I agree fully with radzik and thrak i think we found the begginings of our raiding team I can't seem to understand how some of you want "realism" in other threads and still vouge for a post apocoliptic world of peace. No Gov't = less rules = more crimes. Not to anger anyone, but different servers is unreasonable seeing as the processing power for running a lag free no zone map will take up a lot... I do however believe that certain areas should be governed by npcs somehow but as the same time i want to be able to take over towns not easily of course so im not sure how to place the Non pvp areas but i feel that there should be some because otherwise roleplaying would go out the window but i don't want my roleplaying restricted by non pvp areas I know this is kinda contradictory but yea...
Originally posted by Xatros Being the hardcore Roleplayer I am, PvP is something I do when a break is needed, rather than a full time occupation. Coming from SWG, I've had countless instances of when a very fun RP event has been ruined by a group of 12 year old gankers. Building on several previous ideas: -NPC/PC guards: Have both available, since there's not always going to be a PC around for a NPvPer (Non PvPer, rather than the demeaning term of "carebear" ) to hire out. Naturally, PCs have the ability to be either cheaper than NPC guards, or have a higher level of skill. Problems: What if the player decides to stab you in the back halfway into the desert? How do you make sure that the defending party gets paid? How do you advertise or find this service without spamming? Solutions: Job board. These could be noticeable sized (but not too big) posters around a town advertising protection. It would list the name, price, and whether it was an NPC or PC. Those hiring themselves out would simply register their price on this board. Their name would remain on it until they either got accepted, left the town, went offline, or withdrew their offer. Those hiring others would just check one of these posters to see what was available and in the price range. Way I see it, there should be a central office/booth/table that people hire at. After this is several posters around town listing those that have signed up, and where the office/booth is. Bigger towns could have NPCs at the booth, while smaller ones would just have a chalkboard or something. Payment would be dropped from the employer's bank or wallet upon accepting, and given to the guard when they are finished. If the contract is canceled before leaving town, the employer gets a refund. Anything after this, the guard gets payed. There's a whole lot of problems with this one too, but no system is perfect. EDIT: Forgot to include the solution for "what if they backstab you?" Well, since its a contract set up through the job board, the game could make it so that the guard and employer cannot harm each other. Again, up for debate. Next: Radii of non PvP around towns, cities, outposts, etc. I fully agree with this idea, the exact distance is up for debate. I think between 1 and 3Km from the city center, depending on its population, size, etc. Player-made cities should also emit a radius, though tiny camps would have a much smaller radius than, say, an NPC outpost. They should also be destructable, but only when 50% or more (Percentage up for debate) of the population is online. This prevents a single or group of raiders from obliberating a town when its owners were sleeping IRL, then waking up and finding everything gone. Though we might support this for realism. I'd go farther, but fingers are worn out and energy getting low...more later
Excellent point you make about PvP and roleplaying. Often PvP does not serve as a roleplaying tool. In fact, it does very little in the way of encouraging or stimulating roleplay, in most circumstances. Probably why most of it has been limited to arenas, or purely decision based. SWG implemented it well I thought, giving the player a choice of whether or not they wanted to participate in PvP by becoming Imperial, Rebel or covert. That would preserve what most of the people here seem to want, but still enable players who wante no part of it, to enjoy the game as well. There is nothing more annoying than paying 15$ a month to enjoy playing a game, only to be waylaid by people who like to camp corpses, camp portals/zones, such that even experiencing the game in any normal way becomes unbearable.
And if you are a pvp type, you cannot deny those last statements I have made. You know full well what I am referring to, regardless of whether you have particpated in that behavior or not.
I am not declaring it a completely useless tool. But, as far as implementing and developing systems, I would rank it last among the critical component systems that are developed. Mostly, because a minority of players enjoy spending their time fighting each other.
Since this thread is being revived from the past (and i've not read it all) i was going to ask (hopefully not for the 2nd time).. how does the thought of a karma system for PvP play in ya'lls heads?? I think it's one of the most realistic ways to handle it.. We could even have wanted posters up in the post offices and shops..(that way the PvP'er have some bragging rights about their picture and upstanding citizens can look at the picture and shame them).. and to make it even more crazy.. post a bounty on the most wanted people so they have to always be looking over their back.. these things would probably be hard to accomplish though.. i don't have a clue..
--------------------------------------------- Then the Lord answered Job from the whirlwind: "Who is this that questions my wisdom with such ignorant words? Brace yourself, because I have some questions for you, and you must answer them. "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you know so much.
Disclaimer: I have not read every single reply here.
PvP must not stand in focus of a MMORPG in my opinion, thats what will soon kill WoW. I think PvP will be a hard issue of balancing in FE, however PvP is quite vital in a MMORPG and must be looked into from a lot of perspectives.
There will be people who do not wanna PvP and FE must take that into account, from what i have seen - there are more people who do Not wanna PvP that those who Do wanna. Allthough there are usually the PvP:er who makes most noise in forums..:)
That said, i would like to see PvP integrated much like old AO-style. Where there are certain zones which are PvP-zones, that way PvP isnt mandatory. Or some could PvP when they felt like it insteadt of being ganked or forced to PvP.
Furthermore, i would not like to see any special rewards for PvP
The only problem with people choosing individual PvP settings is that not that im saying all of you have participated in this and not that im saying all of you havn't (take that insinuating we are greifers guy(dont worry i took no offence i hope you dont either)) But sometimes people go Non-pvpable just so they can run through a hell vs heaven scale war unsratched to some cave or whatever that they are fighting over and take all the tech inside it before any of the battlers and done fighting over it. Sure we need non pvp but leaving it up to the individual creates far too many of these problems. Non Pvp should be only in governed areas because not only will non pvp outside of a lawed area be killing the imersion of the game it will also be a pain in the neck because of those who expliot it.
Please no one take offence in this But im just trying to point out that their are just as many Non-pvp griefs as not and this world's theme is ruined with lots of non pvp
As to working so hard to get the perfect gear and having it unfairly ganked from you. They did use statigy one might use in real life. You could do the same to someone else or even the same person. creating a long line of pvp yes but you would need to statigise to do so. Just ideas feel free to bounce more around
I don't see how anyone could take offence to that chummer.. you make good points. I totally agree with your point on individual PvP settings. I think by individualizing like that.. it's makes people play by a different set of rules.. we all know how much that sucks.. I think, like you Venalicius, that standards and rules should already be set by the developer to handle as many PvP type situations as possible. What do you think about a karma system and a most wanted system? Do you think it would be enough of a check and balance? I'm envisioning teams of bounty hunters, citizen mobs, and law officials hunting down the chronic PvP'ers for the reward or.. because it's the right thing to do according to their beliefs. This way it's fun for both.. the PvP'er gets a kind of dangerous rebel mystique put on them and the RP'ers get a kind of justice for the PvP'ers crimes.
--------------------------------------------- Then the Lord answered Job from the whirlwind: "Who is this that questions my wisdom with such ignorant words? Brace yourself, because I have some questions for you, and you must answer them. "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you know so much.
Originally posted by Venalicius The only problem with people choosing individual PvP settings is that not that im saying all of you have participated in this and not that im saying all of you havn't (take that insinuating we are greifers guy(dont worry i took no offence i hope you dont either)) But sometimes people go Non-pvpable just so they can run through a hell vs heaven scale war unsratched to some cave or whatever that they are fighting over and take all the tech inside it before any of the battlers and done fighting over it. Sure we need non pvp but leaving it up to the individual creates far too many of these problems. Non Pvp should be only in governed areas because not only will non pvp outside of a lawed area be killing the imersion of the game it will also be a pain in the neck because of those who expliot it. Please no one take offence in this But im just trying to point out that their are just as many Non-pvp griefs as not and this world's theme is ruined with lots of non pvp As to working so hard to get the perfect gear and having it unfairly ganked from you. They did use statigy one might use in real life. You could do the same to someone else or even the same person. creating a long line of pvp yes but you would need to statigise to do so. Just ideas feel free to bounce more around
Well, you are assuming that I am calling all pvper's griefers. That is untrue, as I am usually a neutral individual when it comes to PvP. I neither advocate it, or frown upon friends who prefer it. It is not necessary to make your point that I am insinuating anything in my post. The point I am making is that with pvp, you will have griefers. There is no way around that at all. Period. Whether people who participate in PvP, or choose not to, they are both familiar with griefers.
So, the critical point is that if you decide to participate in PvP, is that you have made your final decision when creating your character. You choose to either be a pvp enabled player, or you aren't. This will segregate the population necessarily into it's two components. Only other pvp flagged pc's will be able to attack them. There is no switching back and forth.
As for non-pvp griefs, I can only imagine you are referring to someone 'training', which is reminiscent of EQ.
But anyway, no harm intended to anyone, but PvP should still remain a choice, and there are legitimate ways to provide this choice. As I mentioned above at character creation with the non-switchable pvp flag.
***methods employed in other games(namely SWG, since it seems to be the basis of this discussion*****
Well, let's go back to the switching flags system they had in SWG. But first, let me announce that I am not a pvper, and I can't state how well the system they employed worked, but it was an interesting system.
If you chose to be Imperial or Rebel, after any conflict with Imperials or Rebels, there was a period of time you had to remain actively flagged. If this is not the case, then I would appreciate someone who was actively involved with that system, to provide some details. To decrease the abuse of going covert, there were scanners that could be used to reveal your personal affiliation, if you were covert, thus enabling your pvp flag. I am not saying this system was perfect, and that it provided the pvper with what he desired, but it was a very creative concept.
*************reasons why total pvp or pvp by zone/region/area/etc.. may be unfair*************
If the zone/area/region/whatever it is, contains content that is not available elsewhere in the game world, you are basically limiting the accessibility of that content to those that prefer to pvp, and placing a burden upon the remaining player base that does not prefer pvp. The burden would arise if the content in the area marked for pvp, is superior or in some way provides an edge to people that are indeed pvpers.
I am not trying to offend anyone, which is fairly obvious if you read all of my posts, but merely presenting the kind of difficulties that can be experienced when trying to design a well working pvp system.
Again, when you speak about alienating a player base, if you choose not to have pvp, you alienate some, and if you choose to allow pvp fully, you alienate some as well. The middle ground is hard to find. I don't know what the division is, or the best system, but when choosing how to implement pvp in your game world, it is a very critical decision that will ultimately affect the type of people(and the quantity as well) that want to play your game.
Personally, I have no desire to go around killing other people. Doing that just diminishes the time I have to experience the game world, and the time the victim has to experience it. I suppose it falls back on allowing all players to experience the same content, regardless of whether they want to kill each other, or choose a more peaceful exploration of the same game content. Going too far in either extreme, produces an undesirable result.
Allthough choosing to be pvp-enabled or not from start might not be so good. Someone who actually from start wanted to pvp some may later in his/her career not wanna pvp anymore and vice verse.
I still believe that a few pvp-zones may be the best answer or perhaps fight over some base/towers etc.
Maybe some of the players who enjoy PvP, would like to share the joy that is derived from striking down a fellow player in fair combat or unfair combat, whatever the case may be. hehe
But, I am definitely interested, as well as others who are not great fans of PvP, how it enhances the roleplaying experience. If you say it makes the whole, post-apocalyptic experience that much more realistic, I am afraid I would have to disagree. But I am interested in hearing opinions about that, and discussing it.
I don't disagree that some people enjoy pvp, but I think those of us that don't enjoy pvp would like to know why it is so much fun to kill another player?
Personally, PvP offers no real roleplay value, IMO. There are plenty of mediocre, failing MMPORG's with PvP as what some would like to call, "high-end" content. I really don't think an MMPORG based on PvP will ever be as successful as one that is entirely based on roleplaying. Mainly, because a game world should be designed to allow people to experience it at their own pace and on their own terms. Not at the pace and on the terms of other players. That is a recipe for disaster, IMO.
While I played SWG, I roleplayed alot. One thing I learned from years of that roleplay was that it can easily disolve into combat. Without the ability to switch back and forth we couldn't have this combat. We've had small skirmishes, hostile operations, and even entire battles due to roleplaying. It is VERY useful, and without it these events would have been hard if not impossible.
I like the idea of areas for PvP. Have 3 areas: "Civilized" (around areas with law enforcement, no PvP), "Semi-Civilized" (further out, PvP damage halved and has a good chance of drawing patrols), "Lawless" (wasteland, full PvP). If you'll read back a few pages (which is alot, I know) you will find we've discussed this many times. Roleplay in a desolate, dangerous means that anyone at any time could kill you is exactly what I expect.
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]
I think there should be an advantage for people willing to risk their lives in far out lawless zones. For example, the highest quality metal deposits would only be in a full PvP zone so crafters who risked their lives would be able to make higher quality weapons than those that stick to non-PvP zones.
I also think having PvP and non-PvP zones (more former than the latter) is the way to go, but I'm curious why you think there should be three different types of zones Cthulhuvong. I don't see much of a reason for the "Semi-Civilized" zone. I understand civilized would involve no PvP, semi-civilized flagged (or halved) PvP, and lawless full PvP... but do we really need the middle option? Having full and none seems like it would be enough, but I could be missing something.
I find the middle ground more of a compromise for those that want to go into more dangerous lands but don't want to have to worry about being "ganked". I'm actually for the 2 zone idea for the same reason you just gave (risk vs. reward) but think the middle ground should be there for those afraid of being ganked.
If they did go with the 2 zone area (civilized and wasteland) they should send you a message on your screen saying something akin to "You are entering the wastes" to tell you you are going into the PvP area, and another saying "You return to civilization" when you leave the PvP area.
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]
Some of my best RP'ing moments have come from PvP.. Long story short.. D&D.. The thief in my party decided he likes my Ring of Animal Friendship and goes to snag it. The ranger in the party sees him do it and comes over and decks him. Thief draws his weapon, me being a cleric I try to talk them down.. thought I did till the thief backstabs the ranger after he put his weapon away so I laid the mace upside the thief head and the ranger and fighter then took care of the thief. Example of how it's fun to dispatch another player. In the group.. we were all friends too, just having fun and playing a part for RP'ing sake.
I know where you are coming from though. I'm sure you are talking about indiscriminate killing by people that don't even RP with ya before they give ya the sword dance of death.. defiantly not fun.
--------------------------------------------- Then the Lord answered Job from the whirlwind: "Who is this that questions my wisdom with such ignorant words? Brace yourself, because I have some questions for you, and you must answer them. "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you know so much.
That is exactly the kind of thing that could make PvP unfair. Rewarding pvper's for being pvper's, and patrolling their "pvp routes". I can stomach anything revolving around having specific PvP areas, but when it involves rewarding people for killing each other, beyond what the peaceful, casual player could otherwise have access to, it becomes a problem.
I don't intend to single any specific concept out, but I absolutely don't think rewarding PvPer's, beyond what is normally available to other players, is a well based system. It only increases the dychotomy of the player base, creating unfair extremes at either end for players who are PvP, and those that are not. (well, except for the loot they can find on their victim's bodies!)
I am not opposed to having specific zones, as long as they don't contain content that is otherwise unavailable in some equivalent fashion to players in non-pvp zones. Theories justifying PvP, that revolve around an extra reward for it(beyond what you can strip off your victims body), don't seem to concerned with the pvp part of it. It is more like expecting a reward and incentive for making people's lives miserable and to maintain an advantage(be it economic or otherwise) by controlling/patrolling those areas in question.
And that concept falls back on stratifying your player base by rewarding people who pay higher, subscription rates with advantages over the normal subscriber. Except, here it involves individuals that PvP vs. individuals who don't PvP. You are rewarding one for their actions(whether it is paying a higher subscription rate, or killing other players), and "punishing" the other, as it were, for their inaction(choosing not to pay the higher subscription fee or not killing people, if you prefer). They both seperate the two, unfairly IMO.(almost everyone on this thread can agree with that, as expressed on the thread concerning subscription plans. May take some digging for you to find that.)
It is where the roleplaying aspect of PvP coincides with the expectation of being rewarded, in whatever shape or form, for being a PvP type that creates the problem. If it were purely for roleplaying purposes, I could probably understand in some fashion. But, it is more often than not driven by some other factor, that creates an unfair advantage(ie. you have access to better loot, more minerals, higher quality minerals etc.. in the zone/area designated for pvp).
I only say that if such a dangerous area with those high rewards exists for pvpers, make such a dangerous area exist for non-pvpers with high rewards. It is at this point, I would expect there to be no further disagreement between PvPers and Non-PvPers.
Again, I am not trying to injure, or demean any one person or group of people. I am trying to explore an aspect that is something of a puzzle to me. No offense is intended to anyone reading this post, or responding to this post.
Originally posted by caprison I know where you are coming from though. I'm sure you are talking about indiscriminate killing by people that don't even RP with ya before they give ya the sword dance of death.. defiantly not fun.
Basically, you are right. In the best world, PvP would be there for the challenge of fighting your opponent in a fair, 1-on-1 conflict. But, that is not the case. It has extended to someone wanting to kill you in any fashion that they can. And, while that is not altogether bad in itself, PvP systems are simply as abused as any other system in an MMPORG. Portal camping, etc.. or any myriad of other methods people use to do it. Coupled with rewards for PvPing, makes this a malicious abuse.
I know an MMPORG involves system abuse, and to an extent that is not treatable. So, I do sympathize with those that are PvPer's, and don't practice the kind of tactics I mention above. I have to go to work, so no more posting will I do hehe
One great solution is to make several different servers, that way everyone could be catered.
One "normal" server, where there might be some pvp-zones. One "PvP" server where there is PvP everywhere but in the cities. One "RP" server where there are no PvP (or very little, like a duel).
Different servers would work if FE's playerbase is large enough. The only problem with that idea is it would split the community. It might be best to have as few servers as possible and try to please the RP and PvP players at the same time. Also, I think many of us who favor PvP consider ourselves roleplayers and would want to interact with other roleplayers that otherwise might be on a different server.
I admin a RP community and the opinion varies greatly, some would prefer open PVP others would like no PVP... so you cant really attach a classification solidly to a rp server as bluntly as that.
Personally im divided on the server issue and i put faith in the devs decision with what to do with their game and their vision.
on PvP id definately like to experience both open PvP and safe areas... ill wait and see what happens closer to beta me thinks
The thing about allowing PvP in the far out areas is that you are going to run into more people in the non-PvP areas. The other areas are for the wild open wasteland, where you'll run into people rarely, if ever. Without PvP you get ninja looters who will steal all the good loot while the rest of the group is still fighting. How do you combat ninja looters? Games make it so that you can kick them and only the group can loot the corpses, but that is in direct opposition to our ideas earlier about looting (NPCs being open to loot by anyone). With PvP always on in hostile areas, the threat of force will minimize that affect without having to put a non-realistic restraint on the game.
Like Stowaway said, you can't classify RP servers as "No PvP." If anything, they should be full PvP (everywhere all the time) to imerse the players into the game even more. I do believe the devs (hallowed be their names ) will make the right decision and allow us input during beta.
The thing about the wild areas outside of civilization is that you could die at any moment. If you're afraid of this, you stay closer to the civilized areas where there is still much to hunt an kill, but the creatures are usually weaker. In this area you would not have to worry about other Players. You'll see a Player and go "oh its just a player, don't have to worry" and go on with your hunting.
If you go into the wild, you accept the fact that you may be killed at any moment, by player or computer. These wilds should have the best loot not because they are PvP areas, but because they are the most dangerous and most untouched areas. They are areas that are full of cannibalistic tribes, grusome raiders, horrible creatures, and many other dangers that could cause your death. You must fight or sneak past these areas in order to find hidden troves of resources and items.
If you come along a player at a junk yard and you both fight your way through, but when it comes to the final boss he waits for you to start fighting the boss and then goes and raids all the loot he can while you do all the work, is that fair? Wouldn't you like to just fire a few rounds in his direction, just to teach him a lesson?
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]
Cthulhuvong, that would indeed alienate a large portion of the playerbase. Full blown PvP everywhere would force most of the RP:er away from FE im certain of.
PvP everywhere at all time would only give maximum joy to the griefer and those who heavely invest in PvP and ruin a lot for those who only wishes to do missions/explore/hunt. I dont mind that its not realistic that someone cant kill another player, i beleive that everyone should have fun when playing the game not only those who choose to invest into pvp-gear.
I think the best way for everyone, regarding PvP is to have it in certain zones, duels and/or by flagging themselves temporary.
Regarding ninjalooters, well that deserves a whole new thread im sure of.
I've played Lineage 2, I know what full PvP does. I've been griefed, chased around, and killed many a time by those many levels above me. Thats why I decided not to buy that game (that and many other reasons).
Our whole argument is moot, as they have stated on their website: "Flag yourself for PvP combat - if you're tough enough. Add your efforts to the reclamation of devastated cities. Track down storehouses of ancient weapons. Seek to develop - and master! - mutant abilities. Assemble the resources and technologies necessary to reclaim wildlands from the pestilence and poisons that rendered them uninhabitable. Discover remnants of pre-fall technology and use it to your best advantage."
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]
Originally posted by Cthulhuvong I've played Lineage 2, I know what full PvP does. I've been griefed, chased around, and killed many a time by those many levels above me. Thats why I decided not to buy that game (that and many other reasons). Our whole argument is moot, as they have stated on their website: "Flag yourself for PvP combat - if you're tough enough. Add your efforts to the reclamation of devastated cities. Track down storehouses of ancient weapons. Seek to develop - and master! - mutant abilities. Assemble the resources and technologies necessary to reclaim wildlands from the pestilence and poisons that rendered them uninhabitable. Discover remnants of pre-fall technology and use it to your best advantage."
Lol. Right in front of our eyes the whole time hehe Thanks Cth ! Too funny that we went to all this length in vain
Originally posted by Cthulhuvong Our whole argument is moot, as they have stated on their website: "Flag yourself for PvP combat - if you're tough enough. Add your efforts to the reclamation of devastated cities. Track down storehouses of ancient weapons. Seek to develop - and master! - mutant abilities. Assemble the resources and technologies necessary to reclaim wildlands from the pestilence and poisons that rendered them uninhabitable. Discover remnants of pre-fall technology and use it to your best advantage."
But as they have said, not everything is set in stone and it is possible that changes to concept and design will occur during development.
As for the PvP Mechanism:
The game world may be zoneless, but it stands to reason that it should still have the ability to recognise area and location. Meaning that the system will know where everyone is and can section off regions of the map.
For general PvP, utilise a localised/region-based PvP system:
Players in regions such as the enclave, the ouposts, player villages, areas of content and hunting regions are not PvP flagged.
However, in order for players to enter localised regions such as ruins, junkyards, or abandoned places (high end pvp content) or a general pvp area such as the arenas in the Enclaves or a certain distance from civilisation, players much flag themselves as PvP active.
To disable their PvP flag, players must venture to the nearest outpost or caravan.
This setup is essential for this type of system since players would be able to turn off their PvP while fleeing other players through zones, bypass a PvP battle or to ninja loot. Also, assuming that other players cannot see your PvP status, PvP flagged people shouldn't be bothered by griefers while in non-PvP zones while flagged.
Originally posted by Cthulhuvong Our whole argument is moot, as they have stated on their website: "Flag yourself for PvP combat - if you're tough enough. Add your efforts to the reclamation of devastated cities. Track down storehouses of ancient weapons. Seek to develop - and master! - mutant abilities. Assemble the resources and technologies necessary to reclaim wildlands from the pestilence and poisons that rendered them uninhabitable. Discover remnants of pre-fall technology and use it to your best advantage."
But as they have said, not everything is set in stone and it is possible that changes to concept and design will occur during development.
As for the PvP Mechanism:
The game world may be zoneless, but it stands to reason that it should still have the ability to recognise area and location. Meaning that the system will know where everyone is and can section off regions of the map.
For general PvP, utilise a localised/region-based PvP system:
Players in regions such as the enclave, the ouposts, player villages, areas of content and hunting regions are not PvP flagged.
However, in order for players to enter localised regions such as ruins, junkyards, or abandoned places (high end pvp content) or a general pvp area such as the arenas in the Enclaves or a certain distance from civilisation, players much flag themselves as PvP active.
To disable their PvP flag, players must venture to the nearest outpost or caravan.
This setup is essential for this type of system since players would be able to turn off their PvP while fleeing other players through zones, bypass a PvP battle or to ninja loot. Also, assuming that other players cannot see your PvP status, PvP flagged people shouldn't be bothered by griefers while in non-PvP zones while flagged.
The only difficulty I see is that you are flagging areas in the game world(far into the wastes, that may contain content that would disadvantage those that choose not to engage in PvP, etc..). As long as there is no additional content(better loot, higher quality resources, etc..) in the areas that you must be marked for PvP to enter, that is an extremely good idea. Otherwise, we are basically back to stratifying the player base unfairly. If I misunderstood the intent of your post, let me know.
I dunno, have the people who are complaining about full PvP ever played a game that actually was full PvP? For example, I really didn't have an opinion on PvP when I started playing Shadowbane a while back... I didn't even know it was full PvP. Once I got high enough level to enter the 'real' game and be attacked by other players, it was a completely new experience. Yeah, I got ganked some, but a lot less than you would think, and it was exciting. Once I joined a clan, I was hardly ever even touched. The reason was guild politics... you had to be careful who you ganked, because you might accidentally start a war between guilds. In WoW however, ganking is pretty bad. Could it be related to the general player maturity level?
I'm fairly against flaggable PvP.. it tends to ruin immersion and kill RP in a lot of cases. Just imagine getting into an argument with someone in a non-PvP zone, and the jerk is completely ripping into you and being an idiot. Ideally, you could give him a good beating to teach him a little respect, but you can't because there is no way he will flag PvP on. Lame. I agree with others in the thread when they say some of the best RP they've experienced was somehow related to PvP. In SWG, a lot of the quality roleplay I experienced was with members of the opposite faction.
I understand where you all are coming from who don't want to be ganked all the time... I've played WoW as a low level horde on a PvP server and it gets very frustrating sometimes. But the great times I had in SWG and Shadowbane alway creep into my mind, and a lot of those situations simply wouldn't be possible without PvP. If you don't like getting ganked, join a clan. Carry a big stick.
Comments
I agree fully with radzik and thrak i think we found the begginings of our raiding team
I can't seem to understand how some of you want "realism" in other threads and still vouge for a post apocoliptic world of peace. No Gov't = less rules = more crimes. Not to anger anyone, but different servers is unreasonable seeing as the processing power for running a lag free no zone map will take up a lot... I do however believe that certain areas should be governed by npcs somehow but as the same time i want to be able to take over towns not easily of course so im not sure how to place the Non pvp areas but i feel that there should be some because otherwise roleplaying would go out the window but i don't want my roleplaying restricted by non pvp areas I know this is kinda contradictory but yea...
Excellent point you make about PvP and roleplaying. Often PvP does not serve as a roleplaying tool. In fact, it does very little in the way of encouraging or stimulating roleplay, in most circumstances. Probably why most of it has been limited to arenas, or purely decision based. SWG implemented it well I thought, giving the player a choice of whether or not they wanted to participate in PvP by becoming Imperial, Rebel or covert. That would preserve what most of the people here seem to want, but still enable players who wante no part of it, to enjoy the game as well. There is nothing more annoying than paying 15$ a month to enjoy playing a game, only to be waylaid by people who like to camp corpses, camp portals/zones, such that even experiencing the game in any normal way becomes unbearable.
And if you are a pvp type, you cannot deny those last statements I have made. You know full well what I am referring to, regardless of whether you have particpated in that behavior or not.
I am not declaring it a completely useless tool. But, as far as implementing and developing systems, I would rank it last among the critical component systems that are developed. Mostly, because a minority of players enjoy spending their time fighting each other.
---------------------------------------------
Then the Lord answered Job from the whirlwind: "Who is this that questions my wisdom with such ignorant words? Brace yourself, because I have some questions for you, and you must answer them. "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you know so much.
Disclaimer: I have not read every single reply here.
PvP must not stand in focus of a MMORPG in my opinion, thats what will soon kill WoW. I think PvP will be a hard issue of balancing in FE, however PvP is quite vital in a MMORPG and must be looked into from a lot of perspectives.
There will be people who do not wanna PvP and FE must take that into account, from what i have seen - there are more people who do Not wanna PvP that those who Do wanna. Allthough there are usually the PvP:er who makes most noise in forums..:)
That said, i would like to see PvP integrated much like old AO-style. Where there are certain zones which are PvP-zones, that way PvP isnt mandatory. Or some could PvP when they felt like it insteadt of being ganked or forced to PvP.
Furthermore, i would not like to see any special rewards for PvP
The only problem with people choosing individual PvP settings is that not that im saying all of you have participated in this and not that im saying all of you havn't
(take that insinuating we are greifers guy(dont worry i took no offence i hope you dont either)) But sometimes people go Non-pvpable just so they can run through a hell vs heaven scale war unsratched to some cave or whatever that they are fighting over and take all the tech inside it before any of the battlers and done fighting over it. Sure we need non pvp but leaving it up to the individual creates far too many of these problems. Non Pvp should be only in governed areas because not only will non pvp outside of a lawed area be killing the imersion of the game it will also be a pain in the neck because of those who expliot it.
Please no one take offence in this
But im just trying to point out that their are just as many Non-pvp griefs as not and this world's theme is ruined with lots of non pvp
As to working so hard to get the perfect gear and having it unfairly ganked from you. They did use statigy one might use in real life. You could do the same to someone else or even the same person. creating a long line of pvp yes but you would need to statigise to do so. Just ideas feel free to bounce more around
---------------------------------------------
Then the Lord answered Job from the whirlwind: "Who is this that questions my wisdom with such ignorant words? Brace yourself, because I have some questions for you, and you must answer them. "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you know so much.
Well, you are assuming that I am calling all pvper's griefers. That is untrue, as I am usually a neutral individual when it comes to PvP. I neither advocate it, or frown upon friends who prefer it. It is not necessary to make your point that I am insinuating anything in my post. The point I am making is that with pvp, you will have griefers. There is no way around that at all. Period. Whether people who participate in PvP, or choose not to, they are both familiar with griefers.
So, the critical point is that if you decide to participate in PvP, is that you have made your final decision when creating your character. You choose to either be a pvp enabled player, or you aren't. This will segregate the population necessarily into it's two components. Only other pvp flagged pc's will be able to attack them. There is no switching back and forth.
As for non-pvp griefs, I can only imagine you are referring to someone 'training', which is reminiscent of EQ.
But anyway, no harm intended to anyone, but PvP should still remain a choice, and there are legitimate ways to provide this choice. As I mentioned above at character creation with the non-switchable pvp flag.
***methods employed in other games(namely SWG, since it seems to be the basis of this discussion*****
Well, let's go back to the switching flags system they had in SWG. But first, let me announce that I am not a pvper, and I can't state how well the system they employed worked, but it was an interesting system.
If you chose to be Imperial or Rebel, after any conflict with Imperials or Rebels, there was a period of time you had to remain actively flagged. If this is not the case, then I would appreciate someone who was actively involved with that system, to provide some details. To decrease the abuse of going covert, there were scanners that could be used to reveal your personal affiliation, if you were covert, thus enabling your pvp flag. I am not saying this system was perfect, and that it provided the pvper with what he desired, but it was a very creative concept.
*************reasons why total pvp or pvp by zone/region/area/etc.. may be unfair*************
If the zone/area/region/whatever it is, contains content that is not available elsewhere in the game world, you are basically limiting the accessibility of that content to those that prefer to pvp, and placing a burden upon the remaining player base that does not prefer pvp. The burden would arise if the content in the area marked for pvp, is superior or in some way provides an edge to people that are indeed pvpers.
I am not trying to offend anyone, which is fairly obvious if you read all of my posts
, but merely presenting the kind of difficulties that can be experienced when trying to design a well working pvp system.
**********************************************************************************
Again, when you speak about alienating a player base, if you choose not to have pvp, you alienate some, and if you choose to allow pvp fully, you alienate some as well. The middle ground is hard to find. I don't know what the division is, or the best system, but when choosing how to implement pvp in your game world, it is a very critical decision that will ultimately affect the type of people(and the quantity as well
) that want to play your game.
Personally, I have no desire to go around killing other people. Doing that just diminishes the time I have to experience the game world, and the time the victim has to experience it. I suppose it falls back on allowing all players to experience the same content, regardless of whether they want to kill each other, or choose a more peaceful exploration of the same game content. Going too far in either extreme, produces an undesirable result.
Well said drycat.
Allthough choosing to be pvp-enabled or not from start might not be so good. Someone who actually from start wanted to pvp some may later in his/her career not wanna pvp anymore and vice verse.
I still believe that a few pvp-zones may be the best answer or perhaps fight over some base/towers etc.
I agree on everything else though..:)
Maybe some of the players who enjoy PvP, would like to share the joy that is derived from striking down a fellow player in fair combat or unfair combat, whatever the case may be. hehe
But, I am definitely interested, as well as others who are not great fans of PvP, how it enhances the roleplaying experience. If you say it makes the whole, post-apocalyptic experience that much more realistic, I am afraid I would have to disagree. But I am interested in hearing opinions about that, and discussing it.
I don't disagree that some people enjoy pvp, but I think those of us that don't enjoy pvp would like to know why it is so much fun to kill another player?
Personally, PvP offers no real roleplay value, IMO. There are plenty of mediocre, failing MMPORG's with PvP as what some would like to call, "high-end" content. I really don't think an MMPORG based on PvP will ever be as successful as one that is entirely based on roleplaying. Mainly, because a game world should be designed to allow people to experience it at their own pace and on their own terms. Not at the pace and on the terms of other players. That is a recipe for disaster, IMO.
Sorry, I'm through now hehe
While I played SWG, I roleplayed alot. One thing I learned from years of that roleplay was that it can easily disolve into combat. Without the ability to switch back and forth we couldn't have this combat. We've had small skirmishes, hostile operations, and even entire battles due to roleplaying. It is VERY useful, and without it these events would have been hard if not impossible.
I like the idea of areas for PvP. Have 3 areas: "Civilized" (around areas with law enforcement, no PvP), "Semi-Civilized" (further out, PvP damage halved and has a good chance of drawing patrols), "Lawless" (wasteland, full PvP). If you'll read back a few pages (which is alot, I know) you will find we've discussed this many times. Roleplay in a desolate, dangerous means that anyone at any time could kill you is exactly what I expect.
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]
I think there should be an advantage for people willing to risk their lives in far out lawless zones. For example, the highest quality metal deposits would only be in a full PvP zone so crafters who risked their lives would be able to make higher quality weapons than those that stick to non-PvP zones.
I also think having PvP and non-PvP zones (more former than the latter) is the way to go, but I'm curious why you think there should be three different types of zones Cthulhuvong. I don't see much of a reason for the "Semi-Civilized" zone. I understand civilized would involve no PvP, semi-civilized flagged (or halved) PvP, and lawless full PvP... but do we really need the middle option? Having full and none seems like it would be enough, but I could be missing something.
http://www.fallenearth.se - Your source for Fallen Earth information
I find the middle ground more of a compromise for those that want to go into more dangerous lands but don't want to have to worry about being "ganked". I'm actually for the 2 zone idea for the same reason you just gave (risk vs. reward) but think the middle ground should be there for those afraid of being ganked.
If they did go with the 2 zone area (civilized and wasteland) they should send you a message on your screen saying something akin to "You are entering the wastes" to tell you you are going into the PvP area, and another saying "You return to civilization" when you leave the PvP area.
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]
drycat.. lol.. I can't let you go with that man..
Some of my best RP'ing moments have come from PvP.. Long story short.. D&D.. The thief in my party decided he likes my Ring of Animal Friendship and goes to snag it. The ranger in the party sees him do it and comes over and decks him. Thief draws his weapon, me being a cleric I try to talk them down.. thought I did till the thief backstabs the ranger after he put his weapon away so I laid the mace upside the thief head and the ranger and fighter then took care of the thief. Example of how it's fun to dispatch another player. In the group.. we were all friends too, just having fun and playing a part for RP'ing sake.
I know where you are coming from though. I'm sure you are talking about indiscriminate killing by people that don't even RP with ya before they give ya the sword dance of death.. defiantly not fun.
---------------------------------------------
Then the Lord answered Job from the whirlwind: "Who is this that questions my wisdom with such ignorant words? Brace yourself, because I have some questions for you, and you must answer them. "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you know so much.
That is exactly the kind of thing that could make PvP unfair. Rewarding pvper's for being pvper's, and patrolling their "pvp routes". I can stomach anything revolving around having specific PvP areas, but when it involves rewarding people for killing each other, beyond what the peaceful, casual player could otherwise have access to, it becomes a problem.
I don't intend to single any specific concept out, but I absolutely don't think rewarding PvPer's, beyond what is normally available to other players, is a well based system. It only increases the dychotomy of the player base, creating unfair extremes at either end for players who are PvP, and those that are not. (well, except for the loot they can find on their victim's bodies!)
I am not opposed to having specific zones, as long as they don't contain content that is otherwise unavailable in some equivalent fashion to players in non-pvp zones. Theories justifying PvP, that revolve around an extra reward for it(beyond what you can strip off your victims body), don't seem to concerned with the pvp part of it. It is more like expecting a reward and incentive for making people's lives miserable and to maintain an advantage(be it economic or otherwise) by controlling/patrolling those areas in question.
And that concept falls back on stratifying your player base by rewarding people who pay higher, subscription rates with advantages over the normal subscriber. Except, here it involves individuals that PvP vs. individuals who don't PvP. You are rewarding one for their actions(whether it is paying a higher subscription rate, or killing other players), and "punishing" the other, as it were, for their inaction(choosing not to pay the higher subscription fee or not killing people, if you prefer). They both seperate the two, unfairly IMO.(almost everyone on this thread can agree with that, as expressed on the thread concerning subscription plans. May take some digging for you to find that.)
It is where the roleplaying aspect of PvP coincides with the expectation of being rewarded, in whatever shape or form, for being a PvP type that creates the problem. If it were purely for roleplaying purposes, I could probably understand in some fashion. But, it is more often than not driven by some other factor, that creates an unfair advantage(ie. you have access to better loot, more minerals, higher quality minerals etc.. in the zone/area designated for pvp).
I only say that if such a dangerous area with those high rewards exists for pvpers, make such a dangerous area exist for non-pvpers with high rewards. It is at this point, I would expect there to be no further disagreement between PvPers and Non-PvPers.
Again, I am not trying to injure, or demean any one person or group of people. I am trying to explore an aspect that is something of a puzzle to me. No offense is intended to anyone reading this post, or responding to this post.
Basically, you are right. In the best world, PvP would be there for the challenge of fighting your opponent in a fair, 1-on-1 conflict. But, that is not the case. It has extended to someone wanting to kill you in any fashion that they can. And, while that is not altogether bad in itself, PvP systems are simply as abused as any other system in an MMPORG. Portal camping, etc.. or any myriad of other methods people use to do it. Coupled with rewards for PvPing, makes this a malicious abuse.
I know an MMPORG involves system abuse, and to an extent that is not treatable. So, I do sympathize with those that are PvPer's, and don't practice the kind of tactics I mention above. I have to go to work, so no more posting will I do hehe
One great solution is to make several different servers, that way everyone could be catered.
One "normal" server, where there might be some pvp-zones.
One "PvP" server where there is PvP everywhere but in the cities.
One "RP" server where there are no PvP (or very little, like a duel).
I would prefer to see it like that..
Anyone agree?
Different servers would work if FE's playerbase is large enough. The only problem with that idea is it would split the community. It might be best to have as few servers as possible and try to please the RP and PvP players at the same time. Also, I think many of us who favor PvP consider ourselves roleplayers and would want to interact with other roleplayers that otherwise might be on a different server.
http://www.fallenearth.se - Your source for Fallen Earth information
RP server you cant really say no pvp or pvp ....
I admin a RP community and the opinion varies greatly, some would prefer open PVP others would like no PVP... so you cant really attach a classification solidly to a rp server as bluntly as that.
Personally im divided on the server issue and i put faith in the devs decision with what to do with their game and their vision.
on PvP id definately like to experience both open PvP and safe areas... ill wait and see what happens closer to beta me thinks
The thing about allowing PvP in the far out areas is that you are going to run into more people in the non-PvP areas. The other areas are for the wild open wasteland, where you'll run into people rarely, if ever. Without PvP you get ninja looters who will steal all the good loot while the rest of the group is still fighting. How do you combat ninja looters? Games make it so that you can kick them and only the group can loot the corpses, but that is in direct opposition to our ideas earlier about looting (NPCs being open to loot by anyone). With PvP always on in hostile areas, the threat of force will minimize that affect without having to put a non-realistic restraint on the game.
Like Stowaway said, you can't classify RP servers as "No PvP." If anything, they should be full PvP (everywhere all the time) to imerse the players into the game even more. I do believe the devs (hallowed be their names
) will make the right decision and allow us input during beta.
The thing about the wild areas outside of civilization is that you could die at any moment. If you're afraid of this, you stay closer to the civilized areas where there is still much to hunt an kill, but the creatures are usually weaker. In this area you would not have to worry about other Players. You'll see a Player and go "oh its just a player, don't have to worry" and go on with your hunting.
If you go into the wild, you accept the fact that you may be killed at any moment, by player or computer. These wilds should have the best loot not because they are PvP areas, but because they are the most dangerous and most untouched areas. They are areas that are full of cannibalistic tribes, grusome raiders, horrible creatures, and many other dangers that could cause your death. You must fight or sneak past these areas in order to find hidden troves of resources and items.
If you come along a player at a junk yard and you both fight your way through, but when it comes to the final boss he waits for you to start fighting the boss and then goes and raids all the loot he can while you do all the work, is that fair? Wouldn't you like to just fire a few rounds in his direction, just to teach him a lesson?
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]
Cthulhuvong, that would indeed alienate a large portion of the playerbase. Full blown PvP everywhere would force most of the RP:er away from FE im certain of.
PvP everywhere at all time would only give maximum joy to the griefer and those who heavely invest in PvP and ruin a lot for those who only wishes to do missions/explore/hunt. I dont mind that its not realistic that someone cant kill another player, i beleive that everyone should have fun when playing the game not only those who choose to invest into pvp-gear.
I think the best way for everyone, regarding PvP is to have it in certain zones, duels and/or by flagging themselves temporary.
Regarding ninjalooters, well that deserves a whole new thread im sure of.
I've played Lineage 2, I know what full PvP does. I've been griefed, chased around, and killed many a time by those many levels above me. Thats why I decided not to buy that game (that and many other reasons).
Our whole argument is moot, as they have stated on their website:
"Flag yourself for PvP combat - if you're tough enough. Add your efforts to the reclamation of devastated cities. Track down storehouses of ancient weapons. Seek to develop - and master! - mutant abilities. Assemble the resources and technologies necessary to reclaim wildlands from the pestilence and poisons that rendered them uninhabitable. Discover remnants of pre-fall technology and use it to your best advantage."
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]
But as they have said, not everything is set in stone and it is possible that changes to concept and design will occur during development.
As for the PvP Mechanism:
The game world may be zoneless, but it stands to reason that it should still have the ability to recognise area and location. Meaning that the system will know where everyone is and can section off regions of the map.
For general PvP, utilise a localised/region-based PvP system:
Players in regions such as the enclave, the ouposts, player villages, areas of content and hunting regions are not PvP flagged.
However, in order for players to enter localised regions such as ruins, junkyards, or abandoned places (high end pvp content) or a general pvp area such as the arenas in the Enclaves or a certain distance from civilisation, players much flag themselves as PvP active.
To disable their PvP flag, players must venture to the nearest outpost or caravan.
This setup is essential for this type of system since players would be able to turn off their PvP while fleeing other players through zones, bypass a PvP battle or to ninja loot. Also, assuming that other players cannot see your PvP status, PvP flagged people shouldn't be bothered by griefers while in non-PvP zones while flagged.
But as they have said, not everything is set in stone and it is possible that changes to concept and design will occur during development.
As for the PvP Mechanism:
The game world may be zoneless, but it stands to reason that it should still have the ability to recognise area and location. Meaning that the system will know where everyone is and can section off regions of the map.
For general PvP, utilise a localised/region-based PvP system:
Players in regions such as the enclave, the ouposts, player villages, areas of content and hunting regions are not PvP flagged.
However, in order for players to enter localised regions such as ruins, junkyards, or abandoned places (high end pvp content) or a general pvp area such as the arenas in the Enclaves or a certain distance from civilisation, players much flag themselves as PvP active.
To disable their PvP flag, players must venture to the nearest outpost or caravan.
This setup is essential for this type of system since players would be able to turn off their PvP while fleeing other players through zones, bypass a PvP battle or to ninja loot. Also, assuming that other players cannot see your PvP status, PvP flagged people shouldn't be bothered by griefers while in non-PvP zones while flagged.
The only difficulty I see is that you are flagging areas in the game world(far into the wastes, that may contain content that would disadvantage those that choose not to engage in PvP, etc..). As long as there is no additional content(better loot, higher quality resources, etc..) in the areas that you must be marked for PvP to enter, that is an extremely good idea. Otherwise, we are basically back to stratifying the player base unfairly. If I misunderstood the intent of your post, let me know.
I dunno, have the people who are complaining about full PvP ever played a game that actually was full PvP? For example, I really didn't have an opinion on PvP when I started playing Shadowbane a while back... I didn't even know it was full PvP. Once I got high enough level to enter the 'real' game and be attacked by other players, it was a completely new experience. Yeah, I got ganked some, but a lot less than you would think, and it was exciting. Once I joined a clan, I was hardly ever even touched. The reason was guild politics... you had to be careful who you ganked, because you might accidentally start a war between guilds. In WoW however, ganking is pretty bad. Could it be related to the general player maturity level?
I'm fairly against flaggable PvP.. it tends to ruin immersion and kill RP in a lot of cases. Just imagine getting into an argument with someone in a non-PvP zone, and the jerk is completely ripping into you and being an idiot. Ideally, you could give him a good beating to teach him a little respect, but you can't because there is no way he will flag PvP on. Lame. I agree with others in the thread when they say some of the best RP they've experienced was somehow related to PvP. In SWG, a lot of the quality roleplay I experienced was with members of the opposite faction.
I understand where you all are coming from who don't want to be ganked all the time... I've played WoW as a low level horde on a PvP server and it gets very frustrating sometimes. But the great times I had in SWG and Shadowbane alway creep into my mind, and a lot of those situations simply wouldn't be possible without PvP. If you don't like getting ganked, join a clan. Carry a big stick.
http://www.fallenearth.se - Your source for Fallen Earth information