this that I have a large familiarity with) was that if a 2 star Monk came up to me and I was say 2 chevs (once you get 4 chevs ytou get a star, then 2 stars, basicly uber vs mediocre, and I shot him with an assault rifle it'd do next to no damage. Was it because he was wearing power armor? Nope he wasnt a tank, it was because the weapon I could use at my level had very little damage in comparisson to his monk armor and HP. This was completely unrealistic, I'm talking a full clip of assault rifle unloaded into an AFK 2 star psi monk would barely knock him down to 7/8 health. The reason for this was because of the weapon I could use at that level. Which is why I think that a low level gun should do roguhly the same amount of damage as a highlevel gun of that type. It might be crappy in otherways like jamming frequently, poor aim, poor recoil, thus its cheaper and lower levels can obtain it. But to have a high level guy come up on you and in defence shooting him with something that could actualy harm him might make him think twice about running around rampant Pking. This isnt to say that a low level player should be on an even playing field with a high level , just that he should have a chance. And putting a gun up to someones head no matter how skilled you are or arent at point blank should be able to kill them, and thus they will probably be intimidated by it.
The above paragraph pretty much means that if you give the low level gamers more power you will have less unfair ganking.
Now an addition to this is the lack of a con system. This in my mind is a good thing. Players should be able to make judgements on how tough someone is by looking at them not reading a yellow red or green bar by their name. This would also reduce RPKing and griefing for no reason other than because you can. This also allows low level players to gain a certain amount of "protectoin" by donning gear that looks coordinated rather than hodge podge stuff that would identify you as a lowbie. In contrast a highly skilled player could trick potential griefers by dressing in ragged garb and destroying anyone who underestimates him.
Of course we can only push realism so far and perma death in an MMO is never a good idea, but a moderate to high death penalty is. THe main reason for this is fear. Imagine you are a badass griefer, and you're scoping out people to kill. You know that if you die by retalliatory fire you'll drop dead, most likely have all the gear you're carrying on you looted, have to be recreated in a cloning machine probably costing you some, and getting another set of gear from your secure storage locker. It wouldnt be devestating but it would not make your day either. Put this in combonatino with the other 2 ideas above. Say you locate your "victim", walking around a starter town sort of putzing around, noticing he has a 9mm strapped to his side. Sure you have an AR15 and can probably kill him if you get the first couple shots, but what if hes a combat veteran, and if not, what if he gets a lucky pot shot and hits you in the head (you knew you should have brought your helmet today). You then would probably evaluate the benifit you'd get from killing him, if little to none (griefing) youd probably decide a few seconds of fun isnt worth the potential risk. But say you noticed he was carrying an old walkie talkie with him that in this day and age would be very useful communicateing with your friends accross the wasteland. You'd probably decide to take the risk and engage him.
Now I hardly thnk theres anything wrong with the latter situation, its the griefing that I thnk most people are concerned about.
Now aside from this if you're going to be realsitic about the game (which is the way I see FE going within reason) you might as well add the realistic perks as well. Like people being relatively safe inside of a city becuase if any one faught there they'd need to be damn well prepared to fight off all the guards that would interfere. Combine this with a reputation system of some sort, a bounty hunter system in whcih the players can partake, and perhaps in high tech citys electromagnetic triggerlocks for certainguns and (insert idea here), you can have a pretty viable, realistic, relatively unrestricted, and most of all FAIR pvp system.
I know this was long and I probably left out some stuff anyways but id like to hear all of your thouhgts
Thanks again FEDev1 for taking the time to read this thread
Ok, so to answer my own topics. I'm coming from a decent MMORPG background having tried the whole PvP experience in a few different games (AC, AO, EQ, EnB, EVE, and SWG).
1) Who can PvP?
Is everyone PvP capable, or is there a flag system. My personal preference tends towards a flaging. The player must actively choose to be a PvPer. This can be as simple as a GUI button to toggle between the 2 states (With at least a 30 minute delay to switch back either way) or requires a journey to some form of alter (or in FE maybe some genetic facility that removes the passive gene or whatnot). Of those two, the 'quest' solution seems best to me, heres why. With a player toggle, it becomes possible to gather a group of non-PvP players of faction 'A' and march unhindered into an area controlled by faction 'B'. Then do a mass toggle to PvP and you are within your opponents defenses, as opposed to having to break down the proverbial draw bridge.
The quest solution, so long as it is made moderately difficult, also prevents people from creating new accounts and immediately going to a PvP state. This prevents certain types of nuisance griefing, newbie griefing, and prevents players who are not ready for the rigors of PvP getting in over their heads.
2) Where can you PvP?
In standard servers there must MUST be zones. Now the question is, are these PvP zones, or safe zones? Should the bulk of the world be an anarchic war zone with survival of the fittest, that certainly seems to fit in better with the whole post apocalyptic theme. I personally don't like that, but it certainly feels right. So, then we have safe zones. Certainly established enclaves run by the Enforcers would seem to fit that description, and here I would prefer for PvP to be impossible as opposed to suicidal (ala EVE systems with a 1.0 sec rating). Why impossible? To totally prevent the griefing of new players, no matter how rare the occurence may be.
I would also love to see a dedicated PvP server though. One in which there are no truly safe zones, maybe attacking another player in an Enforcer city IS suicidal, but it should still be allowed. PvP only servers should be clearly marked as being for experienced players.
3) Penalties of getting killed.
Penalties should be identical to those of dieing in PvE with the following exceptions. According to the www.gamemethod.com interview from September 8th, 'killed' players can be resuscitated by other players. PvP combat should either be a no XP, no penalty practice, OR should be followed up by a death-blow on an unconcious opponent. After delivering the "Yes I really REALLY want this guy dead" blow, then XP should be awarded. Otherwise you have the risk of: I kill you, I get XP, I resurect you, I kill your weakened form, I get XP, I resurrect you, etc. I'd be more than happy to lose the 'practice' concept and stick to a simple knock them to 0 health and they are dead and cannot be resurrected format.
Gear loss, I would expect you to lose all of your gear that you were wearing. I alos expect you to lose all that when killed in PvE. The difference is that a monster isnt going to loot your corpse... well if they are Desert Bandits or Road Pirates that would be cool. Keep backup gear stashed near your clonging facility!
4) Penalties FOR killing.
Well, if there is any type of faction standing system then you should likely lose points from whatever your opponents faction (Primary Faction) is. Also, if you are the attacker and there are witnesses then perhaps a criminal/bounty system. Basicly the only penalties should be to Crime ratings if applicable or making your opponents friends dislike you. Faction should be granted to you if your opponent had some enemies that would appreciate your actions.
5) Perks for killing
XP? Yes just like for killing a creature, but make sure that the victims XP debt is sufficient enough that you do not get into a case where 2 friends can go find a corner and kill each other for a few days to become uber l337 d00des... I just HATE that
Status/Fame? Covered pretty well in the penalty section, depends on if a system like this even exists in game.
Loot Rights? YES, a resounding YES. This should be the principle reason why you would want to hunt other people in a post apocalyptic world. To GET THEIR GEAR AND USE IT TO SURVIVE. Take the deads food, water, ammunition, shoes, EVERYTHING. Keep backup gear stashed near your cloning facility! Clones should get a basic set of clothes and a stick.
6) Previous mistakes
Oooh lots of mistakes. I'm curious to hear others stories. From my personal experience big errors come down to the flagging systems used in some games. The absolute worst IMO was in SW Galaxies (at least at the beginning I dont know what the state is now). Groups should not be able to mix PvP and PvE characters, period. PvE characters should not be able to heal, buff, or in any way affect PvP characters.
And for crying out loud, if you get killed in PvP you should NOT be able to run up to your attacker and get a free revenge/grief shot in without being flagged as PvP again. Yeah thats what drove me out of SWG
7) Balance issues
Well if combat is actually plaed as a true FPS then most issues should be resolved by player skill. I'm sorry but if you choose to be the greatest swordsman in the world you need to expect to get blasted back to your cave by the rookie with the 12 gauge shotgun. Balance is nice, but not at the expense of common sense.
Well thats a pretty long post, hope it gets more conversation flowing.
I could not agree with this post more! I'm hoping this game wont have uber items, because I'd love it if every weapon had its ups and downs and it was up to the players playstyle on what weapon they use. A gun is a gun. It shoots bullets. No matter how good you are with it, someone else with less experience can be just as deadly.
I hope we can mod our guns too. Add anything along the lines of a scopes, silencers, extended mags, bayonets, folding stocks, bipods, even saw off barrels. That way theres no "uber weapon" out there that everyone wants. But you can have the same gun as the noob next to you, only yours has a scope, extended mag, and a bayonet, making it more deadly.
___________________________
The Golden Rule.
Risk vs. Reward
Also one nice thing about not having insanely overpowered loot (ie the uber Assault Rifle of no recoil and +50 damage) Is that it allows you to keep a relatively realistic death penalty. Imagine you discover an old military bunker and find a weapon there like an m16, you're most liklely going to find a bunch more, which you could load them up in a transport and store them in a secure location to retrieve in case you get yours looted off of you. This would lower the profanity factor if you get pked since you lose stuff, but you can also replace it. And think about thsi as well, we're living in a post apocolyptic world, where im guessing over 90% of the original population are gone, then look at the statistics in the US (more specicficly in the Southwest for this case) about the ratio of guns per person. After the Fall there will be a lot more guns available for a lot fewer people. Same thing goes for armor items etc.
This is not to say that all equipment is basic, there will certainly be soemthing to strive for in terms of equipment, especially armor. The way I feel if you want to be realistic, and you're dealing with guns in a game, you need to have strong armor to justtify combat. I'm just saying its easier on everyone if theres not some uber item that drops .001% of the time on a certain mob in an area which in turn gets farmed to crap.
I've played a game called Asheron's Call since early beta and I REALLY enojyed it then back in beta (same thig happened with Neocron btw...they should have just left that game in beta2/beta3 i think more people would have played). At any rate I noticed that in AC beta the "high levels" (around 20 or so then) were wearing plate mail bought form the store. It had an armor rating of 100, holy crap! it was awesome, you got to look down on those guys in the chain and leather. Now flashforward 6mo-1year, anyone wearing store bought stuff is a complete and total n00b. Now virtually everyone has insanely powerfularmor which Turbine just compensates with more powrful weapons. The end result is if you're wearing vendor plate at this stage in the game and you get hit by someone, you might as well be wearing your b -day suit.
to quote George Carlin "Dis is reawly stoopid!"
I can see higher level armor being like Kevlar Mark IV instead of III. Or going out and exploring and finding NV goggles would be a big plus. But it has to come to some happy medium between ph4t l3wt and common sense. We dont want the game to be CS where everyone has the same stuff, but we also dont want absurd unrealism like we see in almost every MMO on the market today.
Wee im ranting again
AHHHHH!!!!! SO. MUCH. TEXT.
I'm sorry, I didn't read everything everyone wrote, headach and all. Not from the massive amounts written, but from the frying pan my girlfriend smacked on my head. Apparently, love handles is not a good thing to point out to her.
PvP is WAY different in this kinda game as opposed to one with lvls and all that crap. PvP is going to rely on your real life skills. Thank god I won't have to spend so much time just leveling up to be able to participate in player events and such. Thats just so gay in my book.
Uber weapons. Nope, there shouldn't be 1 weapon to rule em all. BUT!!! (Theres ALWAYS a but) Weapons ingame this stick to there real life counterparts as much as possible. NO! Im not talking about 1 shot kills, but damage should stay true to form, ie: a pistol (unless your using a hand cannon) should do less damage then a shotgun and a shotgun less damage then a assault rifle. Im talking bullet types here. 9mm, 10mm, 5.56mm, 7.62mm, .308 and so fourth. But yeah, each weapon has strengths and weaknesses. PLZ GIVE ME A SILENCER!!!!
PvP: Look to the MMO - Face of Mankind. It's 100% No Holds Barred PvP - No restriction at all. That works in that game as it's alot easier to escape a ganking if your hauling loot then it would be in the middle of no where.
My best idea on PvP is pretty much this. Split the world up in three's, city's/towns - and then the rest
Zone 1 City's/Towns - The main places: You can either have it guarded by leet npc's that attack attackers or gankers, making players have to kill out of sight or make it so that you can only kill npcs.
Zone 2 Whatever you call the outdoors: No PvP - Just battles between NPC's mutants whatever the devs put in to battle. And put half of the stuff we can discover and stuff there.
Zone 3 Same as above: Unrestricted PvP, same as above but maybe a bit more places to see so players have places to battle over and such.
OR: Make the whole place Non PvP aside from fight clubs, gladiator arena's rings and such.
THEN: Make several battlefields with strongholds and outposts somewhere that can be controlled and let players duke it out there. It could be a zone clearly marked PvP or something.
I'm still unsure how to make everyone happy, I just hope you guys can come up with a way to keep everyone together. I really don't like seperate servers to be honest. It's better to keep people together. Unless you plan on letting us jump servers and such, it's best to keep it together. Just my opinion.
Full PvP. With a bounty/wanted system.
___________________
I have played many games, and I agree that PvP is a delicate topic. At the moment the MMORPG I am playing is Lineage 2. The PvP system there is open, except for towns which are safe zones. If you initiate combat with another player, your name changes to purple. If the other player fights back then their name also turns purple, and the one who wins gets a PvP point.
If they DO NOT attack back in anyway, and you continue to wail on them, and kill them, your name turns red, and there is no penalty or "flagging" for killing the red person. Not to mention a red person has a chance to drop equipment (some people will hunt you down just for that reason)
Pro's: You have the freedom to make the choice to go red/purple knowing if you lose you lose a percentage of your exp and may loose a weapon or armor etc. You can beat down a smack talker and choose to go red.
Con's: You lose XP when you die. You can lose valuable items. The smack talkers usualy beef up so they can kill you and talk more smack. there are NO level restrictions at all. IF you go red you get Karma points which have to be worked off by killing or being killed. More PK's you have, the more karma you get for one PK.
My personal view is that unless it is regulated, PvP WILL make people leave a game if they are the victim too many times. Too many immature kids have this virtual power and use it to make casual players in game life not as fun.
In Everquest you had to both agree to PvP outside of the arena
In Anarchy Online you had arena PvP and also specified zones in which you could PvP. Not to mention during Tower siege times which were all out PvP battles. Those were ALOT of fun.
this is just my 2 cents on PvP. I like PvP, but at the same time hate it.
To error is human, to forgive is devine. Neither are US Marine Corps doctrine.
I think the best thing they could do is just seperate PvP with zones. Full PvP has too many people abusing it. No-PvP is just gay
As long as its not something dumb like, 80% of the world is no-pvp, and theres a little corner with nothing exciting in it thats full-pvp. I say have certain roads and stuff full pvp. That way if you dont want to pvp, just take the long route. If you got big kahuna's take the shorter, but more dangerous, full-pvp road.
ps. Dont ever use an agreement system in a mmorpg. Nothing is more frustrating than an annoying ass player that wont leave you alone, and keeps declining those duel requests. There are also non-pvp greifers out there.
___________________________
The Golden Rule.
Risk vs. Reward
To error is human, to forgive is devine. Neither are US Marine Corps doctrine.
To answer the PvP question we need to know:
1. Are factions going to be united entities? IE: Face of Mankind - Where each faction has a leader and issues general faction orders and has a political system? Or are factions just a way to describe what kinda of a player you are?
2. Are the devs going for a zoneless world? I remember them saying something about that and they are going zoneless but would they agree to make zoned parts in the world 100% full fledged PvP?
Everyone else, add stuff I have missed...
I hate to keep bringing up the other games, but I am trying to relate them so I can explain it better. In Anarchy Omni was the Corporation, kinda like Microsoft of the future... but with guns. Clans were the ones who were the miners and slaves to the Omni, and rebeled. Neutrals... self explanatory fence sitters. You chose your path and received skills based on that path. you could change sides, but with a penalty at higher levels. Your goal was to own "Notum Mines" and you had to PvP for the territory.
Within each faction you had clans, or guilds or organizations (all the same things) Only a guild could own a notum mine. Those battles were massive PvP fights, as many orgs founded alliances. They had an in game tax system set by the leader of the clan which taxed each member approx 1-10 credits every couple hours of play (could be higher if leader wanted it to be) the game itself taxed each org each week.
You dont have to be in a org to PvP, just be where the gas was low. Basicly you KNEW by several warnings (the final one being a countdown on your screen, starting as soon as you entered lower suppresion, so you had 30 seconds to back out or try and run all the way through and you could not be attacked while in the countdown)
I have to say, im not usualy a forum poster, but this is the most mature conversations I have seen on a MMORPG forum in a long time.
To error is human, to forgive is devine. Neither are US Marine Corps doctrine.
LAWL!! I ROXXORZ TEH BOXXORZ YOU 1337 U83R N3RD!!!! Sorry, when you said that crack about mature conversations, I had to throw that in... I haven't had a mature conversation for like ever on forums aswell.. Anyways...
I play AO as well so I know what your talking about. And it's good to compare other games as it' a good source to look at. I'mjust wondering if they are going to have the factions in game as one entity like in Face of Mankind or if it's just for the player to join ala AO.
Now what I mean by the statement above is in Face of Mankind, you have factions that are run by a leaders and complete with ranks. Kinda like an org but in Anarchy's world, it would be like Omni Tek headed by a player and would have a working chain of command. And every new player that joins the game and chooses a faction starts as lets say... a trooper or private... The lowest rank there is.
I think that would be a big disaster as I know first hand how it works. It doesn't. Better to have lets say NPC's controlled by story masters or what not. Like Phillip Ross and such...
What this has to do with PvP? If we know a bit how the game will be played, it will be easier to figure out a good way to have PvP ingame.
I agree. In lineage it is a free for all so to speak. I dont like you "WHAM" we fight and either I risk losing my gear and XP or I win.
Factions like in AO add a little spice, and allow the RP'r to have a little fun. Even the least RP'r would love an excuse to attack someone cause they are clan and your omni. You have give the players a little bit of power, but you have to have the NPC (phillip ross or henry radiman in the case of Anarchy Online) to do the bidding of the Dev's
The ARK's and AO are usualy pretty funny and very interactive as well. But thats another topic
To error is human, to forgive is devine. Neither are US Marine Corps doctrine.
Ok, I know what we are talking about seems off topic, but it really isn't.
If we know how it will be played, then we can figure out the easiet way to have PvP.
FoM - Face of Mankind
AO - Anarchy Online
FoM Style: This will end up being pretty much an all out frag fest and we will end up playing Red vs. Blue CS/Quake/*INSERT FAV FPS GAME HERE*. The leader will end up promoring only his friends and it will end up a good ole boys group instead of what was meant to happen. The leader and High Command will end up doing as they like with no real regard to the rest of the players and most likely you will have people in charge who really couldnt even lead a rat to food in a 1 corridoor maze. Other then that, it's very hard to organize such a big group versus a smaller one.
AO Style: Each faction has let's say.... 5 to 10 story master controlled NPC's They would be the leaders of the faction, the High Council if you want. Dev's or story masters would use em to help set the story, change politics, set battles in motion, rules, laws and whatever. Players belong to the faction and have a rank dependent on each level they achieve. No you don't level up lick point and clicks but you maybe do with trade skills like crafting or whatever. Maybe you just get xp per monster kill and the rank and xp shows your slaying status. Players create guilds/clans/squads and pretty much do as they please. They just have the High Council as a guideline.
It would be better to have clans or guilds. They seem more sensible the smaller they are soem some reason. This makes it easier for the NPC leaders (devs) as they now have 1 person per guild/clan to relay a player event or to relay whatever it is that will affect the game to. They also have an easy way of finding out each clans stance with each situation they make into effect.
If we have an idea about how it will be played then we can think about how to set up PvP as it's pretty easy to fit with each style of gameplay. But for now, here's my suggestion.
Players can build and capture? If a player builds something, there should be a strict no PvP rule enforced. But if it was captured, then PvP should be allowed. This gives other players the chance to reap the rewards of owning an outpost or even the chance to perform raids and such.
Technology Advancing: Lost techs will most likely be found in deserted towns, burried, in deserted bases and what not. Make those PvP. Why? When players find lost tech, they get rewarded for finding it, and the faction gets rewarded. Maybe the player who finds it gets the first produced tech or a load of cash and the players faction gets it at a reduced cost. Theres somethign else to fight for. Just make sure it's limited to the area where the tech is found.
Arena's: Make 2 arenas in cities. 1 where players can fight one another or have a quick clan war gladiator style and 1 where players can fight npc's for money.
Instead of seperate servers: You have one thats normal as described above, and another one thats just one huge battlefield. Eqach faction starts in their respective strongholds and you go out and kill each other, throw in objectives and such for players to hold/take and so on.
Now split XP up like this: Primary XP: for the regular game - Arena XP: for the gladiator arena's - Battlefield XP: For the second server battlefield. No, it doesn't help you like in point and clicks except maybe tradeskills and such but it's a good way of showing what the players good at, his accomplishments.
And lastly, if your going to implement a full PvP system, make a penalty system where the person who starts shooting gets penalties if he kills a another player. Then let everyone know who he is via a list and have NPC enforcer guards arrest him/kill him on sight. Makes him stay away from cities and creates consequences for his actions.
As I mentioned before, Lineage 2 has the PvP system where there are risks and consequences. Unfortunatley consequences are not taken seriously. Here is why it doesnt work:
Me and my healer friend are strolling along, laughing and enjoying the sun. Out come clan XxX and one of them seems really upset and or annoying. We will call Mr Annoying l33th4x cause that is the usual style of their name in lineage 2. He smacks me once, and turns purple (meaning he opened PvP and now I have the chance to attack l33th4x and fight him one on one... which it would not be) Now if I hit him back, I become purple. Problem is, his clan is there. Once I am purple, and "open to be attacked safely" his whole group will swarm me. If my healer heals, she will also flag purple and be killed.
You can attack and kill a purple player without chance of penalty. You turn purple for a number of seconds based on who you hit and how hard. (A glove less slap will get you about 10 seconds purple) If my time of being purple wears out, then if I am killed the other person goes red. Red means that you can not go into town or go around NPC's (like shops and private storage) And that people want to hunt you with hopes you will drop your gear. Sounds real nice so far right? well lemme continue the little story..
l33th4x decides he likes the attention he got from his friends cause I did not hit him back (gritting my teeth of course) So he goes at it a few more times. Now I am low on health and am sure he will kill me. I have my healer friend bail, cause when I have gone red, I kill EVERYONE near that I dont know. No one is getting my gear. He drops me dead.. he is now red or "chaotic" Now he should be concerned. But he isnt. He takes his gear off. His buddys kill him on the spot, he loses the Karma points and turns white again. His buddies hand back his gear, he only lost a few percent, and he laughs and talks smack the whole time while he is losing karma.
The system sounds nice, but was implemented poorly. I like the AO idea that you can capture land and make bases out of it. In Lineage you can capture a castle and collect tax from the community. Both GREAT PVP, and less smack tards seem to be talking... I said less not none
To error is human, to forgive is devine. Neither are US Marine Corps doctrine.
I remember that the devs said they wanted the game to be zoneless. However, it seemed that they were talking about traveling zones and not PvP zones. Some of the ideas I see that you people have talked about have been used, and worked at varying degrees.
Someone mentioned never using an agreement system, and I have to agree. Star Wars Galaxies uses this for non-faction combat, and this just sucks.
Someone else mentioned using battlefields or marked off areas for PvP. Battlefields won't work unless you have some reason to be there. If its just for PvP, only the gankers will go. If you have a point to it, then you will only find people there when they have planned it out a week in advance.
Star Wars Galaxies has changed their PvP system around a few times in its almost 2 years. Currently, PvP is agreement or faction only. If you are part of a faction (Imperial or Rebel) then you have 3 settings. Off Duty means you cannot engage in factional PvP or PvE. The second type (I can't remember the name) allows factional PvE but not PvP. Special Forces allows full factional combat. To switch from one to another means going to a faction recruiter and saying you want to swtich and then wait 5 minutes, during which you can cancel the action at any time. Once you switch you are allowed to switch to any other by talking to the recruiter at any time and waiting 5 minutes. There are some people who walk around all the time at Special Forces, others may only change to that for a raid.
If a system like this could be implimented, it would make the need for multiple servers obsolete. Maybe everyone starts as Non-Combat, not able to attack and unattackable. Then you can talk to people, guards or something else, and have your setting put to Combat, which is completely open PvP. You have a 5 minute waiting period between swtiches (longer is just rediculous).
Also, you could have a distance from civilization at which you become full PvP. Say going 2 or 3 klicks (that would be kilometers for those that don't know) from any maintained building gets a message sent to you saying "You are enering the wastes" which tells you that you are about to enter a free PvP zone. This would make far out places more lawless while allowing for people to stick around civilized places unharmed. This would also allow raids on people traveling between places more than 5 klicks apart from each other and would make small outposts along trade routes very valuable for multiple reasons.
Oh, and just remember, all parts of the game need to interact. A good game is like a web, with every point interacting with the rest. Mess with one and you affect all others, which means if you screw up the PvP at the beginning, then you have to change everything if you change the PvP otherwise you will hurt the game. Hopefully we can come up with a solution that will be enjoyable for all, or at least tolerable by almost all.
Waiting For: something good
Games Tried: SWTOR, Star Trek Online, EQ, EQ2, Earth and Beyond, Planetside, Lineage 2, Eve Online, WoW, City of Heroes, City of Villians, Auto Assault, Fallen Earth
Star Wars: Galaxies - Ibra Olasi (Valcyn Server) [Dead, screw you SOE]
EDIT- No clue how that happened, sure as hell didnt click twice. Someone please remove this post thank you!
I have actually read through the enitre thread....
And here is some of my thoughts:
The two inherent notions of PvP is that it is Unpredictable and that it is Dangerous. Both of them must be present. Predictability of an event will cause complacency and stagnation. Lack of danger will produce the same effect.
So, there must be a way to introduce PvP into the game where both of the aforementioned notions ae present and active.
The way I see it, EVE Online, even though its got boring - and I think it got boring because we lack the corporeal body - and our avatars are the starships we fly - has a good grip on it. There are areas of space which are "free for all" so to speak. The 0.4-0.0 space - where people can engage in any kind of marauding, ruthless and filthy endeavour they can, without any repricussion.
Perhaps in FE there could be a badlands dividing the inhabitable areas. Traveling through those badlands will be wrought with danger and unpredictability. At the same time there will be opportunities for scavanging and profit. The encounters can be regulated - and at times avoidable, like in Fallout. Where you had your choice to either fight or flee and some divine computer decided if you could flee or stay and fight.
Also, you would not know the strenth of the company your opposing - you wouldnt even know if they are firendly or hostile. It could be just herdsment passing by, or a monk with his aprentis, or it could be a band of savage killers, who are wanting nothing more then poke you with the sharp stick in the eye as many times as they can.
The issue is: The possibility of encounter has to be trully a chance. The travel itself, perhaps, can take a certain pattern - where someone with good luck and ability will be able to avoid any encounters if they want - again the keyword here is luck. If you traveled through the badlands in zig-zags or something.
This way the marauding gangs will need to actually work for their prey, instead of congregating at certain "bottleneck" and wait for their victim. Like - and I am sorry to mention it again - EVE, where gank squads seat by the entrance to 0.0 and just kill whatever come through.
Banditism, in this case, can be an actuall profession. Or even be a choice opportunity. If a large group of herdsmen encounter a single bandit they can take their revenge on him or blackmail him. Or, if the herdsmen encounter a well equiped band of merceneries they can perhaps make a deal for a safe pasage - rather then be killed outright.
At the same time the regular Joe Shmoe will have a chance to kill and rob - if he is stronger, or make friends. It will also allow people with peaceful intentions to say to each other "Hullo, we are going in the same direction, why dont we tag together - better chances" - like in real post-apocaliptic world.
It will also allow for an element of treachery and surprise - where one of the members of the newly founded peaceful band can possibly change his mind and turn violent.
Of course there is a problem, someone like me would shoot first and then ask the questions. Because it is again - relying on trusting people. Maybe there can be a way of establishing intentions before the encounter in badlands. Where the parties talk and establish somekind of bond - where they can both press "agree" button and that will prevent either party from attacking another while the "peace agreement" is active. And each of the party - if they change their mind - can un-register from the cease fire. But that will immideatley put them farther aside from each other where they have to chance encountering each other again with hostile intentions.
I dont know, I am runing in circles here - the more I think about the things I just said the more I think of the ways I can circumvent it for plain killing and griefing.
So, I am sorry of the ramble, I know that PvP has to be in game and it has to be UNPREDICTABLE and DANGEROUS. But, not everywhere - there must be developed areas where if you attack another player without provocation then you would suffer the wrath of local law.
Anyhoo... my fingers are tierd.
Cheers.
my suggestions are going to be short.
Who Fights Who?
1) Wars between guilds.
2) Guilds align with factions (such as Enforcers are opposed to CHOTAs and TEchs are opposed to Lightbearers.
3) Individuals can enable PvP for themselves (at a guildhall or guild stronghold) to fight against enemey Guilds and Factions.
What are the penalties? (a little more complicated...)
1) Ability to insure 4-5 items that you wouldnt loose if you die.
2) Maybe add a few quests that you have to do while PvP is activated that would increase your total insured item count.
3) Allow the Winner to Loot if its an enemy Faction, but not loot if its just an enemy Guild.
my suggestions are going to be short.
Who Fights Who?
1) Wars between guilds. -Yes
2) Guilds align with factions (such as Enforcers are opposed to CHOTAs and TEchs are opposed to Lightbearers.Yes
3) Individuals can enable PvP for themselves (at a guildhall or guild stronghold) to fight against enemey Guilds and Factions. No.
What are the penalties? (a little more complicated...)
1) Ability to insure 4-5 items that you wouldnt loose if you die.No
2) Maybe add a few quests that you have to do while PvP is activated that would increase your total insured item count. No
3) Allow the Winner to Loot if its an enemy Faction, but not loot if its just an enemy Guild. Yes and No
To answer my No's:
1. Individuals can enable PvP for themselves (at a guildhall or guild stronghold) to fight against enemey Guilds and Factions: Just wont work in a post apocalypse setting. One major threat in a post nuke world will be raiders. Nasty lazy people who dont want to work for anything. So they just take from the weak. What would stop caravans from just turning off pvp, going into raider teritory, and have a nice safe journey?
2. Ability to insure 4-5 items that you wouldnt loose if you die. Again, post apocolypse. This isnt a fantasy game with magic chests that make doubles of whatever item you want. Hopefully there wont be uber loot, so you can easily replace what you lose.
3. Maybe add a few quests that you have to do while PvP is activated that would increase your total insured item count: Same reason as above.
4. Allow the Winner to Loot if its an enemy Faction, but not loot if its just an enemy Guild. You die, your body lies on the ground, with everything it had on it before you died. I'd hate it if this game went the carebear route, and gave some lame penalty for death. You die, there goes your inventory. In other games it's rediculous. People walk around with the best gear, best items, best everything...and have no fear of losing it.
In those games people go "Oh look, he has xxarmor and xxsword, leave him alone, he'll kick our ass"
I'm hoping in this game its more like. "Check that guy out, he's got the new xxriffle and the xxbody armor...if we ambush him..."
___________________________
The Golden Rule.
Risk vs. Reward