Any game where any player is subject to pvp is a pvp game. Lineage 2 had pve and was indeed, a pvp game. Heck, Darkfall had pve and was a pvp game.
If people want to pve in peace then don't play a game where pvp affects you. But of course, players "do this to themselves."
They are banning people so he can "learn the game." I reinstate my earlier comment above regarding what they should do about him.
Clearly the devs want him to be able to PVE in peace or why ban people that are just PVPing as the game intended?
Your theory, that every game is a pvp game that has pvp, is flawed. Diablo has PVP, Wow has pvp, FFXIV has pvp. LOL I guess they are all PVP games.
The devil is in the details ...
"Any game where any player is subject to pvp is a pvp game."
If a pve player can be affected by pvp whether they want to do this activity or not, it's a pvp game.
This is basically for pve players who don't want to play such a game. Not some "official bit of naming protocol."
Aion, for all the nonsense that the developers said where "the players can choose how to play" was a pvp game because not only were there pvp areas (the abyss) but invasions could happen in any of the pve areas.
If a pve player wants to play a game all they have to do is look at how pvp is implemented. If they can't avoid it because of the design, it's a pvp game.
They want him left alone because they want the attention that particular streamer can give them. Until they change their system, it is what it is.
The devil is indeed in the details. I like to PvP and had a blast doing it in DAOC and ESO. And yet, those are not PvP games according to your definition. There needs to be some distinction between those types of games. A qualifying adjective that further describes what kind of PvP is in the games.
No, they are.
what I’m saying is that any game where a pve player has to contend with pvp should, for them, be considered a pvp game.
And they should not play it.
DAOC and ESO both have full PvE experiences where players don't have any contact with PvP at all. My guess is that a minority of players in those games chose to do PvP and a majority don't. The player has a choice to PvP or not.
Ashes is the kind of game where the player gets no choice, they are subject to PvP at all times whether they want to or not, I call that forced PvP. That is a different kind of game than DAOC or ESO and shouldn't be lumped in with them.
Probably moot in this case since Ashes is adding a PvE zone where players don't have to PvP unless they want to. That's their first stab at a fix for the ganking problem in forced PvP games.
I don’t believe in forced “anything.” When it comes to games.
don’t mean to minimize your opinion but I think it’s ridiculous to say a game play element is “forced “
If we’re to accept that then any game activity one doesn’t like is “forced.”
ridiculous.
players need to look “at the box” and understand what the game is about. Then they should not play a game where certain game play elements are not to their taste.
If you don't like the word "forced" we could use other synonyms, like involuntary. DAOC and ESO have voluntary PvP, Ashes has involuntary PvP. Mandatory, required, compulsory, nonelective, etc.
People aren't forced to play Ashes, but if they do play they will be forced to PvP whether they want to or not. It's nonelective, compulsory, mandatory. Not like DAOC or ESO, where PvP is optional, not mandatory or compulsory.
If something is “non-elective “ and the player doesn’t like it then why play.
Because, again, then EVERYTHING is non-elective!
pve is non-elective, crafting could be seen as non-elective, buying items and dealing with the economy is non-elective.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
First off, "gank" isn't a defined term. Everyone thinks they know what it is, but the fact is that the meaning changes frequently depending upon who is doing the talking. Furthermore, any attempt at definition leaves out the human component and reduces it to mere math, which is silly.
What I mean is, let's say I have a high value target. A fellow with a bounty on his head who is difficult to catch without a large group outside of town. I get information that this guy is going to be alone in a mine for 1/2 hr. and finally get a posse together and track him down.
So, thanks to the "rules of ganking", because I didn't make the fight fair in an arena, instead of buying/selling information, or guild intrigue, or traitors, or any of that, my victory is now a "gank". The entire world of possibilities has been reduced to your mathematical evaluation of a "gank".
The need to keep everything absolutely "fair" (a moving target at best), some of the greatest moments in these games are measured and regulated to a "gank".
Silly.
Our alliance in Lineage 2 had a member who was “ganked”and it led to a great session of pvp encounters.
just view it as a component of a game’s pvp design.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I also find it ironic that someone could pay to play the game, play within the rules of the game only to be told by a dev they need to stop killing someone in a pvp game or they will be banned. The irony....
Have you considered this is an alpha and as such if the rules of the game are not working or doing their job as intended indeed people maybe be told to stop doing xy or z. I mean the irony... ¯ \_(ツ)_/¯
lol, yes...we are testing open world pvp. Just dont kill this 1 dude, or you will be banned. Pfft. Whatever.
Pfft yourself, do you know what an alpha is for?
Exactly this kind of crap to be able to fix things that are not working.
This BS false outrage cause they warned people to leave the streamer alone...as if they were doing so in a released game and playing favorites just shows those that are whinging about it are low IQ in logic.
I am not outraged, lol. Just pointing out that these folks paid $$$ to test the game, are doing what everyone said would happen, then told they would get banned if they continue to do it, just to this 1 person though. You can do it to anyone else, that would be ok. I have been in many alphas/betas but this is all just whack. Quit White-Knighting it m8.
Ganking the helpless is wrong even if is legal to do so.
The helpless in a video game have all the same tools available to them as the other players.
I know what you're saying, which is why I frown on vertical progression as being bad for these kinds of games, and bad for immersion. (1) However, like the word "gank" the term "helpless" is poorly defined.
I could have top of the line raid gear, but not know how to play my class, would I be helpless?
How about 3 guys in top-of-the-line raid gear going after a lone player who then defeats them, because he knew his class. Were the three "helpless"? If the three didn't know their classes, it could be argued that the battle was very unfair.
How can anyone enjoy winning against superior odds if our definition of fair precludes the battle?
NOTES -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1: A child with a butcher knife can still ruin your day, whereas, in a video game he'd be unable to harm you even if you were asleep. That's the miracle of vertical progression and it sucks bad.
I also find it ironic that someone could pay to play the game, play within the rules of the game only to be told by a dev they need to stop killing someone in a pvp game or they will be banned. The irony....
Have you considered this is an alpha and as such if the rules of the game are not working or doing their job as intended indeed people maybe be told to stop doing xy or z. I mean the irony... ¯ \_(ツ)_/¯
lol, yes...we are testing open world pvp. Just dont kill this 1 dude, or you will be banned. Pfft. Whatever.
Pfft yourself, do you know what an alpha is for?
Exactly this kind of crap to be able to fix things that are not working.
This BS false outrage cause they warned people to leave the streamer alone...as if they were doing so in a released game and playing favorites just shows those that are whinging about it are low IQ in logic.
I am not outraged, lol. Just pointing out that these folks paid $$$ to test the game, are doing what everyone said would happen, then told they would get banned if they continue to do it, just to this 1 person though. You can do it to anyone else, that would be ok. I have been in many alphas/betas but this is all just whack. Quit White-Knighting it m8.
Except I am 100% am sure what was happening to this guy wasnt happening to other people in the beta, it was happening cause its popular to hate and grief the streamer as this thread clearly shows.
Also by all accounts they are going to make the zone this was happening in a pve only zone so seems like a fact it's not ok and they don't want this to be done to anyone in these zones, streamers or not. This was just a stop gap temp fix to stop some egregious griefing that was going on live.
You people that are hating make it sound like the poor innocent pvpers were just playing the game and pvping as the devs wanted and meant people to do, the fact that they did this means they were not period thus the reaction, it also shows they did not intend for people to "grief" in this way.
Griefing can be done many ways and implies playing in a way that wasn't intended and makes a game not playable for the target and while yes it often is done via pvp its not always the case.
Quit hating and acting like its the first time in an alpha or beta people have been told to stop doing x, y or z cause something wasn't intended gameplay and the devs couldn't fix it right away on the fly cause that is what is really whacked...lmao
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
In the end it's a good thing. The updates this week is huge and a big part of that is dealing with PKers. If you loot someone's corpse you are auto flagged for PvP. Starter zones are no longer PvP areas. You can't attack a player till level 5 no matter where you are. I do worry that could lead to people scouting and having that level of protection. See how that works out this weekend.
In the end it's a good thing. The updates this week is huge and a big part of that is dealing with PKers. If you loot someone's corpse you are auto flagged for PvP. Starter zones are no longer PvP areas. You can't attack a player till level 5 no matter where you are. I do worry that could lead to people scouting and having that level of protection. See how that works out this weekend.
The problem here is that they are just adding more rules to an already byzantine (still can't get that trademarked for some reason) system. What you need is a cleaner simpler tagging system. But, the three changes you mentioned would all be part of what I think of as a better tagging system.
In the end it's a good thing. The updates this week is huge and a big part of that is dealing with PKers. If you loot someone's corpse you are auto flagged for PvP. Starter zones are no longer PvP areas. You can't attack a player till level 5 no matter where you are. I do worry that could lead to people scouting and having that level of protection. See how that works out this weekend.
Wouldn't the PKs just move to where the levels 6-10 hunt? That's the joy of vertical progression - you know where to hunt your quarry.
In the end it's a good thing. The updates this week is huge and a big part of that is dealing with PKers. If you loot someone's corpse you are auto flagged for PvP. Starter zones are no longer PvP areas. You can't attack a player till level 5 no matter where you are. I do worry that could lead to people scouting and having that level of protection. See how that works out this weekend.
The way DAOC prevented low level scouting is players could not even enter the frontiers until they reached a minimum level.(25, 30?)
Even then the NPCs had levels which scaled up quickly once you ventured out from the portal keeps and the aggro ranges were large.
The NPCs were also scattered about so if one wasn't very careful they could draw unwanted aggro and get quickly killed, even if they were traveling with a full party of 50s
It wasn't perfect but at least you avoided the situation of having say a level 9 scout which could not be attacked roaming the frontiers.
Now, all bets were off in Mordred, the FFA PVP server and people did use level 9 characters to scout, but they had to be very careful as the aggro rules applied in every zone and most had NPCs of high enough level to make life pretty miserable for anyone that low trying to survive.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Any game where any player is subject to pvp is a pvp game. Lineage 2 had pve and was indeed, a pvp game. Heck, Darkfall had pve and was a pvp game.
If people want to pve in peace then don't play a game where pvp affects you. But of course, players "do this to themselves."
They are banning people so he can "learn the game." I reinstate my earlier comment above regarding what they should do about him.
Clearly the devs want him to be able to PVE in peace or why ban people that are just PVPing as the game intended?
Your theory, that every game is a pvp game that has pvp, is flawed. Diablo has PVP, Wow has pvp, FFXIV has pvp. LOL I guess they are all PVP games.
The devil is in the details ...
"Any game where any player is subject to pvp is a pvp game."
If a pve player can be affected by pvp whether they want to do this activity or not, it's a pvp game.
This is basically for pve players who don't want to play such a game. Not some "official bit of naming protocol."
Aion, for all the nonsense that the developers said where "the players can choose how to play" was a pvp game because not only were there pvp areas (the abyss) but invasions could happen in any of the pve areas.
If a pve player wants to play a game all they have to do is look at how pvp is implemented. If they can't avoid it because of the design, it's a pvp game.
They want him left alone because they want the attention that particular streamer can give them. Until they change their system, it is what it is.
The devil is indeed in the details. I like to PvP and had a blast doing it in DAOC and ESO. And yet, those are not PvP games according to your definition. There needs to be some distinction between those types of games. A qualifying adjective that further describes what kind of PvP is in the games.
No, they are.
what I’m saying is that any game where a pve player has to contend with pvp should, for them, be considered a pvp game.
And they should not play it.
DAOC and ESO both have full PvE experiences where players don't have any contact with PvP at all. My guess is that a minority of players in those games chose to do PvP and a majority don't. The player has a choice to PvP or not.
Ashes is the kind of game where the player gets no choice, they are subject to PvP at all times whether they want to or not, I call that forced PvP. That is a different kind of game than DAOC or ESO and shouldn't be lumped in with them.
Probably moot in this case since Ashes is adding a PvE zone where players don't have to PvP unless they want to. That's their first stab at a fix for the ganking problem in forced PvP games.
I don’t believe in forced “anything.” When it comes to games.
don’t mean to minimize your opinion but I think it’s ridiculous to say a game play element is “forced “
If we’re to accept that then any game activity one doesn’t like is “forced.”
ridiculous.
players need to look “at the box” and understand what the game is about. Then they should not play a game where certain game play elements are not to their taste.
If you don't like the word "forced" we could use other synonyms, like involuntary. DAOC and ESO have voluntary PvP, Ashes has involuntary PvP. Mandatory, required, compulsory, nonelective, etc.
People aren't forced to play Ashes, but if they do play they will be forced to PvP whether they want to or not. It's nonelective, compulsory, mandatory. Not like DAOC or ESO, where PvP is optional, not mandatory or compulsory.
If something is “non-elective “ and the player doesn’t like it then why play.
Because, again, then EVERYTHING is non-elective!
pve is non-elective, crafting could be seen as non-elective, buying items and dealing with the economy is non-elective.
No, when something is elective that means the player gets to elect, or chose to do it or not. In DAOC the player can chose to PvP or not. They can elect to PvP or not. They can also decide whether they want to craft things or not.
Non-elective; you will play the game as a male scout armed with a bow and arrow, there is no other choice.
Elective: you can play as a scout, a warrior, or a mage, and can be male or female, it is up to the player to chose.
EVE Online is a good example of a PVP game where players can easily focus on a dozen or more PVE activities and ignore if not completely avoid PVP.
Every activity in EVE is voluntary, though it is true certain areas or activities will expose the player to involuntary PVP just as was true in DAOC.
Despite being not into PVP very much I paid for 10 years of EVE subs because along with everything else, avoiding gettting ganked was a form of gameplay I enjoyed. (At least until I started watching Netflix while gaming)
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
In the end it's a good thing. The updates this week is huge and a big part of that is dealing with PKers. If you loot someone's corpse you are auto flagged for PvP. Starter zones are no longer PvP areas. You can't attack a player till level 5 no matter where you are. I do worry that could lead to people scouting and having that level of protection. See how that works out this weekend.
Wouldn't the PKs just move to where the levels 6-10 hunt? That's the joy of vertical progression - you know where to hunt your quarry.
I have watched 4 to 6 low level chars take out someone twice their level. You get your core kit very fast in Ashes. You have to also remember the number of negitve things happens when you go corrupted. 35% less damage is just one of them. This latest change is just one more level. To protect the most vulnerable. Not saying this is going to work. But we are ready to test it and give feedback. The list of things being fixed, updated added a d removed is a long list every week. I didn't think it was going to move this quest. Some of the things added were intended for Phase 2 that starts at the end of December.
olepi said: No, when something is elective that means the player gets to elect, or chose to do it or not. In DAOC the player can chose to PvP or not. They can elect to PvP or not. They can also decide whether they want to craft things or not.
Non-elective; you will play the game as a male scout armed with a bow and arrow, there is no other choice.
Elective: you can play as a scout, a warrior, or a mage, and can be male or female, it is up to the player to chose.
Those two things are not the same.
If you enter a full loot PvP game you've elected to participate in a full loot PvP world.
I appreciate that some games allow you to opt in and opt out within the game itself, but some games (as you well know) you opt in by signing-in.
The claim you're making is like saying that LOTRO forces players into a medieval setting and that setting is non-elective; therefore, Star Wars fans can claim they're being forced into a particular setting against their will; therefore, it is wrong.
olepi said: No, when something is elective that means the player gets to elect, or chose to do it or not. In DAOC the player can chose to PvP or not. They can elect to PvP or not. They can also decide whether they want to craft things or not.
Non-elective; you will play the game as a male scout armed with a bow and arrow, there is no other choice.
Elective: you can play as a scout, a warrior, or a mage, and can be male or female, it is up to the player to chose.
Those two things are not the same.
If you enter a full loot PvP game you've elected to participate in a full loot PvP world.
I appreciate that some games allow you to opt in and opt out within the game itself, but some games (as you well know) you opt in by signing-in.
The claim you're making is like saying that LOTRO forces players into a medieval setting and that setting is non-elective; therefore, Star Wars fans can claim they're being forced into a particular setting against their will; therefore, it is wrong.
Read the box, opt-in or opt-out at that point.
I agree, so long as it is made clear at the beginning. Your only option may be to skip playing the game entirely, and that is always the choice I make for open-world PvP games.
I enjoy PvP and have in numerous games. Optional PvP games allow me to choose when I want to PvP and what level I want to play at. If I'm level 20 in DAOC I will PvP in a battleground, and not in the main PvP area where I could be attacked by a level 50. Same with ESO, I picked the below 50 no CP PvP zone, so I could be assured of playing characters similar in power to mine.
Mandatory PvP games seem to foster more ganking and griefing, since higher level players can hunt noobies with impunity.
Any game where any player is subject to pvp is a pvp game. Lineage 2 had pve and was indeed, a pvp game. Heck, Darkfall had pve and was a pvp game.
If people want to pve in peace then don't play a game where pvp affects you. But of course, players "do this to themselves."
They are banning people so he can "learn the game." I reinstate my earlier comment above regarding what they should do about him.
Clearly the devs want him to be able to PVE in peace or why ban people that are just PVPing as the game intended?
Your theory, that every game is a pvp game that has pvp, is flawed. Diablo has PVP, Wow has pvp, FFXIV has pvp. LOL I guess they are all PVP games.
The devil is in the details ...
"Any game where any player is subject to pvp is a pvp game."
If a pve player can be affected by pvp whether they want to do this activity or not, it's a pvp game.
This is basically for pve players who don't want to play such a game. Not some "official bit of naming protocol."
Aion, for all the nonsense that the developers said where "the players can choose how to play" was a pvp game because not only were there pvp areas (the abyss) but invasions could happen in any of the pve areas.
If a pve player wants to play a game all they have to do is look at how pvp is implemented. If they can't avoid it because of the design, it's a pvp game.
They want him left alone because they want the attention that particular streamer can give them. Until they change their system, it is what it is.
The devil is indeed in the details. I like to PvP and had a blast doing it in DAOC and ESO. And yet, those are not PvP games according to your definition. There needs to be some distinction between those types of games. A qualifying adjective that further describes what kind of PvP is in the games.
No, they are.
what I’m saying is that any game where a pve player has to contend with pvp should, for them, be considered a pvp game.
And they should not play it.
DAOC and ESO both have full PvE experiences where players don't have any contact with PvP at all. My guess is that a minority of players in those games chose to do PvP and a majority don't. The player has a choice to PvP or not.
Ashes is the kind of game where the player gets no choice, they are subject to PvP at all times whether they want to or not, I call that forced PvP. That is a different kind of game than DAOC or ESO and shouldn't be lumped in with them.
Probably moot in this case since Ashes is adding a PvE zone where players don't have to PvP unless they want to. That's their first stab at a fix for the ganking problem in forced PvP games.
I don’t believe in forced “anything.” When it comes to games.
don’t mean to minimize your opinion but I think it’s ridiculous to say a game play element is “forced “
If we’re to accept that then any game activity one doesn’t like is “forced.”
ridiculous.
players need to look “at the box” and understand what the game is about. Then they should not play a game where certain game play elements are not to their taste.
If you don't like the word "forced" we could use other synonyms, like involuntary. DAOC and ESO have voluntary PvP, Ashes has involuntary PvP. Mandatory, required, compulsory, nonelective, etc.
People aren't forced to play Ashes, but if they do play they will be forced to PvP whether they want to or not. It's nonelective, compulsory, mandatory. Not like DAOC or ESO, where PvP is optional, not mandatory or compulsory.
If something is “non-elective “ and the player doesn’t like it then why play.
Because, again, then EVERYTHING is non-elective!
pve is non-elective, crafting could be seen as non-elective, buying items and dealing with the economy is non-elective.
No, when something is elective that means the player gets to elect, or chose to do it or not. In DAOC the player can chose to PvP or not. They can elect to PvP or not. They can also decide whether they want to craft things or not.
Non-elective; you will play the game as a male scout armed with a bow and arrow, there is no other choice.
Elective: you can play as a scout, a warrior, or a mage, and can be male or female, it is up to the player to chose.
Those two things are not the same.
If the game is designed where you have to "do a thing/experience a thing" in order to play the game then you have no real choice other than not to play the game. If it requires you to use the auction house and sell items to get money, then you "have to do it in order to play the game." You can choose not to do it and fail miserably. If the game requires pve to level and you don't want to do it then again, you will fail miserably. I could choose "not" to pve in Lineage 2 and I would still be able to play aspects of the game but the game is primarily designed to pve in order level.
If the game is open pvp then you can opt to stay in town and never leave but fail miserably.
Any activity that one has to do in order to play the game is essentially non-elective if one is actually going to play the game. So yeah, you can choose not to do a thing but why be there if you aren't going to play the game other than using a chat box to be social.
All those people complaining about being subjected to pvp are no different than pvp players complaining that they have to level. They have to do pve in order to level and be more powerful for pvp.
A player who only wants to pve needs to either get someone to protect them, they have to learn to pvp or they never leave the town.
So again, why be there?
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I agree, so long as it is made clear at the beginning. Your only option may be to skip playing the game entirely, and that is always the choice I make for open-world PvP games.
I enjoy PvP and have in numerous games. Optional PvP games allow me to choose when I want to PvP and what level I want to play at. If I'm level 20 in DAOC I will PvP in a battleground, and not in the main PvP area where I could be attacked by a level 50. Same with ESO, I picked the below 50 no CP PvP zone, so I could be assured of playing characters similar in power to mine.
Mandatory PvP games seem to foster more ganking and griefing, since higher level players can hunt noobies with impunity.
This. It absolutely must be made clear from the very beginning.
As for mandatory PvP games that have significant vertical scaling - well, I've already written a rule about that. While I want AoC to do well, and continue to explore a mixed PvP/PvE world - significant vertical progression with PvP is just stupid.
olepi said: No, when something is elective that means the player gets to elect, or chose to do it or not. In DAOC the player can chose to PvP or not. They can elect to PvP or not. They can also decide whether they want to craft things or not.
Non-elective; you will play the game as a male scout armed with a bow and arrow, there is no other choice.
Elective: you can play as a scout, a warrior, or a mage, and can be male or female, it is up to the player to chose.
Those two things are not the same.
If you enter a full loot PvP game you've elected to participate in a full loot PvP world.
I appreciate that some games allow you to opt in and opt out within the game itself, but some games (as you well know) you opt in by signing-in.
The claim you're making is like saying that LOTRO forces players into a medieval setting and that setting is non-elective; therefore, Star Wars fans can claim they're being forced into a particular setting against their will; therefore, it is wrong.
Read the box, opt-in or opt-out at that point.
So "reading the box" here's what Steam says about Throne and Liberty. (Emphasis mine)
From the below, could a player believe it was possible to enjoy the game while avoiding PVP?
Hard to tell yes? Further reading of the first review reveals maybe yes...with limitations and provisos.
"Welcome to THRONE AND LIBERTY, a free-to-play MMORPG that takes place in the vast open world of Solisium. You can scale expansive mountain ranges for new vantage points, scan open skies, traverse sprawling plains, explore a land full of depth and opportunity. Adapt your fight to survive and thrive through strategic decisions in PvP, PvE or both as you encounter evolving battlefields impacted by weather, time of day, and other players. There is no single path to victory as you seek to defeat Kazar and claim the throne while keeping rival guilds at bay."
BTW, LOTRO was a great example of a MMORPG where players can totally avoid PVP at their option and suffer few, if any penalties for doing so.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
"Welcome to THRONE AND LIBERTY, a free-to-play MMORPG that takes place in the vast open world of Solisium. You can scale expansive mountain ranges for new vantage points, scan open skies, traverse sprawling plains, explore a land full of depth and opportunity. Adapt your fight to survive and thrive through strategic decisions in PvP, PvE or both as you encounter evolving battlefields impacted by weather, time of day, and other players. There is no single path to victory as you seek to defeat Kazar and claim the throne while keeping rival guilds at bay."
If I were to publish a PvP game the user would have to answer a 10-question quiz correctly to enter the game world for the first time. The quiz would cover the PvP ruleset and if the user didn't answer correctly, they couldn't enter the game world.
Full refunds would be offered for up to 30 days after purchase.
This would give me, the publisher, the ability to slap the absolute poo out of people who complain on Discord - which would be my primary reason for publishing the game in the first place.
User: "How is it that PKs can take all my stuff?" Me: "You knew the rules before you enter the game world."
olepi said: No, when something is elective that means the player gets to elect, or chose to do it or not. In DAOC the player can chose to PvP or not. They can elect to PvP or not. They can also decide whether they want to craft things or not.
Non-elective; you will play the game as a male scout armed with a bow and arrow, there is no other choice.
Elective: you can play as a scout, a warrior, or a mage, and can be male or female, it is up to the player to chose.
Those two things are not the same.
If you enter a full loot PvP game you've elected to participate in a full loot PvP world.
I appreciate that some games allow you to opt in and opt out within the game itself, but some games (as you well know) you opt in by signing-in.
The claim you're making is like saying that LOTRO forces players into a medieval setting and that setting is non-elective; therefore, Star Wars fans can claim they're being forced into a particular setting against their will; therefore, it is wrong.
Read the box, opt-in or opt-out at that point.
So "reading the box" here's what Steam says about Throne and Liberty. (Emphasis mine)
From the below, could a player believe it was possible to enjoy the game while avoiding PVP?
Hard to tell yes? Further reading of the first review reveals maybe yes...with limitations and provisos.
"Welcome to THRONE AND LIBERTY, a free-to-play MMORPG that takes place in the vast open world of Solisium. You can scale expansive mountain ranges for new vantage points, scan open skies, traverse sprawling plains, explore a land full of depth and opportunity. Adapt your fight to survive and thrive through strategic decisions in PvP, PvE or both as you encounter evolving battlefields impacted by weather, time of day, and other players. There is no single path to victory as you seek to defeat Kazar and claim the throne while keeping rival guilds at bay."
BTW, LOTRO was a great example of a MMORPG where players can totally avoid PVP at their option and suffer few, if any penalties for doing so.
Reading that it's very ambiguous. I'm assuming it's a "choose your poison" scenario as I don't believe this is an open ffa pvp.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
In the end it's a good thing. The updates this week is huge and a big part of that is dealing with PKers. If you loot someone's corpse you are auto flagged for PvP. Starter zones are no longer PvP areas. You can't attack a player till level 5 no matter where you are. I do worry that could lead to people scouting and having that level of protection. See how that works out this weekend.
Wouldn't the PKs just move to where the levels 6-10 hunt? That's the joy of vertical progression - you know where to hunt your quarry.
I have watched 4 to 6 low level chars take out someone twice their level. You get your core kit very fast in Ashes. You have to also remember the number of negitve things happens when you go corrupted. 35% less damage is just one of them. This latest change is just one more level. To protect the most vulnerable. Not saying this is going to work. But we are ready to test it and give feedback. The list of things being fixed, updated added a d removed is a long list every week. I didn't think it was going to move this quest. Some of the things added were intended for Phase 2 that starts at the end of December.
4-6 low levels can take out a level 10 sure. Can they take out 2 level 50s? Not a chance.
Id like to see if they can make much of the world safe if you have your PvP flag off. But incentivize folks to turn it on to get an exp bonus or harvesting bonus or movement bonus. Then in critical area where you want to foster PvP (or eliminate spies) make it an area where anyone can be attacked.
And make changing your flag have a 15 minute cooldown or something.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
olepi said: No, when something is elective that means the player gets to elect, or chose to do it or not. In DAOC the player can chose to PvP or not. They can elect to PvP or not. They can also decide whether they want to craft things or not.
Non-elective; you will play the game as a male scout armed with a bow and arrow, there is no other choice.
Elective: you can play as a scout, a warrior, or a mage, and can be male or female, it is up to the player to chose.
Those two things are not the same.
If you enter a full loot PvP game you've elected to participate in a full loot PvP world.
I appreciate that some games allow you to opt in and opt out within the game itself, but some games (as you well know) you opt in by signing-in.
The claim you're making is like saying that LOTRO forces players into a medieval setting and that setting is non-elective; therefore, Star Wars fans can claim they're being forced into a particular setting against their will; therefore, it is wrong.
Read the box, opt-in or opt-out at that point.
So "reading the box" here's what Steam says about Throne and Liberty. (Emphasis mine)
From the below, could a player believe it was possible to enjoy the game while avoiding PVP?
Hard to tell yes? Further reading of the first review reveals maybe yes...with limitations and provisos.
"Welcome to THRONE AND LIBERTY, a free-to-play MMORPG that takes place in the vast open world of Solisium. You can scale expansive mountain ranges for new vantage points, scan open skies, traverse sprawling plains, explore a land full of depth and opportunity. Adapt your fight to survive and thrive through strategic decisions in PvP, PvE or both as you encounter evolving battlefields impacted by weather, time of day, and other players. There is no single path to victory as you seek to defeat Kazar and claim the throne while keeping rival guilds at bay."
BTW, LOTRO was a great example of a MMORPG where players can totally avoid PVP at their option and suffer few, if any penalties for doing so.
Reading that it's very ambiguous. I'm assuming it's a "choose your poison" scenario as I don't believe this is an open ffa pvp.
Here's one person's thoughts on PVP. You can select to deprive yourself as often is the case in PVP centric games.
"During the day the peace reigns and the events are safe but once the night comes the PVP starts and for a solo player there is little you can do but watch how the best guilds and groups from the server control zones and areas where boss spawns or events take place. Nothing can stop your own guild to challenge them but here is where the fun ends because the pay to win aspect of the game becomes the difference between success and failure. But things will get better ...or worse ,only time will tell! The pvp is not mandatory and you can avoid the conflict zones but you'll be missing a lot so i recommend joining a pvp guild and try it before focusing only on pve."
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Comments
Because, again, then EVERYTHING is non-elective!
pve is non-elective, crafting could be seen as non-elective, buying items and dealing with the economy is non-elective.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Our alliance in Lineage 2 had a member who was “ganked”and it led to a great session of pvp encounters.
just view it as a component of a game’s pvp design.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I am not outraged, lol. Just pointing out that these folks paid $$$ to test the game, are doing what everyone said would happen, then told they would get banned if they continue to do it, just to this 1 person though. You can do it to anyone else, that would be ok. I have been in many alphas/betas but this is all just whack. Quit White-Knighting it m8.
I know what you're saying, which is why I frown on vertical progression as being bad for these kinds of games, and bad for immersion. (1) However, like the word "gank" the term "helpless" is poorly defined.
I could have top of the line raid gear, but not know how to play my class, would I be helpless?
How about 3 guys in top-of-the-line raid gear going after a lone player who then defeats them, because he knew his class. Were the three "helpless"? If the three didn't know their classes, it could be argued that the battle was very unfair.
How can anyone enjoy winning against superior odds if our definition of fair precludes the battle?
NOTES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: A child with a butcher knife can still ruin your day, whereas, in a video game he'd be unable to harm you even if you were asleep. That's the miracle of vertical progression and it sucks bad.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Better luck next time.
That's the joy of vertical progression - you know where to hunt your quarry.
Even then the NPCs had levels which scaled up quickly once you ventured out from the portal keeps and the aggro ranges were large.
The NPCs were also scattered about so if one wasn't very careful they could draw unwanted aggro and get quickly killed, even if they were traveling with a full party of 50s
It wasn't perfect but at least you avoided the situation of having say a level 9 scout which could not be attacked roaming the frontiers.
Now, all bets were off in Mordred, the FFA PVP server and people did use level 9 characters to scout, but they had to be very careful as the aggro rules applied in every zone and most had NPCs of high enough level to make life pretty miserable for anyone that low trying to survive.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Non-elective; you will play the game as a male scout armed with a bow and arrow, there is no other choice.
Elective: you can play as a scout, a warrior, or a mage, and can be male or female, it is up to the player to chose.
Those two things are not the same.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
Every activity in EVE is voluntary, though it is true certain areas or activities will expose the player to involuntary PVP just as was true in DAOC.
Despite being not into PVP very much I paid for 10 years of EVE subs because along with everything else, avoiding gettting ganked was a form of gameplay I enjoyed. (At least until I started watching Netflix while gaming)
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I appreciate that some games allow you to opt in and opt out within the game itself, but some games (as you well know) you opt in by signing-in.
The claim you're making is like saying that LOTRO forces players into a medieval setting and that setting is non-elective; therefore, Star Wars fans can claim they're being forced into a particular setting against their will; therefore, it is wrong.
Read the box, opt-in or opt-out at that point.
I enjoy PvP and have in numerous games. Optional PvP games allow me to choose when I want to PvP and what level I want to play at. If I'm level 20 in DAOC I will PvP in a battleground, and not in the main PvP area where I could be attacked by a level 50. Same with ESO, I picked the below 50 no CP PvP zone, so I could be assured of playing characters similar in power to mine.
Mandatory PvP games seem to foster more ganking and griefing, since higher level players can hunt noobies with impunity.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
It absolutely must be made clear from the very beginning.
As for mandatory PvP games that have significant vertical scaling - well, I've already written a rule about that.
From the below, could a player believe it was possible to enjoy the game while avoiding PVP?
Hard to tell yes? Further reading of the first review reveals maybe yes...with limitations and provisos.
"Welcome to THRONE AND LIBERTY, a free-to-play MMORPG that takes place in the vast open world of Solisium. You can scale expansive mountain ranges for new vantage points, scan open skies, traverse sprawling plains, explore a land full of depth and opportunity. Adapt your fight to survive and thrive through strategic decisions in PvP, PvE or both as you encounter evolving battlefields impacted by weather, time of day, and other players. There is no single path to victory as you seek to defeat Kazar and claim the throne while keeping rival guilds at bay."
BTW, LOTRO was a great example of a MMORPG where players can totally avoid PVP at their option and suffer few, if any penalties for doing so.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Full refunds would be offered for up to 30 days after purchase.
This would give me, the publisher, the ability to slap the absolute poo out of people who complain on Discord - which would be my primary reason for publishing the game in the first place.
User: "How is it that PKs can take all my stuff?"
Me: "You knew the rules before you enter the game world."
User: "This is non-consent, and it is immoral."
Me: *clicks perma-ban button*
Reading that it's very ambiguous. I'm assuming it's a "choose your poison" scenario as I don't believe this is an open ffa pvp.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Id like to see if they can make much of the world safe if you have your PvP flag off. But incentivize folks to turn it on to get an exp bonus or harvesting bonus or movement bonus. Then in critical area where you want to foster PvP (or eliminate spies) make it an area where anyone can be attacked.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
"During the day the peace reigns and the events are safe but once the night comes the PVP starts and for a solo player there is little you can do but watch how the best guilds and groups from the server control zones and areas where boss spawns or events take place. Nothing can stop your own guild to challenge them but here is where the fun ends because the pay to win aspect of the game becomes the difference between success and failure. But things will get better ...or worse ,only time will tell! The pvp is not mandatory and you can avoid the conflict zones but you'll be missing a lot so i recommend joining a pvp guild and try it before focusing only on pve."
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon