PvP vs. PK and some general impressions

[Blue Pig]

necoo wrote:

sisler86 wrote:

Firefork wrote:

Jeopardy wrote:


1. He receives a chain link attached to his ankle. Each link he wears slows his movement speed down. He can have a maximum of 10 before he can no longer walk at more than crawl speed. He can have a blacksmith remove the links, one per RL hour. However, the blacksmith would earn some form of bad reputation for each link removed and thus, also earn links after so many are removed for others. Once the player is maxed out (10 links) that player can also be captured easily and placed in jail.


Why don't we have a HUGE arrow (200 meter high)on the head that all player can see and then a sign on it with KILL ME.

Nhaa, i can't even see why you even consider to play a game that
has world pvp.

PVP games is for players that loves PVP and you should not be punished if you choose to kill an other player.
You should be rewarded for it instead.

This is not a PvP game. This is a game that includes PvP. There is a difference. From what I have read (and experienced through gameplay) so far is that this is a game that is focused more on scavenging, building, and living amongst a society and rebuilding communities. Of course fighting and war will be part of it, but that's not even close to the intent or focal point of the game.

I do agree though, I don't think that a PK should be THAT restricted for attacking someone.

pking should have absolutely no restrictions what so ever... it should have consequences but no restrictions. the game mechanics should act like the laws of physics, defining what you can do but not defining what you can't do... they should not be made in attempt to prevent people from playing how they like to play regardless of how they play.

While I am for playing how you like to play, developers generally set the game rules. Some will like these rules, others will not. Just saying.

[JCatano]

Blue Pig wrote:

necoo wrote:

sisler86 wrote:

Firefork wrote:

Jeopardy wrote:


1. He receives a chain link attached to his ankle. Each link he wears slows his movement speed down. He can have a maximum of 10 before he can no longer walk at more than crawl speed. He can have a blacksmith remove the links, one per RL hour. However, the blacksmith would earn some form of bad reputation for each link removed and thus, also earn links after so many are removed for others. Once the player is maxed out (10 links) that player can also be captured easily and placed in jail.


Why don't we have a HUGE arrow (200 meter high)on the head that all player can see and then a sign on it with KILL ME.

Nhaa, i can't even see why you even consider to play a game that
has world pvp.

PVP games is for players that loves PVP and you should not be punished if you choose to kill an other player.
You should be rewarded for it instead.

This is not a PvP game. This is a game that includes PvP. There is a difference. From what I have read (and experienced through gameplay) so far is that this is a game that is focused more on scavenging, building, and living amongst a society and rebuilding communities. Of course fighting and war will be part of it, but that's not even close to the intent or focal point of the game.

I do agree though, I don't think that a PK should be THAT restricted for attacking someone.

pking should have absolutely no restrictions what so ever... it should have consequences but no restrictions. the game mechanics should act like the laws of physics, defining what you can do but not defining what you can't do... they should not be made in attempt to prevent people from playing how they like to play regardless of how they play.

While I am for playing how you like to play, developers generally set the game rules. Some will like these rules, others will not. Just saying.

Are you still playing DF? I'm clearing out the inactives. :)

[sisler86]

prokop15 wrote:

sisler86 wrote:

I do not support a playstyle (especially not one that is an extreme minority) that hinders the playstyles of others.


I don't support a playstyle (bein' a giant pussy)(especially not one that is an extreme minority) that hinders the playstyles of others (people who want to kill you). Ya just got flipped.

Screwball, do you cry when your workers get attacked in RTSs? It's all part of the game man, deal wit it.

The additions to my statement you made do not even make sense.

Also, this is not an RTS. In an RTS, yes, you will be attacked and quite a lot. It's the sole point of the game. That is not the case here. This is not a game that was made specifically for PvP. People of all types (including noncombatants) will be playing.

Further, as I have stated in this thread several times already. There is not much of an incentive for a person to PK someone for no specific reason in this game. Even thoughtful PK will be rare. There's just not enough of a reward for doing it. Are you gonna kill somebody for a log strapped to their back that will decrease your speed to a crawl and the four pieces of leather in their inventory? You could probably gather your own in much less time.

[sisler86]

necoo wrote:

laws and rules are not restrictions they are merely laws and rules.

Sorry for the double post, but I forgot to address you as well.

Laws and rules restrict. This makes them restrictions.

[Hammon]

I'm of a mind that thinks pvp and player looting works best when its restricted to resource rich areas. Wherein the true "carebear" players can avoid pvp and continue to advance, to a point, without ever touching said areas. They would simply farm the low-risk, less resource-dense zones. Now for those who are interested in quicker or higher advancement, those players would be able to compete for resources with like-minded players, in resource rich "no-mans land" type zones. As far as implementing that style of pvp in this game goes, I don't know how well that would work from a "realism" standpoint, or with the lack of defined zones... but it is my preferred style of pvp.

[Diocletian]

Freedom
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/freedom.png
alt: Sometimes I'm terrified to realize how many options other people have.

[necoo]

Diocletian wrote:

Freedom
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/freedom.png
alt: Sometimes I'm terrified to realize how many options other people have.

exactly rules are indeed in place but nothing is stopping you from breaking them
... on a side note that was quite an entertaining stick figure comic.

[Diocletian]

Extra credit to Randall Munroe from XKCD.
This one came up a while back, but often I feel like he is in my head.

[Blue Pig]

JCatano wrote:

Blue Pig wrote:

necoo wrote:

sisler86 wrote:

Firefork wrote:

Jeopardy wrote:


1. He receives a chain link attached to his ankle. Each link he wears slows his movement speed down. He can have a maximum of 10 before he can no longer walk at more than crawl speed. He can have a blacksmith remove the links, one per RL hour. However, the blacksmith would earn some form of bad reputation for each link removed and thus, also earn links after so many are removed for others. Once the player is maxed out (10 links) that player can also be captured easily and placed in jail.


Why don't we have a HUGE arrow (200 meter high)on the head that all player can see and then a sign on it with KILL ME.

Nhaa, i can't even see why you even consider to play a game that
has world pvp.

PVP games is for players that loves PVP and you should not be punished if you choose to kill an other player.
You should be rewarded for it instead.

This is not a PvP game. This is a game that includes PvP. There is a difference. From what I have read (and experienced through gameplay) so far is that this is a game that is focused more on scavenging, building, and living amongst a society and rebuilding communities. Of course fighting and war will be part of it, but that's not even close to the intent or focal point of the game.

I do agree though, I don't think that a PK should be THAT restricted for attacking someone.

pking should have absolutely no restrictions what so ever... it should have consequences but no restrictions. the game mechanics should act like the laws of physics, defining what you can do but not defining what you can't do... they should not be made in attempt to prevent people from playing how they like to play regardless of how they play.

While I am for playing how you like to play, developers generally set the game rules. Some will like these rules, others will not. Just saying.

Are you still playing DF? I'm clearing out the inactives. :)

I'll be on a bit this weekend and hope to catch you there JCanto. Playing Wurm at the moment. Not sure if I'll stay with DF, but I'll decide later. See you tomorrow if you're on DF.

[VowOfSilence]

prokop15 wrote:

sisler86 wrote:

Also, this is not an RTS. In an RTS, yes, you will be attacked and quite a lot. It's the sole point of the game. That is not the case here. This is not a game that was made specifically for PvP. People of all types (including noncombatants) will be playing.


Who says that's the point of an RTS? You could just build a beautiful strong city.


Definition of RTS: Game in which players control units and structures to secure areas of the map and/or destroy their opponents' assets.

Definition of RPG: Game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting.


Confusing a sandbox mmo with an RTS is no better than building pretty cities in Starcraft.

[necoo]

even thou this is a mmorpg it will still have rts elements to it... although you can't have the birds eye view.