Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 48
  1. #1

    PvP with extreme consequences: Would you enjoy it?

    This question is mainly for the PvP / conquest crowd:

    Would you still enjoy unrestricted PvP if it had extreme consequences for all players, like perma death and settlements getting completely burned to the ground? Or do you think this gets in the way of having "fun" by simply running around and fighting each other?

    The basic concept is simple: Realism. There are barely any restrictions at all, but the game mechanics make sure that war and violence are just as devastating as in RL. If you go to war, you'll probably get killed sooner or later, and that was that. Two tribes escalating war might completely wipe each other off the map. Naturally, you should really really know what you're doing when starting a fight, or your PvP-fun will be kinda short-lived. This is also how the amount of wars and crime is balanced: It's very risky and only pays off in certain situations. Well, you get the idea.


    A little background:
    I made this poll a while ago, suggesting a similar system of extreme consequences used by Haven & Hearth and Salem. Apparently, most players didn't like it much, but few posted their reasons. Also, all the confusion about Xyson's PvP rendered the poll kinda invalid anyway...
    http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthrea...uot-Salem-quot

  2. #2
    Xsyon Citizen NexAnima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Worcester, MA
    Posts
    164
    I would support a perma death system that allowed unrestricted PVP.

  3. #3
    I'm ok with cities being razed, so long as they can be rebuilt in a reasonable amount of time (not like 1 day, but like over a week or two).

    Perma death, I've always had a problem with it. Here's why. There is no way to account for lag spikes, varying pings, & other technical "glitches" that could potentially allow someone to lose a fight they might have otherwise won. If everyone was on the exact same connection & if it was 100% stable 100% of the time & if there were no exploits & if there were no cheaters/hackers, then I'd be more ok with perma death. However, those are a lot of "if's" & no game to date has been able to resolve all of them.

    That said, there should be serious consequences for death. Corpse looting & long walks back from your totem seem a decent place to start, though they're not as hardcore as they could be.

  4. #4
    No smart developer would allow such harsh death penalties as "perma-death". The VAST majority of the gaming public does not like such harsh penalties and would vote with their wallets. At the end of the day, MMOs are there to make $$$. No paying clients = no money. Simple as that.

    What is best in life?

    To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

  5. #5
    Unrestricted pvp? Absolutely! It has to be balanced though. That, of course, encompases a mutual cohesion between risk and reward.

    Permadeath - Unfortunately, I simply cannot think or have ever seen a mechanic involving this that actually WORKS in a game. I think it is waaaay to harsh. Baka77 made my point already with Technical Difficulties. I could maybe see permadeath of a toon via old age, like what has been discussed here already, but it seems to me that it would be counterproductive to the game. For the time it takes to skill up a toon and get equipment/towns built, a single accidental death via bear by a lost connection is completely counterproductive.

    I simply do not think permadeath can work in a system, but would I try it anyway...absolutely!

    Asset destruction - Have posted many times involving this and I fully support it. This game has a massively in-depth building system. With proper asset destruction, towns would be built with defense in mind, politics get a higher interest, tribes try harder to keep what they have and fight fanatically to defend it. It only adds playability imo. Again, stressing balance here.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Yuyito View Post
    The VAST majority of the gaming public does not like such harsh penalties and would vote with their wallets.
    Agree, but when you mention "perma death" to the vast majory of gamers, they will think of their lvl 80 WoW char with all epic gear permanently dying in a boss battle, and instantly faint. Obviously, it would indeed suck in WoW.
    And Xsyon won't be a game for the vast majory of gamers, anyway, at least not anytime soon.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by StarvingSteve View Post
    This question is mainly for the PvP / conquest crowd:

    Would you still enjoy unrestricted PvP if it had extreme consequences for all players, like perma death and settlements getting completely burned to the ground? Or do you think this gets in the way of having "fun" by simply running around and fighting each other?

    The basic concept is simple: Realism. There are barely any restrictions at all, but the game mechanics make sure that war and violence are just as devastating as in RL. If you go to war, you'll probably get killed sooner or later, and that was that. Two tribes escalating war might completely wipe each other off the map. Naturally, you should really really know what you're doing when starting a fight, or your PvP-fun will be kinda short-lived. This is also how the amount of wars and crime is balanced: It's very risky and only pays off in certain situations. Well, you get the idea.


    A little background:
    I made this poll a while ago, suggesting a similar system of extreme consequences used by Haven & Hearth and Salem. Apparently, most players didn't like it much, but few posted their reasons. Also, all the confusion about Xyson's PvP rendered the poll kinda invalid anyway...
    http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthrea...uot-Salem-quot
    inorder for pvp system to work, it has to have very real consequences for actions. It also has to give the player the ability to recover for reaping the results...negatively...of their actions. Too much 'consequence' ...they just leave. Too little, and it doesn't provide the right feeling of gain or loss.

    there will always be a hard core group of players that say, HELL YEAH, unfortunately, they typically arent' big enough to pay anyone's mortgage.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    www.theburninghorde.com

  8. #8
    Xsyon Citizen NexAnima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Worcester, MA
    Posts
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by Yuyito View Post
    No smart developer would allow such harsh death penalties as "perma-death". The VAST majority of the gaming public does not like such harsh penalties and would vote with their wallets. At the end of the day, MMOs are there to make $$$. No paying clients = no money. Simple as that.
    Which is why in the end we will never see a true sandbox.

    But on that note, What a about a semi-full death system. The name needs work but bare with me. What if, when you died due to a player's hand. The penalty would be so strict it would almost feel as though it was perma? Unprecedented stat loss and skill loss but its temporary. Not by 5 minutes but like 5 hours, what kind of impact would that have on the decision to PvP? Would PvPers ragequit or risk it for the glory? Would this impact war-pacts? Would it add fear to the world? Would this create peace treaties and foreign policy?

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by NexAnima View Post
    Which is why in the end we will never see a true sandbox.

    But on that note, What a about a semi-full death system. The name needs work but bare with me. What if, when you died due to a player's hand. The penalty would be so strict it would almost feel as though it was perma? Unprecedented stat loss and skill loss but its temporary. Not by 5 minutes but like 5 hours, what kind of impact would that have on the decision to PvP? Would PvPers ragequit or risk it for the glory? Would this impact war-pacts? Would it add fear to the world? Would this create peace treaties and foreign policy?
    The more you increase the risk of dying, the greater degree we'll go to ensure we don't die.
    Hi-penalty pvp only ensures that when it does happens, it is horrible unfair.

    it's fairly humorous listening to non-pvp players talk about designing a pvp system. It's like a baker telling a mechanic how to rebuild an engine.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    www.theburninghorde.com

  10. #10
    Xsyon Citizen NexAnima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Worcester, MA
    Posts
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubanka View Post
    The more you increase the risk of dying, the greater degree we'll go to ensure we don't die.
    Hi-penalty pvp only ensures that when it does happens, it is horrible unfair.

    it's fairly humorous listening to non-pvp players talk about designing a pvp system. It's like a baker telling a mechanic how to rebuild an engine.
    Unfair to who? The one who thought he could win when attempting to kill a player harvesting or the one harvesting without any protection in a harsh world? Isn't the greatest insurance of survival determining if the target is worth the attempt?

    Perhaps that baker owned a bodyshop as a prior profession?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •