PDA

View Full Version : Conflict, Death, Consequences and Decisions



Xsyon
02-24-2010, 06:30 AM
A few people have posted questions regarding PVP and death in Xsyon. I will explain the system a little more.

PVP is open, but it has severe consequences.

Players can choose to fight in different combat modes: to the death or to unconsciousness. (I'd love to say 'to the pain' but that's not quite right).

In the Prelude, technically neither results in actual death.

As religion enters the game during the prelude there will be forms of permanent death as well as resurrection but the details about this will be given later.

In the Prelude:

Unconsciousness results in very minor skill loss and in general the victor will be allowed to loot an item of choice as a reward for a fight well fought.

Death results in some stat and skill loss and allows the victor to fully loot the player. This is not without complications and consequences for the victor.

- Carrying capacity is limited, so fully looting another player will not be practical.

- A dead or unconscious player can be looted by friends as well as enemies. Friends have the loot advantage by having a quick button to rescue select loot from a fellow player. The advantage is to players that fight in groups and players that know when to pack up and flee from a losing battle.

- Killing or looting a person that is not in an enemy tribe will cause severe reputation loss with the other tribe and within your own tribe.

And there’s more…

When tribes are formed an overall tribe alignment is chosen. Players in a good or neutral tribe will automatically become outcasts if they ‘gank’ a good or neutral player of a non enemy tribe.

Players from an evil tribe are free to loot and pillage and will gain reputation within their own tribe for doing so, but they will also be vulnerable to attacks from all players who will be able to attack evil players without negative consequences. Players in good or neutral tribes will be allowed to put bounty quests on known evil players. In essence, if a tribe chooses to be evil they become the ‘monsters’ of the world.

Tribes can choose different levels of diplomacy with each other.

Players from friendly or allied tribes can fight each other, but only to unconsciousness and without looting capability.

Players from rival tribes can fight each other to unconsciousness with partial loot to the victor. Potentially the amount of looting can be agreed upon by rival tribes. (Setting the amount of looting is not currently implemented, but it’s something I am considering).

Players from enemy tribes at war can fight to the death with full looting (Potentially tribe leaders can come to a looting agreement for this as well).

Tribal leaders can set what actions are acceptable by their tribe members, in effect determining the laws within each tribe. Even an evil tribe may have a set of lows for its members to follow in order to maintain civil trade and exchange with other tribes.

Two good tribes can not become enemies, they can become rivals at worst.

Breaking the rules agreed upon by your tribes is possible but will result in a warning. If you proceed to act after the warning, your character is set to full evil mode and your reputation, alignment and karma consequences will be severe.

But that’s not all….

A primary worry for players is that they will loose their gear or loot. Keep in mind that in Xsyon all armor and weapons can be crafted and are thus replaceable.

Regarding death by age, this will not occur in the Prelude. By the time any characters will age enough to reach a natural death there will be several (and I think very interesting) methods to deal with permanent death without character loss.

I hope that answers all the questions so far.

darkrounge
02-24-2010, 08:23 AM
Nice.
The PVP feature is awesome!
We'd be able to set up friendly events etc..

This will be interesting.

Cradlejoe
02-24-2010, 09:12 AM
It all does sound brilliant with many possibilities but I think it'll take me a while to get my head round all the different scenarios that can happen :)

celestial_fury
02-24-2010, 09:21 AM
YEs Tha't great!

inferno3387
02-24-2010, 09:55 AM
Long time since I seen a pvp system like that, thanks for the write up.

Skitzi
02-24-2010, 10:16 AM
Sounds like an interesting system. Thank you for the answering our questions on this subject and providing the details.

It is very refreshing to have a developer answer your question with actual details.

Baldur
02-24-2010, 10:23 AM
Incentives for PvP?

gosmo
02-24-2010, 10:52 AM
Baldur wrote:

Incentives for PvP?

Players from enemy tribes at war can fight to the death with full looting.

Also, don't quote me on this, but I am almost positive you will be able to capture enemy tribe's towns.

Kaldor
02-24-2010, 11:10 AM
Very nicely thought out.

Zendru
02-24-2010, 11:51 AM
Sounds good :)

darkrounge
02-24-2010, 11:57 AM
The loot system is alright but i hope we don't loose the best of out armour!

Zendru
02-24-2010, 12:06 PM
Can be loot heads as a reward? :)

bartillo
02-24-2010, 05:53 PM
this sounds awesome!

Ah i am getting more and more excited about this game

Cradlejoe
02-25-2010, 12:45 AM
darkrounge wrote:

The loot system is alright but i hope we don't loose the best of out armour!

Well that depends if you want to take your best armour with you doesn't it?
What's the point in going out to battle if there's no risk or reward?

beachtoke
02-25-2010, 01:51 AM
Yesss full loot.

You guys and ladies better keep your combat skills tempered. ;)

Durgs
02-25-2010, 02:18 PM
Is PVP server based? i.e. PVE or PVP server choices?

Or is this primarily a PVP game on all servers?

P.S don't hate the carebaer crafters.

darkrounge
02-25-2010, 02:46 PM
Cradlejoe wrote:

darkrounge wrote:

The loot system is alright but i hope we don't loose the best of out armour!

Well that depends if you want to take your best armour with you doesn't it?
What's the point in going out to battle if there's no risk or reward?

From what I'm aware, if you go out to battle your out for a competitive war.
Meaning your thriving to win.

In order to accomplish this, you'd have to wear the best of armour to win the battle.

And get a better chance of defeating the other enemy.

cliff
02-25-2010, 03:05 PM
A game with the scope that this one tries to have needs to also have a certain population level... Free For All PvP isn't exactly a huge selling point for anything but the most hardcore players, and a game like this needs more than just a hard core. It needs a population for the complex economy to function, and so on.

The ideas sound cool, but I think you're going to have a hard time succeeding by appealing only to the PvPers.

Cradlejoe
02-25-2010, 03:07 PM
Didn't you read that just attacking anyone you want will have large consequences for you?

cliff
02-25-2010, 03:24 PM
Cradlejoe wrote:

Didn't you read that just attacking anyone you want will have large consequences for you?

Yeah... and I then thought like a griefer, took one look at the consequences, and realized the average griefer's response would be "So?"

Sorry, the consequences I see... aren't.

Stncold
02-25-2010, 04:19 PM
cliff wrote:

Yeah... and I then thought like a griefer, took one look at the consequences, and realized the average griefer's response would be "So?"

Sorry, the consequences I see... aren't.

What isn't mentioned in that post is that when you first see somebody, they won't have a name over their head until you officially "meet" them(however that works), then they will have a name over their head afterwards.

Evil players however will have a red name over their head that everybody sees, even people they haven't met.
It's no doubt that this will make future gankings be harder cause most people will run as soon as they see you. They'll also probably call out your position to everybody they know so you can be zerged down without consequence.

Granted this isn't completely a bad thing, it's always fun to watch people scatter upon seeing you.

cliff
02-25-2010, 04:30 PM
Unfortunately, it doesn't change the fact that the average carebear is irrationally afraid of PvP and will reject a game outright just for the fact that they theoretically could be attacked by other players at any time.

Time will tell, but without the carebears, it's hard to achieve a population level to support the kind of economy the developer wants this game to have.

Virtus
02-25-2010, 09:33 PM
Indeed time will tell, and i suppose if things aren't going properly then changes will be made accordingly...but that is just an assumption.

Shatter
02-26-2010, 09:24 AM
I have always been turned off by FFA PvP games due to the fact that they invariably turn into gankfests. The wolves hunt the sheep mercilessly until the sheep all abandon the game and all that's left is wolves. It's just no fun, and not at all realistic.

The system that you've outlined sounds like it would work wonders for this. I'd even go so far as to say it's not really FFA. Yes, anyone can kill anyone else. But the penalties for this will be so severe that most people will not go that route. Unlike the real world, there's no getting away with murder because if you do a bad, bad thing you're going to be flagged as evil. Period.

The only way I can see it failing is if all the clans decide to be evil. I just don't foresee that happening. Most clans would choose to be good or at least neutral. If an evil clan ever became too much of a problem, the good ones could band together to make their lives a living hell.

I like it. :)

Belated
02-26-2010, 10:00 AM
Carebears Fear me! If you see me start running. My pack of tigers,and wolves are coming for ya.

cliff
02-26-2010, 01:54 PM
Shatter wrote:


The only way I can see it failing is if all the clans decide to be evil. I just don't foresee that happening. Most clans would choose to be good or at least neutral. If an evil clan ever became too much of a problem, the good ones could band together to make their lives a living hell.


I disagree. I think the evil clans will far outnumber the good clans. We've had FFA PvP games before, and the usual result is that most of the power ends up with people that are either evil, or at the very least draconian. It might be in keeping with the genre, but you can't support a userbase this way.

Even the clans that aren't evil are going to have a "shoot first and ask questions later" policy.

The problem is, these "severe penalties" are wholly dependent on the murderer caring about the penalty. Past history has shown us that this has never been the case before, so I think it purest fantasy to believe that it will be any different now.

What I see here is an MMO with a lot of great ideas being developed by a company that dearly misses Ultima Online before the world was torn asunder, but there's a really big difference between UO in the old days and the realities of MMOs today - the carebears have other choices available to them. In the old days of Ultima Online, your choice was deal with the gankers or don't play an MMO. UO's pro-PvP stance didn't last very long once the users had an alternative.

I've been involved with the development of a few MMOs, and I say what I say from experience... a game with FFA PvP can make a living for a small, indie development team but it can't attract enough subscribers for as complex an economy as the developers have described for this one.

I really hope I'm wrong, this game sounds awesome (and very ambitious), but this is one design decision that could very well kill the game before it has had a chance to mature.

Best of luck, cheers!

Belated
02-26-2010, 02:10 PM
/agree

I think there is wisdom in your words, maybe some way to make the good/evil clans even? Although there are flaws in that. Even having 1 evil clan with no tribe cap limit it can be 500 strong. A clan that is even 300 strong, is going to find itself almost impenitrable to attack.

I say this because the others would have to organize an attack. When the evil side is already together as one.

Evil will also be able to have its own economy without the fear of consequences I think. I have been good in most all games I have played, also always played a tank or healer as raids pve need them. Not this time though. This time gank like a mofo and taking everything I need for my evil clan to use.

I hope there are not a huge amount of evil or good, I pray for max 1.5 to 1 odds. That line of thinking however is wishful thinking. Only time will tell.

In the end though I agree with Cliff. Be very careful on what you decide please. Anything one sided is going to be disaster for this game.

aurickle
02-26-2010, 07:07 PM
I agree that it has to be managed very, very carefully. I like a game that gives you the option of being a douche... so long as the penalties for that truly are so severe that most people wouldn't want to be a sociopath.

Unfortunately, history also shows that when severe penalties for this kind of behavior are implemented, the most vocal people are the jackasses. They yell, scream and throw tantrums but in the end if the devs stick to their guns the result is a game that draws more than just the niche crowd that Cliff refers to.

AoC is a good example of this. There were a lot of penalties talked about prior to launch that never made it into the game. The wolves made life so miserable that a huge number of people who'd rolled on a PvP server (because they expected those advertised penalties) high-tailed it over to re-roll on a PvE server. About half of my guild in the first month was refugees from the PvP servers. Then Funcom announced their plans to implement the penalties system, and the wolves screamed so loud that very little of the original design ever made it into the game. Ironically, because the game had such a lack of working PvE content at the higher levels, the PvP aspect was the thing that had the best chance of keeping the game strong. But because so many people had fled to the PvE servers, they grew bored and left the game altogether before the penalties that might have kept them around could finally be implemented.

Harsh penalties ultimately will not deter the most hardcore of the player killers. In fact, the most hardcore will actually thrive on the harshest of penalties because surviving them becomes a badge of honor. But a lack of those penalties will most certainly drive away the majority of the potential player base. I suspect it would be better to err on the side of harshness. Penalties can always be relaxed if they prove too harsh, and most players will accept this. But if penalties are too soft then the player base will never grow enough for the changes to make a difference.

lildeath16
02-27-2010, 08:18 PM
Would you say you have a skill based combat system/rock paper scissors/or mix

Virtus
02-27-2010, 09:03 PM
lildeath16 wrote:

Would you say you have a skill based combat system/rock paper scissors/or mix

Not to get to far off topic but the combat list under Features should be able to give you insight into this question.

Leiros
02-28-2010, 06:48 PM
It seems that a lot of people are failing to realize that not all hardcore PvPers have to be evil with this system. There will be enough people that reach the "pure evil" status quickly to allow the "good" PvPers to hunt them down and collect bounties to their hearts content. Thus, they get to enjoy the best of both worlds. They can PvP and not worry about being chased out of every town they enter.

I like it. :)

edit: This also helps keep the level of gankers down by adding some PvPers to aid the carebears.

jbertoglio
02-28-2010, 11:41 PM
Player looting seems reasonable as long as the world is primitive and equipment has a modest value in terms of both effort of creation and usefulness in combat.

But as more technology is "discovered", one assumes more sophisticated items will become more more valuable to the owner and the looter.

Will it be possible to flee from a fight with some degree of reliability, or will the lone player or tribal scout who walk into an ambush going to come out of the encounter naked?

Leiros
03-01-2010, 12:14 AM
jbertoglio wrote:


Will it be possible to flee from a fight with some degree of reliability, or will the lone player or tribal scout who walk into an ambush going to come out of the encounter naked?

That would be a bit chilly... especially during the winter time. :side:

Xsyon
03-01-2010, 12:23 AM
jbertoglio wrote:


Will it be possible to flee from a fight with some degree of reliability, or will the lone player or tribal scout who walk into an ambush going to come out of the encounter naked?

You should be able to flee most of the time, especially if you've built up decent running skill and wear light armor.

Cradlejoe
03-01-2010, 04:31 AM
Xsyon wrote:

You should be able to flee most of the time, especially if you've built up decent running skill and wear light armor.

I like this. I think that if you are prepared to run away from enemies then it should be highly possible.

Kaldor
03-01-2010, 05:30 AM
Xsyon wrote:



You should be able to flee most of the time, especially if you've built up decent running skill and wear light armor.

Nice, preparation looks to be key. Again proving the point that player skill is not just how well you kill stuff.

Redus
03-01-2010, 05:36 AM
All about tactics. Lets say you have two armies. One fully armored and one lightly armored. Who will win? The lightly armored people will just do an hit and run when needed heal up and repeat. This mean if the lighter units run in quickly and focus on one target they might kill the person and be gone before they can properly react. This means that the army who will all have the best armor will not win perse, but a balanced army will.

aurickle
03-01-2010, 07:44 AM
As long as anything that can be looted off you can also be replaced relatively easily and cheaply, player looting is fine. But if there is every the possibility that you might get into a situation where people can become particularly attached to a particular item this would start to turn people off of the game.

One possible solution would be to provide a way to bind items to the player so that they cannot be looted -- but also can never be traded. I would put restrictions on this, such as making it expensive enough that players will only want to do it rarely, or limiting it to one bound item equipped at any time so that the player must make tough choices.

Of course this is moot if the game also has a mechanism for item wear that cannot be entirely overcome with repair skills. In this case, all items would eventually become unusable and so being looted amounts to little more than early breakage. :)

Virtus
03-01-2010, 08:08 AM
So leave your fav stuff at home and take it with you when you think it will be safe.

Binding would not be a very good idea. People would just bind all the items they have, who cares if it isn't tradable?

aurickle
03-01-2010, 08:28 AM
This is why I suggested a limit of being able to only carry one bound item at a time.

The pre-order weapons are actually a perfect example for why this is a feature worth considering. I'll explain below. (By nature I'm a Neutral Good type of person, so this isn't something I personally would do. But I guarantee there's an evil player or two who will.)

If I was the evil type, I would hide my pre-order weapon in a safe place and then never use it. Instead, I would go out and kill other players for their pre-order weapons and promptly destroy them. Because these weapons are limited edition it means that mine would eventually become one of a very few left in the game and so would be extremely valuable.

The only reason I'm talking about this is because I'm just not that devious. So if I thought of it, I'm sure others have as well. I'm sure it will happen. While on one level it's a legitimate use of game mechanics to create rarity and inflate value, it's also a situation that sets the game's primary supporters -- those who were willing to pre-order -- up for victimization.

My recommendation would be to make these weapons bound automatically. In this way they would over time be a badge of honor that shows you as being a long-time supporter of the game, rather than quickly turning into a commodity. If players are then limited by only being able to carry one bound item they will eventually be forced to make a decision between whether they carry this weapon or bind something else to carry instead.

Another reason why having limited binding is potentially a good thing is that it does slowly remove resources from the game which must then be replaced. This is a driver for the economy because it slightly accelerates the pace at which resources must be acquired.

Virtus
03-01-2010, 08:32 AM
aurickle wrote:


Another reason why having limited binding is potentially a good thing is that it does slowly remove resources from the game which must then be replaced. This is a driver for the economy because it slightly accelerates the pace at which resources must be acquired.

but item decay etc would already do this.

However, getting slightly off topic now

EZAlan
03-01-2010, 09:00 AM
I just found out about this game today and was really on a high after reading all the features (no mention of PVP there that I saw). Now after reading this thread the pre-order is not an option and I will possibly wait until a few months after release to try this game. What I really see happening here is Shadowbane all over again.

I am not a carebear and am ganking with the best of them in Aion atm. But really it is boring and I pushed the Cancel button 2 days ago. Actually I prefer FPSs like Counterstrike etc. when I want to PK.

Long story short I wish you guys the best but I expect gank fests galore with this. Possibly I am wrong. Maybe not being gear based will help. My thoughts are with PVP MMOs that most add PVP as opposed to doing the work to add other content. {make a map and some gears and let them spend time killing each other} There are so very many MMOs out there that have PVP I was surprised to find this game with all the features listed then surprised again by this thread.

My recommendation is to also have a PVE only server if in fact there really are enough other features to entertain people. I know enough families that enjoy playing together, but don't like PVP, that I truly believe you will get more subs on that server. I do not know why there are no decent games catering to them.

Cradlejoe
03-01-2010, 09:36 AM
EZAlan wrote:

My recommendation is to also have a PVE only server if in fact there really are enough other features to entertain people. I know enough families that enjoy playing together, but don't like PVP, that I truly believe you will get more subs on that server. I do not know why there are no decent games catering to them.

This would effectively kill the game by splitting the population in half. It is better to stick to one server with one set of rules.
No decent games that cater to them? WoW?

Virtus
03-01-2010, 09:42 AM
http://xsyon.com/forums/7-public-support/113-server-selection

for that discussion. *tries to steer back to topic*

MrDDT
03-01-2010, 09:49 AM
EZAlan wrote:

I just found out about this game today and was really on a high after reading all the features (no mention of PVP there that I saw). Now after reading this thread the pre-order is not an option and I will possibly wait until a few months after release to try this game. What I really see happening here is Shadowbane all over again.

I am not a carebear and am ganking with the best of them in Aion atm. But really it is boring and I pushed the Cancel button 2 days ago. Actually I prefer FPSs like Counterstrike etc. when I want to PK.

Long story short I wish you guys the best but I expect gank fests galore with this. Possibly I am wrong. Maybe not being gear based will help. My thoughts are with PVP MMOs that most add PVP as opposed to doing the work to add other content. {make a map and some gears and let them spend time killing each other} There are so very many MMOs out there that have PVP I was surprised to find this game with all the features listed then surprised again by this thread.

My recommendation is to also have a PVE only server if in fact there really are enough other features to entertain people. I know enough families that enjoy playing together, but don't like PVP, that I truly believe you will get more subs on that server. I do not know why there are no decent games catering to them.


I think 2 servers is kinda defeating your point here isnt it?

If they had 2 servers then they wouldnt be putting the correct effort into either still.

IMO 2 servers would kill it like the other poster said.

I agree with you that many games DO think about PVP and forget about other stuff when they call them {FFA PVPMMOS}.
But the whole point here is that Xsyon is made to be different. You can see what it has to offer, which is more than any other game Ive seen PVE or PVP.

Shaehl
03-02-2010, 10:33 AM
First of all, I want to say the proposed PvP system sounds absolutely stellar. It's harsh enough that you won't have rampant, willy-nilly killings, yet open enough that if you want to be the server-feared dread lord, you can.

Second, to all the people getting their panties into a knot over whether or not the possibility of PvP will drive everyone away: you are making a few false assumptions.

1. The game needs a huge player base for the economy to work --

This is just false. As long as there are enough people to populate even just two towns, the economy will be robust and healthy. Sure, it will be cooler if, instead of 2, there was 32 towns, but it's by no means necessary.

2. The game wont be able to draw in enough people for the aforementioned 32 towns --

Depending on how many people it takes to populate a town, this may or may not be true. HOWEVER, I have no fear that Xsyon will be able to maintain a healthy player base that will steadily grow. Just look at the most recent PvP game: Darkfall.

Darkfall had a lot of cool ideas, but most of them were dropped and in its current state it is essentially a game with ONLY PvP, and horrible tacked on PvE. The ruleset for their PvP is also by far the most lax of any game I've ever seen. The penalties for killing friendlies are so negligible that no really even pays attention to them.

Yet despite all this, and despite the worst launch in MMO history, Darkfall still has decent and steadily growing playerbase.

Seeing that Xsyon's PvP is far less unforgiving and that Xsyon will (if the devs deliver on their feature list, at least) have much, much more to do than PvP, it ought to have no trouble here.

3. Xsyon's main method of attracting players is going to be through advertising, media and press --

You guys seem to think that the only way a game can get subscribers is by blasting its feature list at the public through a heavy ad campaign--at which point Xsyon would scare everyone away because it has PvP. Well, ignoring the fact that there are enough pro PvP people out there to more than populate Xsyon, this isn't even an issue. Why?

Because Xsyon is so underground and off the radar that no one's going to hear about it that way anyway. Xsyon is a niche game, created by a small indie studio. I'd be surprised if even one ad makes it anywhere before it is released. Hell, supposedly it's two months from release yet I hadn't even heard of till today. It's not listed on any major gaming site I know of. The only way a game like Xsyon gets subscribers is through word of mouth.

If the game is good, people will hear about it and decide to try it. It was the same for Darkfall, although in DF's case it less about the game being good and more about it being the only game on the market that wasn't a carebear, themepark POS.

Anyway, if you really just can't accept a world wear the potential for player conflict exists, there are plenty of hold-your-hand carebear snorefests out there already for you to go back to. I mean, you guys aren't here because you got tired of no-content grindparks right?

Virtus
03-02-2010, 03:51 PM
Please lets get back on topic, there are plenty of DF topics in the General Discussion.

Vessol
03-02-2010, 06:13 PM
PKers or evil characters should face a stat/skill loss only, like in UO to make it a more difficult yet rewarding choice.

Otherwise you'll just see mass griefing. I really don't care about loot, but losing stats/skills due to a death to me seems pretty extreme. It should only be on for those extreme players who choose to go that way.

Virtus
03-02-2010, 09:45 PM
now that i have cleaned up this mess stay on topic ! :angry:

Starry
03-03-2010, 05:10 AM
Will PvP be consensual? This is an absolute deal breaker for me if the game will be forced FFA PvP. I don't mind PvP, but I would like to chose when I engage in it.

Redus
03-03-2010, 05:19 AM
Starry wrote:

Will PvP be consensual? This is an absolute deal breaker for me if the game will be forced FFA PvP. I don't mind PvP, but I would like to chose when I engage in it.

Then I would have to disappoint you. It will not be consensual. Hardly any game with these feature has this. Wurm Online has a server though where you can no PvP and maybe this game will have one as well later on, but not when it is launched.

Virtus
03-03-2010, 05:53 AM
if you wish to not PVP in this game it is suggested that you stay in or around the village. or when you go somewhere have an armed escort.

Jadzia
03-03-2010, 06:29 AM
Why to make another sandbox with FFA PVP ? There are ones like that...what the genre needs is a sandbox without FFA PVP, i'm sure that game would attract way more players.

Virtus
03-03-2010, 06:39 AM
This game is not looking for quantity but rather quality.

Cradlejoe
03-03-2010, 06:45 AM
Having a sandbox without FFA PVP would take away a very sandboxy element.
I really don't see peoples problems with FFA PVP, it adds excitement and some form of dynamics to the game so it doens't feel like all you're doing is playing the game so that the little numbers in your characters stats get higher.

Redus
03-03-2010, 08:48 AM
Jadzia wrote:

Why to make another sandbox with FFA PVP ? There are ones like that...what the genre needs is a sandbox without FFA PVP, i'm sure that game would attract way more players.

A Tale in the Desert
Wurm Online
Star War Galaxy

All sandbox games without FFA PvP. ATITD has no PvP at all!

Jadzia
03-03-2010, 09:14 AM
Redus wrote:

Jadzia wrote:

Why to make another sandbox with FFA PVP ? There are ones like that...what the genre needs is a sandbox without FFA PVP, i'm sure that game would attract way more players.

A Tale in the Desert
Wurm Online
Star War Galaxy

All sandbox games without FFA PvP. ATITD has no PvP at all!

Good ones :) I've played ATITD for like 10 months, and i know its called a sandbox, but its very linear in its own way...you are forced to follow a road if you want to develop in that game. Its not build around combat for sure ( you can't fight there at all ), but that doesn't mean its sandbox, since there aren't many options in gameplay.

I don't know about Wurm Online, since it doesn't run on my comp for some weird reason.

Star Wars Galaxy isn't a sandbox at all now, it was sandboxy at the start.

Virtus
03-03-2010, 09:17 AM
/me points to topic title

Jadzia
03-03-2010, 10:09 AM
Virtus wrote:

/me points to topic title

Sorry ;)

Wrekkoning
03-05-2010, 06:03 AM
Shatter wrote:

The only way I can see it failing is if all the clans decide to be evil. I just don't foresee that happening. Most clans would choose to be good or at least neutral. If an evil clan ever became too much of a problem, the good ones could band together to make their lives a living hell.

I like it. :)


I promise you right now, some of the largest clans that play this game, will be evil. They will do it for a reason. I can also tell you, some of the smallest clans in this game, will be good. Those clans will band together to fight the large ones... and it will be alot of fun:)

Wrekkoning
03-05-2010, 06:10 AM
Shaehl wrote:

Because Xsyon is so underground and off the radar that no one's going to hear about it that way anyway. Xsyon is a niche game, created by a small indie studio. I'd be surprised if even one ad makes it anywhere before it is released. Hell, supposedly it's two months from release yet I hadn't even heard of till today. It's not listed on any major gaming site I know of. The only way a game like Xsyon gets subscribers is through word of mouth.

That makes little to no sense at all. When game footage starts rolling out, you will see people posting it on every hosting site you can think of, Pics will be on every search engine people use, and ya know what? there's no way word of mouth can bring that many people.

Whats good about word of mouth, its from someone who plays the game, normally directed to someone that person knows would like that game. Based on that alone, word of mouth players by % tend to stay longer.

MrDDT
03-05-2010, 06:54 AM
Wrekkoning wrote:


I promise you right now, some of the largest clans that play this game, will be evil. They will do it for a reason. I can also tell you, some of the smallest clans in this game, will be good. Those clans will band together to fight the large ones... and it will be alot of fun:)

Why do you believe this?

1) I dont think most of the largest clans are going to be evil, in the past is has shown me the OTHER way around. Larger the clan less likely they want to be Evil.
2) If the punishment for being Evil is harsh enough, very few people will do it.
3) Normally very small elite groups are the "Evil" clans.

Normally clans (or guilds or tribes or whatever you call them) are made up of many guilds which tend to NOT be Evil. Other clans tend to stay small which can be Evil or Anti(Not just good but opposed to Evil).

Most clans will be a mix, mix of Evil people, sorta Evil people, and Anti's.

Thorbrand
03-05-2010, 08:25 AM
There is more in this game than just good and evil and don't forget your actions determine what your alignment will be. Not like other games where you just say "hey I am evil."

Wrekkoning
03-05-2010, 09:35 AM
MrDDT wrote:

Wrekkoning wrote:


I promise you right now, some of the largest clans that play this game, will be evil. They will do it for a reason. I can also tell you, some of the smallest clans in this game, will be good. Those clans will band together to fight the large ones... and it will be alot of fun:)

Why do you believe this?

1) I dont think most of the largest clans are going to be evil, in the past is has shown me the OTHER way around. Larger the clan less likely they want to be Evil.
2) If the punishment for being Evil is harsh enough, very few people will do it.
3) Normally very small elite groups are the "Evil" clans.

Normally clans (or guilds or tribes or whatever you call them) are made up of many guilds which tend to NOT be Evil. Other clans tend to stay small which can be Evil or Anti(Not just good but opposed to Evil).

Most clans will be a mix, mix of Evil people, sorta Evil people, and Anti's.

I Agree that small elite clans will make up a good part of it, but In my experience, People play video games to act out in ways they cant in Real life. I do think that (obviously depending on the severity of of evil alignment) there will be powerhouse evil clans that are able to be completely self sufficient, and because of that and the lack of rules restricting them, they will see bolstered numbers.

Alot has to do with how harsh the penalties are but i said some of the largest clans, not most:) People tend in pvp games to like being the evil ones, they can do what ever they feel like doing to someone else at any given time. I can think of 2 clans that are perfect examples of this. although I'd rather not give props to my enemies for doing a fine job setting up their clans.

I guess it will remain to be seen:)

Cradlejoe
03-05-2010, 09:47 AM
I would quite like it if there was a large evil clan, then the smaller good clans could band together and smite them with their holy flame!
I imagine this will be more likely in Xsyon because tribe relations seem very important

MrDDT
03-05-2010, 10:16 AM
Wrekkoning wrote:

I do think that (obviously depending on the severity of of evil alignment) there will be powerhouse evil clans that are able to be completely self sufficient, and because of that and the lack of rules restricting them, they will see bolstered numbers.

Alot has to do with how harsh the penalties are but i said some of the largest clans, not most:) People tend in pvp games to like being the evil ones, they can do what ever they feel like doing to someone else at any given time. I can think of 2 clans that are perfect examples of this. although I'd rather not give props to my enemies for doing a fine job setting up their clans.

I guess it will remain to be seen:)

You think that being Evil is going just make guards attack you ETC things like that.

Being Evil is going to have more punishments than just NPC guards attacking you. Think of it like stat loss too.

Every time you die you lose 10% of your skills or something (pulling number out of my butt). Even power house PVP guilds WONT want to be Evil all the time.

Again all this is going to be watched and tweaked so it doesnt just have tons of people being Evil and not care.

Wrekkoning
03-05-2010, 11:25 AM
I wasnt aware we knew how stat lose was going to be implemented.

Some games at death show a % of stat lose, and every % u bring back requires you gain xp.

For example. I die i get 10% stat lose.

i have to get 2000 xp to reduce it to 9% and 3000 to reduce it to 8% and so on. Makes dieing stink, because your not at your full capacity until you drop that % rate doing some PvE. It doesnt mean having to get the total XP to drop it takes a long time it just means you cant go die, and fight and die and fight all the time.

All depends on how it is implemented.

MrDDT
03-05-2010, 11:38 AM
Wrekkoning wrote:

All depends on how it is implemented.

Yep I agree with this =P

Thorbrand
03-05-2010, 11:39 AM
Players from an evil tribe are free to loot and pillage and will gain reputation within their own tribe for doing so, but they will also be vulnerable to attacks from all players who will be able to attack evil players without negative consequences. Players in good or neutral tribes will be allowed to put bounty quests on known evil players. In essence, if a tribe chooses to be evil they become the ‘monsters’ of the world.

That is a quote from the admin on the other post.

Evil tribes become the Monsters of the world!!!!

VowOfSilence
03-05-2010, 12:20 PM
MrDDT wrote:
Every time you die you lose 10% of your skills or something (pulling number out of my butt). Even power house PVP guilds WONT want to be Evil all the time.

That sounds a bit naive, tho.

In my experience, some clans will go evil once they are so powerful that stat loss is no longer an issue, because they will rarely die in combat. Even in games with PERMADEATH it used to turn out this way.

If a game allows players/clans to become significantly stronger than others, some of the strong will always start preying on the weak. Unless there are mechanic in place to balance things out, which is imo really needed in that case.

Thorbrand
03-05-2010, 12:25 PM
They have stated before the primary focus of the game isn't FFAPVP, it is gameplay and world development. I think all the zerg PvP guilds are going to find it isn't like Darkfall and they will not like the choices they have made.

Running around mindlessly killing and not developing the world will not allow it to expand since development is required, so the evil tribes will have to be eliminated just like a local goblin village would be to continue world development.

VowOfSilence
03-05-2010, 12:51 PM
Thorbrand wrote:

Running around mindlessly killing and not developing the world will not allow it to expand since development is required, so the evil tribes will have to be eliminated just like a local goblin village would be to continue world development.

Again, that just sounds a bit naive. There WILL be extremely powerfull tribes who attack weak tribes, if only for the lolz and out of boredom because they already did everything you can do in the game. Weak casual tribes will not be able to do much about it, not even if they join forces. Other powerful tribes will just stay out of it. That's how things usually turn out.

r0ss0
03-05-2010, 01:10 PM
VowOfSilence wrote:

Thorbrand wrote:

Running around mindlessly killing and not developing the world will not allow it to expand since development is required, so the evil tribes will have to be eliminated just like a local goblin village would be to continue world development.

Again, that just sounds a bit naive. There WILL be extremely powerfull tribes who attack weak tribes, if only for the lolz and out of boredom because they already did everything you can do in the game. Weak casual tribes will not be able to do much about it, not even if they join forces. Other powerful tribes will just stay out of it. That's how things usually turn out.

Waiting for the day!

Oakstead
03-05-2010, 02:07 PM
VowOfSilence wrote:

Thorbrand wrote:

Running around mindlessly killing and not developing the world will not allow it to expand since development is required, so the evil tribes will have to be eliminated just like a local goblin village would be to continue world development.

Again, that just sounds a bit naive. There WILL be extremely powerfull tribes who attack weak tribes, if only for the lolz and out of boredom because they already did everything you can do in the game. Weak casual tribes will not be able to do much about it, not even if they join forces. Other powerful tribes will just stay out of it. That's how things usually turn out.

I want to second this in a big way. I was a guild leader on the Light side for Dark and Light and the evil (Dark) guilds suddenly appeared near launch from other games and near launch they outnumbered the Light side by about 2 to 1. Many are organized, talented, hardcore and will exploit any weak game mechanic for their benefit. The Good and Neutral alignments here had better be ready for the onslaught.

No doubt these evil guilds will have Good aligned alts (or even other accounts) for spying, making purchases, doing basic crafting, etc. They will be able to get around any evil restrictions.

Thorbrand
03-05-2010, 02:13 PM
I understand what everyone is saying but first off being evil or bad has never made the guild good in any game. They actually are made up of poor players. Second evil guild will prevent expansion and development since this is a factor they need to be eliminated. Hate to say it but there are guild both evil and good who are powerful, evil usually wins in a game based on zergs to determine out comes. This may be different it may not but I will do what I always do and destroy all evil I can.

I need my lands clean to prosper!

drivec
03-05-2010, 09:46 PM
PVP is open, but it has severe consequences.

just wondering what consequences there will be.

so far i know if your red u can be attack by a blue but iam told not killed or the blue will take penalties.

also if your red you can attack anyone you feel like.

iam just not understand what consequeences reds have. if anything seems more safer then being blue.

MrDDT
03-05-2010, 09:59 PM
drivec wrote:


iam just not understand what consequeences reds have. if anything seems more safer then being blue.

As I said on IRC, things like skill decay / stat loss on death, karma loss etc.

Blues wont have it as bad.

Sique
03-06-2010, 03:24 PM
Xsyon's Response to my questions about death and PvP during
Prelude. Prelude is bolded to avoid confusion.

Xsyon:
Here's the current set up for the early Prelude:

Tribes can set the level of PVP in their town. It can be set to
protected and not allow PVP at all within the village, so villages will
likely be safe zones until they have time to build walls and we
implement more safe guards that players can control.

Evil tribes can't be set to protected, so evil players are open to being
attacked at all times.

Perma death is something for the future, but it's not just from old age.
This will have to be explained later. :-)

The overall goal will be to constantly balance things so that both good
and evil can enjoy the game. A PVP gankfest will definitely not be
allowed if that starts to happen.

I hope that answers the question. I know I'm a bit vague about some
planned features, but that's the fun of the game. :-)

Virtus
03-06-2010, 03:34 PM
Can someone run that over to MMORPG please and bold the whole gankfest section thanks

Oakstead
03-06-2010, 04:47 PM
Virtus wrote:

Can someone run that over to MMORPG please and bold the whole gankfest section thanks

Did on my post.

Virtus
03-06-2010, 04:51 PM
Thanks

Teotwauki
03-07-2010, 11:14 AM
From what I can see, it will come down to how mature the playerbase is. In one of the games I played, there was a few years (Real time) where the only evil city had a population of < 10% of the player base, we used to get raided every night. I'm from Australia, and at times there would only be me and two or three others online from the city, but about 100 people online all up. But, it was the best fun I've had in any game ;)

Some times it's fun being the underdog, but I do agree having your village wiped out all the time with no way to protect yourself can be annoying.

I read that good towns will be able to set their towns "protection" level, where as evil will not? Can you tell me why it's like this? It seems to me like you have branded evil players as PKers and good as PVEers. My character will most likley be evil, I enjoy the RP of an evil character, not for the sake of mass murdur, but due to divine patronage, or some demonic afiliation (Whatever the case of the game may be).

I havn't seen an evil tribe being created yet (Although I would assume I just have not found it), either way, I actually thing good will outnumber evil, and that to "punish" a player for choosing evil RP as opposed to good, you may wreck the balance. And I'm really not to fond of the whole "punishment" idea for PK. The idea of "Infamy" is appealing, having bounties placed on you by the opposing tribe, and other things that makes other people more able to fight you, not kill you, but be able to fight you in return.

This is all speculation, it seems there has been a great deal of thought put into this game, and I trust you to do what you think is best. Until release, there isn't much point speculating.

-Teotwauki

MrDDT
03-07-2010, 11:20 AM
Teotwauki wrote:

From what I can see, it will come down to how mature the playerbase is. In one of the games I played, there was a few years (Real time) where the only evil city had a population of < 10% of the player base, we used to get raided every night. I'm from Australia, and at times there would only be me and two or three others online from the city, but about 100 people online all up. But, it was the best fun I've had in any game ;)

Some times it's fun being the underdog, but I do agree having your village wiped out all the time with no way to protect yourself can be annoying.

I read that good towns will be able to set their towns "protection" level, where as evil will not? Can you tell me why it's like this? It seems to me like you have branded evil players as PKers and good as PVEers. My character will most likley be evil, I enjoy the RP of an evil character, not for the sake of mass murdur, but due to divine patronage, or some demonic afiliation (Whatever the case of the game may be).

I havn't seen an evil tribe being created yet (Although I would assume I just have not found it), either way, I actually thing good will outnumber evil, and that to "punish" a player for choosing evil RP as opposed to good, you may wreck the balance. And I'm really not to fond of the whole "punishment" idea for PK. The idea of "Infamy" is appealing, having bounties placed on you by the opposing tribe, and other things that makes other people more able to fight you, not kill you, but be able to fight you in return.

This is all speculation, it seems there has been a great deal of thought put into this game, and I trust you to do what you think is best. Until release, there isn't much point speculating.

-Teotwauki

Because it sounds good in theory but in practice it doesnt work out.

A few Evil players can really cause problems for a lot of good players. Having a punishment for being Evil is what will stop it from being so wide spread.

There are rewards for being Evil also.

Siko
03-07-2010, 11:56 AM
Teotwauki wrote:

I read that good towns will be able to set their towns "protection" level, where as evil will not? Can you tell me why it's like this? It seems to me like you have branded evil players as PKers and good as PVEers. My character will most likley be evil, I enjoy the RP of an evil character, not for the sake of mass murdur, but due to divine patronage, or some demonic afiliation (Whatever the case of the game may be).
If "being evil" is mostly a roleplaying thing for you, what's stopping you from creating a neutral clan with likeminded people and just creating rules for how you interact with other people to come off as insane demon worshipers or whatever. It's not like there are any evil races or classes to play, so the "evil flag" is more of a choice of what you want your pvp gameplay to be like.

Sique
03-07-2010, 02:47 PM
Teotwauki wrote:


I read that good towns will be able to set their towns "protection" level, where as evil will not? Can you tell me why it's like this? It seems to me like you have branded evil players as PKers and good as PVEers. My character will most likley be evil, I enjoy the RP of an evil character, not for the sake of mass murdur, but due to divine patronage, or some demonic afiliation (Whatever the case of the game may be).


-Teotwauki

It was said the protection would only be for the prelude, until the other protection measures were fully implemented.

Teotwauki
03-07-2010, 09:49 PM
I do a lot of posting from my phone at work, so forgive me for lack of quotes.

MrDDT,
I think what I was trying to say was that good players can do a lot of harm to evil players as well, but I do agree a lot of people who have bad game ethics do tend to roll evil characters.

Siko:
I was/am still unsure on how the whole evil thing will be implimented, if it's like you say just a PK flag type deal, and there's not actualy a reason for a character to be evil, then I doubt I will play an evil character. I was kind of assuming there would be a god or something drawing people down the evil path.

Edit: This is an accidental double post, please delete if you wish.

Teotwauki
03-07-2010, 10:01 PM
I do a lot of posting from my phone at work, so forgive me for lack of quotes.

MrDDT,
I think what I was trying to say was that good players can do a lot of harm to evil players as well, but I do agree a lot of people who have bad game ethics do tend to roll evil characters.

Siko:
I was/am still unsure on how the whole evil thing will be implimented, if it's like you say just a PK flag type deal, and there's not actualy a reason for a character to be evil, then I doubt I will play an evil character. I was kind of assuming there would be a god or something drawing people down the evil path.

Sique:
Keeping that in mind, you don't want all the good players to steamroll all the evil characters just because they can. Of course, if I missed the asumption that evil is used as a PK flag type tool only, then yes, I guess they choose it knowing that.

On a side note, perhaps it is not such a good idea encouraging those interested in PK to join evil tribes. I think making both appealing is a better option, as people need people to fight, and one sided conflicts are bad. Not to mention those un-interested in PK joining evil tribes. Saying that, I don't think that is what Xyson is trying to achive, I'm just speculating. As I said before, I don't think to much of what is said now really means much, the game could go 100 different ways, and developers may tweak things.

Just be mindfull that not all evil characters will be played by immature powergamer PKers with no self controll, but there will be some good players who are.

-Teotwauki

Thorbrand
03-08-2010, 08:42 AM
Actually most of the people who claim to be evil or want to be evil are more chaotic neutral not evil. Of course they probably have no understanding of alignments in D&D and how they work. Chaos is when there are no rules or very limited rules and neutral is narcissistic. Evil actually has rules they live by just not for the good and are not roaming killers.

tharsos
03-08-2010, 01:31 PM
Xsyon wrote:


The overall goal will be to constantly balance things so that both good
and evil can enjoy the game.

Let us hope that this means that evil players will not have very big penalty for death, because otherwise griefers from "good" tribes will prevent evil tribe members from enjoying the game.

Thorbrand
03-08-2010, 01:39 PM
True evil tribes will not have an issue. They are trying to prevent the roaming hordes of PKers who give nothing to the game.

Redus
03-08-2010, 01:42 PM
Thorbrand wrote:

Actually most of the people who claim to be evil or want to be evil are more chaotic neutral not evil. Of course they probably have no understanding of alignments in D&D and how they work. Chaos is when there are no rules or very limited rules and neutral is narcissistic. Evil actually has rules they live by just not for the good and are not roaming killers.

In real life evil is when you are morally wrong or bad. We are playing Xsyon, not D&D :P.

Siko
03-08-2010, 01:43 PM
tharsos wrote:

Xsyon wrote:


The overall goal will be to constantly balance things so that both good
and evil can enjoy the game.

Let us hope that this means that evil players will not have very big penalty for death, because otherwise griefers from "good" tribes will prevent evil tribe members from enjoying the game.It's a delicate balance. Worst case scenario if evil tribes have it too hard is that noone will play them. Unlikely, since there's always a few who want to be the badass PK even if it means risking permanent death in every fight. Worst case scenario if evil tribes have it too easy is that everyone except the hardcore pvp crowd leaves and the game gets a reputation as a gankfest. It's better to make the game more challenging for a small group of players that choose to play with a handicap, than to make it unplayable for everyone else.

Thorbrand
03-08-2010, 02:00 PM
Redus wrote:

Thorbrand wrote:

Actually most of the people who claim to be evil or want to be evil are more chaotic neutral not evil. Of course they probably have no understanding of alignments in D&D and how they work. Chaos is when there are no rules or very limited rules and neutral is narcissistic. Evil actually has rules they live by just not for the good and are not roaming killers.

In real life evil is when you are morally wrong or bad. We are playing Xsyon, not D&D :P.

You are wrong evil still have laws the go by. Chaotic is what you are thinking of no rules. Somewhere people have associated Chaotic with Evil they are not the same. Now Choatic Evil would be just a mad house of crazy! Even killing each other.

America - Good they generally fight for what we believe is right.
Nazy Germany - Evil they fought for what they believed but was not humane or morally right.
Roaming bands of barbarian - Just that!

Teotwauki
03-08-2010, 11:01 PM
America: Neutral, they fight for what benifits them. -duck-

Just ignore that if it sounds offensive, I think most people tend to be like that.

Ciik
03-09-2010, 09:11 AM
So,good is open to attack and kill evil without consequences or stat/exp loss?

Derek
03-09-2010, 09:22 AM
Teotwauki wrote:

America: Neutral, they fight for what benifits them. -duck-

Just ignore that if it sounds offensive, I think most people tend to be like that.

America Politicians: Neutral, they fight for what benefits them.

Fixed.

Thorbrand
03-09-2010, 09:25 AM
I of course was trying to point out how most zergs are just choatic not evil. But yes America is a very bad example but what you going to do? They sure are not nuetral because they have their noises in everyone business.

Xx1327
03-09-2010, 02:45 PM
america would be lawful good

Indicium
03-09-2010, 03:16 PM
Xx1327 wrote:

america would be lawful good

That really made me laugh.

Thorbrand
03-09-2010, 03:18 PM
Indicium wrote:

Xx1327 wrote:

america would be lawful good

That really made me laugh.

I did also.

Xx1327
03-09-2010, 03:23 PM
well when compared to the other nations of the world

reubenmunro
03-09-2010, 04:22 PM
Xx1327 wrote:

well when compared to the other nations of the world

Can't say I've played a game, where I can send my army into unowned territory and slaughter innocent people, who happen to be in the way at the time, then set up camp and enforce my own laws while culling off the ones that don't follow my ways.

And at the end of the game have a Lawful Good standing. Imagine how that would warp future generations' minds.

Xx1327
03-09-2010, 05:22 PM
reubenmunro wrote:

Xx1327 wrote:

well when compared to the other nations of the world

Can't say I've played a game, where I can send my army into unowned territory and slaughter innocent people, who happen to be in the way at the time, then set up camp and enforce my own laws while culling off the ones that don't follow my ways.

And at the end of the game have a Lawful Good standing. Imagine how that would warp future generations' minds.

lol not sure how i follow xD

Leiros
03-09-2010, 10:25 PM
Allow me to do Virtus a favor:

*cough* (points at OP)

B) You sir, are welcome.

VowOfSilence
03-11-2010, 12:26 PM
on topic:

my character just got grieved and perma-killed in another mmo once again.
why? no reason at all. My opponent didn't even loot anything. He just did it because he can. Naturally, I'm pretty pissed.

I just hope the devs don't underestimate this issue - a simple good/evil system isn't enough to keep grievers away, they won't care.

MrDDT
03-14-2010, 04:10 PM
JCatano wrote:

Virtus wrote:

exactly Palo

Then, why have "evil" as an option to begin with?

I foresee a situation where towns get built up, then once the safe-switch is turned off, the "evil" players tear them down, anyway.

It almost sounds like Xsyon doesn't really want FFA PvP, but state it as a feature.


Sounds more like it doesnt want FFA PVP to mess up the game thus putting safe guards to limit its effects.

Like in UO, they first started with Red and Blue system with no punishment for Reds save cant goto a few NPC towns.

Later they put a HARSH punishment (huge stat/skill loss) to prevent it from breaking the game.

Win win, few people that do want to kill someone could do it, but suffer, but not have everyone doing it for no reason.

Dunno about you, but I like to make friends and play with people I dont know.

In games like Darkfall where EVERYONE you see in DFO is someone you will fight unless they are an ally causes problems, for people that want to do more than just PVP.

Palo god
03-14-2010, 04:29 PM
How hard will it be to go from a red player to a blue player again in game?

Virtus
03-14-2010, 04:34 PM
/me shrugs

Palo god
03-14-2010, 04:41 PM
Virtus wrote:

/me shrugs

You told me to move the question in here. So you don't know?

NearlyDeparted
03-14-2010, 04:43 PM
Every time I look at a map of Europe I wonder, after 2 World Wars, How much of that did America take back and give back. I haven't seen a United States of America 'and a little bit 'o Europe too' flag.

reubenmunro wrote:

Xx1327 wrote:

well when compared to the other nations of the world

Can't say I've played a game, where I can send my army into unowned territory and slaughter innocent people, who happen to be in the way at the time, then set up camp and enforce my own laws while culling off the ones that don't follow my ways.

And at the end of the game have a Lawful Good standing. Imagine how that would warp future generations' minds.

Virtus
03-14-2010, 04:44 PM
I wasn't telling you i was saying that topic was getting off topic in general. :)

nope, don't have a clue :huh:

VowOfSilence
03-14-2010, 05:53 PM
MrDDT wrote:

I dont think it takes both sides to have a war, but there is a time delay before you can go into war with someone unlike DFO where you say "WAR" and 2 seconds later you killing some guy that has no clue wtf is going on.

How do war declarations work, and what's the difference between war and regular fighting between tribes?

masic
03-14-2010, 06:48 PM
Another reason, not to have alts..i make a player follow the good path, be nice and do everything right..scope out a friendly town and a few player...then i log off, and log on an alt..an evil bugger whos rep i dont care about..i PK with out consiquence. take stolen loot give to a friend, log out..log in my good player ta da..i have PKed with out consiquence..

Take it up a step..my entire clan does it..you see my point..i hope theres no alts..thats all i can say..it removes consquence..just food for thought

PANZERBUNNY
03-14-2010, 10:39 PM
There will be loop holes in every system. Just because a minority of people will find a use for said loopholes doesn't mean we should restrict features for others.

People who really want to do this will simply sign up with a different account altogether.

People who want to do such things, will find a way.

gaidin
04-02-2010, 06:45 AM
I'm looking at Xsyon because the premise of the game is pretty intriguing. I'm watching the pvp threads very closely though. The tribe forums, especially the recruitment threads, haven't been a big plus so far, but other things look awesome.

I preface with all of this because pk'ing will have to be controlled in order for this game to thrive. I support a very harsh pk penalty, even harsher than what is proposed. I'm not saying this to eliminate pvp, because realisticly FFA pvp should be in a game. However, all the arguments for why FFA should be in a game tend to fall apart because there is no reason for a griefer NOT to go on a gank fest.

IMO, evil aligned players (ffa pvp killers who want to play the 'if it's red it's dead' game) should have stat/skill loss, always be fully lootable, and massive reputation losses which ought to carry unavoidable penalties as well. A violent life should also result in a shorter life. So many injuries would be a lot of stress on a body and would accelerate the bodily limitations seen in old age.

Just my thoughts

McGrath
04-02-2010, 07:51 AM
than shouldnt thier be a penelty for those that craft? what about those that gather??

gaidin
04-02-2010, 07:59 AM
No, not really since gatherers and crafters aren't the play styles that tend to reduce the game's population. I'm not advocating taking pvp out by any means, but it would be nice to see a game where the sheer mindless ganking was under control.

McGrath
04-02-2010, 08:39 AM
so just becouse its not your play style you think it should be penalized?

gaidin
04-02-2010, 08:42 AM
McGrath wrote:

so just becouse its not your play style you think it should be penalized?

These aren't the darkfall forums, I'm not going to sit here and flamewar with you. The playstyles are well known. Some come with consequences, some don't.

McGrath
04-02-2010, 08:43 AM
how can it truly be a sandbox if a player is penalized for playing a certain way?

jessebfox
04-02-2010, 08:48 AM
I say this as a PVPer but as a PVPer that has the game's best long term interest at heart:

I think the reason many want to see this kind of penalty is because the rampant murderer play style is one that directly impacts, usually negatively, other play styles.

A crafter is not penalized because him sitting by the anvil crafting is not affecting anyone else's gameplay. It is not stopping the gatherer from getting stuff, nor the pvpers out fighting each other, or the tribal wars going on. However, the murderer who jumps him at his anvil and kills him is imposing his play styles on others. I think that is why many want to see stiff consequences for such actions.

Not to eliminate pvp or even totally eliminate the random kill crazy player, but to reduce their numbers by not making it as attractive.

The crafter will not pack up and leave the game because of the gatherer out chopping wood, or the pvper out in the field fighting other pvpers or those in risky areas, but he will leave if he is being griefed by someone who's only goal is to ruin someone else's fun.

The legitimate pvper won't leave because there are severe consequences to attacking that crafter by the anvil as long as he has other pvper's out and about and he can get fights.

The only person who would leave is the person who is only out to ruin others' fun, because that is what is fun for them. That play style is generally bad on the population. And even some of those people probably would not care about the consequences so much.

I think that is why many people propose stiffer penalties.

Jadzia
04-02-2010, 08:50 AM
McGrath wrote:

how can it truly be a sandbox if a player is penalized for playing a certain way?

How can it be a true sandbox if a peaceful player can't craft-gather-build in peace without getting bugged by PKers ? And you should read the feature list, severe penalties are planned (and already coded )in the game for the PKers. And there are other threads about this question too, you may want to read them, lot of information ( and emotions :P ) are gathered there.

gaidin
04-02-2010, 08:50 AM
Ask Xsyon, he's already working out a consequence system and is prepared to make changes if ganking gets out of hand.


Yes it is! I will pay special attention to the actual player community once the Prelude is launched.

There should be enough in place for the game to not turn into a gankfest. The intention of Xsyon is to be a fun, open, sandbox game with possibilities for all kinds of players. If the game starts to get thrown off balance by gankers, the balance will shift. Simple as that.

jessebfox
04-02-2010, 08:50 AM
sandbox does not mean in any way shape or form that the game is a world of lawlessness anarchy with no civilization or civilized rules. Should they allow players to build a jail and if your caught breaking the law they can put you in their jail for as long as they want? Wouldn't that be truly sandbox?

Jadzia
04-02-2010, 08:53 AM
jessebfox wrote:

I say this as a PVPer but as a PVPer that has the game's best long term interest at heart:

I think the reason many want to see this kind of penalty is because the rampant murderer play style is one that directly impacts, usually negatively, other play styles.

A crafter is not penalized because him sitting by the anvil crafting is not affecting anyone else's gameplay. It is not stopping the gatherer from getting stuff, nor the pvpers out fighting each other, or the tribal wars going on. However, the murderer who jumps him at his anvil and kills him is imposing his play styles on others. I think that is why many want to see stiff consequences for such actions.

Not to eliminate pvp or even totally eliminate the random kill crazy player, but to reduce their numbers by not making it as attractive.

The crafter will not pack up and leave the game because of the gatherer out chopping wood, or the pvper out in the field fighting other pvpers or those in risky areas, but he will leave if he is being griefed by someone who's only goal is to ruin someone else's fun.

The legitimate pvper won't leave because there are severe consequences to attacking that crafter by the anvil as long as he has other pvper's out and about and he can get fights.

The only person who would leave is the person who is only out to ruin others' fun, because that is what is fun for them. That play style is generally bad on the population. And even some of those people probably would not care about the consequences so much.

I think that is why many people propose stiffer penalties.
Wise words.

gaidin
04-02-2010, 08:53 AM
jessebfox wrote:

Should they allow players to build a jail and if your caught breaking the law they can put you in their jail for as long as they want? Wouldn't that be truly sandbox?

I like the way you think :woohoo:

Jadzia
04-02-2010, 08:56 AM
gaidin wrote:

jessebfox wrote:

Should they allow players to build a jail and if your caught breaking the law they can put you in their jail for as long as they want? Wouldn't that be truly sandbox?

I like the way you think :woohoo:

Lol I can second that, and love your avatar, it looks great

gaidin
04-02-2010, 08:58 AM
Jadzia wrote:

gaidin wrote:

jessebfox wrote:

Should they allow players to build a jail and if your caught breaking the law they can put you in their jail for as long as they want? Wouldn't that be truly sandbox?

I like the way you think :woohoo:

Lol I can second that, and love your avatar, it looks great

Thanks! I think it's kind of plain yet, but I'll work on it

Kardyn
04-02-2010, 09:38 AM
jessebfox wrote:

I say this as a PVPer but as a PVPer that has the game's best long term interest at heart:

I think the reason many want to see this kind of penalty is because the rampant murderer play style is one that directly impacts, usually negatively, other play styles.

A crafter is not penalized because him sitting by the anvil crafting is not affecting anyone else's gameplay. It is not stopping the gatherer from getting stuff, nor the pvpers out fighting each other, or the tribal wars going on. However, the murderer who jumps him at his anvil and kills him is imposing his play styles on others. I think that is why many want to see stiff consequences for such actions.

Not to eliminate pvp or even totally eliminate the random kill crazy player, but to reduce their numbers by not making it as attractive.

The crafter will not pack up and leave the game because of the gatherer out chopping wood, or the pvper out in the field fighting other pvpers or those in risky areas, but he will leave if he is being griefed by someone who's only goal is to ruin someone else's fun.

The legitimate pvper won't leave because there are severe consequences to attacking that crafter by the anvil as long as he has other pvper's out and about and he can get fights.

The only person who would leave is the person who is only out to ruin others' fun, because that is what is fun for them. That play style is generally bad on the population. And even some of those people probably would not care about the consequences so much.

I think that is why many people propose stiffer penalties.

I have not seen a better worded perspective than what you have presented.

JCatano
04-02-2010, 10:35 PM
jessebfox wrote:

I say this as a PVPer but as a PVPer that has the game's best long term interest at heart:

I think the reason many want to see this kind of penalty is because the rampant murderer play style is one that directly impacts, usually negatively, other play styles.

A crafter is not penalized because him sitting by the anvil crafting is not affecting anyone else's gameplay. It is not stopping the gatherer from getting stuff, nor the pvpers out fighting each other, or the tribal wars going on. However, the murderer who jumps him at his anvil and kills him is imposing his play styles on others. I think that is why many want to see stiff consequences for such actions.

Not to eliminate pvp or even totally eliminate the random kill crazy player, but to reduce their numbers by not making it as attractive.

The crafter will not pack up and leave the game because of the gatherer out chopping wood, or the pvper out in the field fighting other pvpers or those in risky areas, but he will leave if he is being griefed by someone who's only goal is to ruin someone else's fun.

The legitimate pvper won't leave because there are severe consequences to attacking that crafter by the anvil as long as he has other pvper's out and about and he can get fights.

The only person who would leave is the person who is only out to ruin others' fun, because that is what is fun for them. That play style is generally bad on the population. And even some of those people probably would not care about the consequences so much.

I think that is why many people propose stiffer penalties.

Stopped reading it objectively right there.

Who is this crafter supplying?

Shrimps
04-02-2010, 10:54 PM
JCatano wrote:

jessebfox wrote:

I say this as a PVPer but as a PVPer that has the game's best long term interest at heart:

I think the reason many want to see this kind of penalty is because the rampant murderer play style is one that directly impacts, usually negatively, other play styles.

A crafter is not penalized because him sitting by the anvil crafting is not affecting anyone else's gameplay. It is not stopping the gatherer from getting stuff, nor the pvpers out fighting each other, or the tribal wars going on. However, the murderer who jumps him at his anvil and kills him is imposing his play styles on others. I think that is why many want to see stiff consequences for such actions.

Not to eliminate pvp or even totally eliminate the random kill crazy player, but to reduce their numbers by not making it as attractive.

The crafter will not pack up and leave the game because of the gatherer out chopping wood, or the pvper out in the field fighting other pvpers or those in risky areas, but he will leave if he is being griefed by someone who's only goal is to ruin someone else's fun.

The legitimate pvper won't leave because there are severe consequences to attacking that crafter by the anvil as long as he has other pvper's out and about and he can get fights.

The only person who would leave is the person who is only out to ruin others' fun, because that is what is fun for them. That play style is generally bad on the population. And even some of those people probably would not care about the consequences so much.

I think that is why many people propose stiffer penalties.

Stopped reading it objectively right there.

Who is this crafter supplying?

If you're worried about who he's supplying then you're likely at war with his tribe and would not go evil for killing him, and would not likely impact his opinion of the game too much because him being at war would expect as much.

It's the random 12yr old who decides to kill the same guy for 3 hours that upsets the game. Which is why there need to be stiff punishments for those who think it's hilarious to keep others from playing the game.

JCatano
04-02-2010, 11:01 PM
Shrimps wrote:

If you're worried about who he's supplying then you're likely at war with his tribe and would not go evil for killing him, and would not likely impact his opinion of the game too much because him being at war would expect as much.

It's the random 12yr old who decides to kill the same guy for 3 hours that upsets the game.

Stop taking Jadzia's lines.

What if the person is not in a clan, but the crafter's clan attacks the former at times?

What if the person isn't in a clan, but has been hired to stop that supplier?

The situation is not always as cut and dry as people like to make it out to be. I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences, but you can't be too harsh on either playstyle. The developer most likely understands that, since he said both good and evil players need to have fun.

Shrimps
04-02-2010, 11:09 PM
JCatano wrote:


Shrimps wrote:

If you're worried about who he's supplying then you're likely at war with his tribe and would not go evil for killing him, and would not likely impact his opinion of the game too much because him being at war would expect as much.

It's the random 12yr old who decides to kill the same guy for 3 hours that upsets the game.

Stop taking Jadzia's lines.

What if the person is not in a clan, but the crafter's clan attacks the former at times?

What if the person isn't in a clan, but has been hired to stop that supplier?

The situation is not always as cut and dry as people like to make it out to be. I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences, but you can't be too harsh on either playstyle. The developer most likely understands that, since he said both good and evil players need to have fun.

Jazdia never said that but that's beside the point.

It's pretty cut and dry to me.


1. If you're good and they attack you then they are either evil or will become evil. In either case you can kill them freely


2. If you're hired out to stop them then you will go evil for killing him if he's good, simple as that. If you were hired in reality to kill someone to stop their supplies you wouldn't get off scott free because you were paid >.<

JCatano
04-02-2010, 11:16 PM
Shrimps wrote:

JCatano wrote:


Shrimps wrote:

If you're worried about who he's supplying then you're likely at war with his tribe and would not go evil for killing him, and would not likely impact his opinion of the game too much because him being at war would expect as much.

It's the random 12yr old who decides to kill the same guy for 3 hours that upsets the game.

Stop taking Jadzia's lines.

What if the person is not in a clan, but the crafter's clan attacks the former at times?

What if the person isn't in a clan, but has been hired to stop that supplier?

The situation is not always as cut and dry as people like to make it out to be. I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences, but you can't be too harsh on either playstyle. The developer most likely understands that, since he said both good and evil players need to have fun.

Jazdia never said that but that's beside the point.

It's pretty cut and dry to me.


1. If you're good and they attack you then they are either evil or will become evil. In either case you can kill them freely


2. If you're hired out to stop them then you will go evil for killing him if he's good, simple as that. If you were hired in reality to kill someone to stop their supplies you wouldn't get off scott free because you were paid >.<

Actually, she did say something very similar. Do a little searching.

You aren't understanding what I mean by "cut and dry". I'm not speaking with regard to the actual mechanic. I'm talking about the situations and what leads up to the act.

And no more "reality" stuff. Real life and computer games should not be related when you're speaking in terms of a game mechanic.

Shrimps
04-02-2010, 11:24 PM
JCatano wrote:

Shrimps wrote:

JCatano wrote:


Shrimps wrote:

If you're worried about who he's supplying then you're likely at war with his tribe and would not go evil for killing him, and would not likely impact his opinion of the game too much because him being at war would expect as much.

It's the random 12yr old who decides to kill the same guy for 3 hours that upsets the game.

Stop taking Jadzia's lines.

What if the person is not in a clan, but the crafter's clan attacks the former at times?

What if the person isn't in a clan, but has been hired to stop that supplier?

The situation is not always as cut and dry as people like to make it out to be. I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences, but you can't be too harsh on either playstyle. The developer most likely understands that, since he said both good and evil players need to have fun.

Jazdia never said that but that's beside the point.

It's pretty cut and dry to me.


1. If you're good and they attack you then they are either evil or will become evil. In either case you can kill them freely


2. If you're hired out to stop them then you will go evil for killing him if he's good, simple as that. If you were hired in reality to kill someone to stop their supplies you wouldn't get off scott free because you were paid >.<

Actually, she did say something very similar. Do a little searching.

You aren't understand what I mean by "cut and dry". I'm not speaking with regard to the actual mechanic. I'm talking about the situations and what leads up to the act.

And no more "reality" stuff. Real life and computer games should not be related when you're speaking in terms of a game mechanic.


Why should I search for something completely irrelevent to the conversation at hand?

What I'm trying to say is that it IS cut and dry, you either kill them and go evil or don't and stay good, or you can be neutral and.....well I'm not sure what they do.


As for the reality remark, maybe it'd make more sense to you if I said it made no logical sense to let someone off the hook for what was essentially murder just because they were contracted to do it. You'd have to be insane.

(why does this thread stink of DF forums)

JCatano
04-02-2010, 11:30 PM
Shrimps wrote:

JCatano wrote:

Shrimps wrote:

JCatano wrote:


Shrimps wrote:

If you're worried about who he's supplying then you're likely at war with his tribe and would not go evil for killing him, and would not likely impact his opinion of the game too much because him being at war would expect as much.

It's the random 12yr old who decides to kill the same guy for 3 hours that upsets the game.

Stop taking Jadzia's lines.

What if the person is not in a clan, but the crafter's clan attacks the former at times?

What if the person isn't in a clan, but has been hired to stop that supplier?

The situation is not always as cut and dry as people like to make it out to be. I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences, but you can't be too harsh on either playstyle. The developer most likely understands that, since he said both good and evil players need to have fun.

Jazdia never said that but that's beside the point.

It's pretty cut and dry to me.


1. If you're good and they attack you then they are either evil or will become evil. In either case you can kill them freely


2. If you're hired out to stop them then you will go evil for killing him if he's good, simple as that. If you were hired in reality to kill someone to stop their supplies you wouldn't get off scott free because you were paid >.<

Actually, she did say something very similar. Do a little searching.

You aren't understand what I mean by "cut and dry". I'm not speaking with regard to the actual mechanic. I'm talking about the situations and what leads up to the act.

And no more "reality" stuff. Real life and computer games should not be related when you're speaking in terms of a game mechanic.


Why should I search for something completely irrelevent to the conversation at hand?

What I'm trying to say is that it IS cut and dry, you either kill them and go evil or don't and stay good, or you can be neutral and.....well I'm not sure what they do.


As for the reality remark, maybe it'd make more sense to you if I said it made no logical sense to let someone off the hook for what was essentially murder just because they were contracted to do it. You'd have to be insane.

(why does this thread stink of DF forums)

Because I made a playful comment, but you had a mini-aneurysm and turned it into a challenge game.

The only thing cut and dry is the mechanic itself, which you have already established twice. As I said, the situation and events leading up to the act are not cut and dry. The only way it would be (sort of) is if PvP was solely clan-based, which it isn't.

I never said to let someone off of the hook for a random PK... Go back and read it again.

jessebfox
04-03-2010, 05:40 AM
Jcatano,

I will not be trolled by you. It is obvious from many previous posts you have made that you have no desire to engage in reasonable debate with an open mind, but simply to be contrary for the sake of being contrary. Answering any of your questions will lead to an endless loop of pointless more questions, while you will never directly address others.

If you can not grasp the point that many are trying to make here without delving into semantics and "what ifs", then I can not help you.

Now if anyone wants a reasonable debate feel free I would be happy to try to see the other side of things.

Jadzia
04-03-2010, 05:52 AM
JCatano wrote:

Shrimps wrote:

JCatano wrote:


Shrimps wrote:

If you're worried about who he's supplying then you're likely at war with his tribe and would not go evil for killing him, and would not likely impact his opinion of the game too much because him being at war would expect as much.

It's the random 12yr old who decides to kill the same guy for 3 hours that upsets the game.

Stop taking Jadzia's lines.

What if the person is not in a clan, but the crafter's clan attacks the former at times?

What if the person isn't in a clan, but has been hired to stop that supplier?

The situation is not always as cut and dry as people like to make it out to be. I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences, but you can't be too harsh on either playstyle. The developer most likely understands that, since he said both good and evil players need to have fun.

Jazdia never said that but that's beside the point.

It's pretty cut and dry to me.


1. If you're good and they attack you then they are either evil or will become evil. In either case you can kill them freely


2. If you're hired out to stop them then you will go evil for killing him if he's good, simple as that. If you were hired in reality to kill someone to stop their supplies you wouldn't get off scott free because you were paid >.<

Actually, she did say something very similar. Do a little searching.


Lol you make me feel like I was famous or something ( not a nice feeling ).

He doesn't need to take my lines...I'm sure Shrimps has his own thoughts and experiences about games, not surprisingly it seems to be similar to mine.

I understand you can imagine a reason for every PK act, but you should understand as well that not everyone thinks the way you do, not every PKer search for a reason to kill. A lot of them PK only for the fun of killing others...and that behavior drives non-Pkers away from games, thats why that behavior should (and will) get severe penalties in Xsyon.

Jhael
04-03-2010, 06:36 AM
Shrimps wrote:

If you were hired in reality to kill someone to stop their supplies you wouldn't get off scott free because you were paid >.<You also wouldn't get off scott free for killing another human being, no matter the reason. So in effect, clan war kills should impose the same penalties on the killers, by your reasoning.

Farmerbob
04-03-2010, 08:32 AM
JCatano wrote:

And no more "reality" stuff. Real life and computer games should not be related when you're speaking in terms of a game mechanic.[/quote]

Psychology of gamers is most certainly reality though. Games have to be a distortion of reality or they really aren't much fun at all, but some things tend to remain constant between gaming and reality. There are an endless range of players from the anything goes PVPer to the help-everyone Carebear Crafter. The two extremes do not mix well, and a good game that wants a wide range of players will try to restrict the interaction between these two player groups.

Xsyon, based on the features, is going to attract a LOT of the carebear crafter crowd. Expect it. It will aso attract a LOT of the no holds barred PVP crowd. These two groups of players typically don't mix well, and a game with no safeguards to keep them mostly separate will not keep the Carebear Crafter type around for very long.

If the hardcore PVP folks want really high end crafted gear, the hardcore crafters need to be able to concentrate on crafting.

War is a completely separate scenario...

Jhael
04-03-2010, 02:24 PM
Farmerbob wrote:

War is a completely separate scenario...Of course it is :silly: ;) :silly:
Only fight when your ready, what crafter wouldn't want that.

I'm sorry, but PvP consists of more then just combat skills. Duelling practically tells tactics, stealth and ingenuity to fuck off.

Farmerbob
04-03-2010, 04:10 PM
Jhael wrote:

Farmerbob wrote:

War is a completely separate scenario...Of course it is :silly: ;) :silly:
Only fight when your ready, what crafter wouldn't want that.

I'm sorry, but PvP consists of more then just combat skills. Duelling practically tells tactics, stealth and ingenuity to fuck off.

Precisely. It should be relatively easy for a community to shelter it's noncombatants from random acts of violence. Hunters, scouts, scavengers and your village's other combatants or people that must spend time away from the community will be at risk, and hopefully prefer it that way. Those people should be the pvp crowd

Lack of caution on the part of noncombatants should put them at risk, but if you can keep your town weaponsmith from taking solo walks in the woods at midnight, they should see minimal direct threat from enemies unless war is declared and acted on.

Remember this is not a game where you can raise every skill to maximum. A dedicated crafter is almost certainly going to be a rather poor fighter in raw skills and abilities, though their personal/twitch PVP skills might be rather good. The game should take this into account. If it does not, then after a while chances are good that all the uberleet pvpers will be wearing bodypaint armor and beating each other with broken branches and rocks.

JCatano
04-03-2010, 05:53 PM
jessebfox wrote:

Jcatano,

I will not be trolled by you. It is obvious from many previous posts you have made that you have no desire to engage in reasonable debate with an open mind, but simply to be contrary for the sake of being contrary. Answering any of your questions will lead to an endless loop of pointless more questions, while you will never directly address others.

If you can not grasp the point that many are trying to make here without delving into semantics and "what ifs", then I can not help you.

Now if anyone wants a reasonable debate feel free I would be happy to try to see the other side of things.

Not an open mind, huh?

Quote me one time where I said there should be no consequence at all to a random PK. *Hint* You can't, because I never said that.

I know what point you and 10- (not "many") are trying to make. The few of you keep talking about how you don't want your playstyle ruined, but practically beg for consequences so harsh that the other playstyle is ruined. I'm not talking about camping someone at a bindstone for hours, either. That is an entirely different issue.

Your small camp has suggested jail, massive stat loss, PvP switches, PvP zones, and being locked out of the game for a period time. I mean, seriously...? And I'm being unreasonable? Last time I checked this game started with the idea of open-PvP with consequences. Which side is actually being unreasonable and trying to change the game here? Nobody has even seen the mechanics at work...

"The overall goal will be to constantly balance things so that both good and evil can enjoy the game. A PVP gankfest will definitely not be allowed if that starts to happen." - Xsyon

Keep that in mind when making your suggestions.

The former (good and evil fun) has to be balanced, and the latter ("gankfest") has to be minimal with regard to someone just rampaging the same player every 2 minutes. That's not easy to do in an open-PvP environment, though, especially in a tribe war scenario.

One thing to remember... If you paid for Xsyon, you already gave consent to open-PvP. There will be times when you get your ass handed to you when you'd rather be pick daisies. All of us will be in that position at some point. That does't mean it's griefing. It doesn't mean it's ruining your playstyle. It's part of open and tribe war PvP.

JCatano
04-03-2010, 05:59 PM
Jadzia wrote:

JCatano wrote:

Shrimps wrote:

JCatano wrote:


Shrimps wrote:

If you're worried about who he's supplying then you're likely at war with his tribe and would not go evil for killing him, and would not likely impact his opinion of the game too much because him being at war would expect as much.

It's the random 12yr old who decides to kill the same guy for 3 hours that upsets the game.

Stop taking Jadzia's lines.

What if the person is not in a clan, but the crafter's clan attacks the former at times?

What if the person isn't in a clan, but has been hired to stop that supplier?

The situation is not always as cut and dry as people like to make it out to be. I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences, but you can't be too harsh on either playstyle. The developer most likely understands that, since he said both good and evil players need to have fun.

Jazdia never said that but that's beside the point.

It's pretty cut and dry to me.


1. If you're good and they attack you then they are either evil or will become evil. In either case you can kill them freely


2. If you're hired out to stop them then you will go evil for killing him if he's good, simple as that. If you were hired in reality to kill someone to stop their supplies you wouldn't get off scott free because you were paid >.<

Actually, she did say something very similar. Do a little searching.


Lol you make me feel like I was famous or something ( not a nice feeling ).

He doesn't need to take my lines...I'm sure Shrimps has his own thoughts and experiences about games, not surprisingly it seems to be similar to mine.

I understand you can imagine a reason for every PK act, but you should understand as well that not everyone thinks the way you do, not every PKer search for a reason to kill. A lot of them PK only for the fun of killing others...and that behavior drives non-Pkers away from games, thats why that behavior should (and will) get severe penalties in Xsyon.

I think a few of you just need thicker skin. I don't think we all need to spam :P after every joke.

**Your suggestions have been more than severe. They've been game crippling and/or taking away from the original idea of the game. I've never said there shouldn't be a consequence. You all fail to see that. The ideas just can't be a mind-boggling "who the hell would ever think of that?" suggestion.

Jadzia
04-03-2010, 07:00 PM
JCatano wrote:

Jadzia wrote:

JCatano wrote:

Shrimps wrote:

JCatano wrote:


Shrimps wrote:

If you're worried about who he's supplying then you're likely at war with his tribe and would not go evil for killing him, and would not likely impact his opinion of the game too much because him being at war would expect as much.

It's the random 12yr old who decides to kill the same guy for 3 hours that upsets the game.

Stop taking Jadzia's lines.

What if the person is not in a clan, but the crafter's clan attacks the former at times?

What if the person isn't in a clan, but has been hired to stop that supplier?

The situation is not always as cut and dry as people like to make it out to be. I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences, but you can't be too harsh on either playstyle. The developer most likely understands that, since he said both good and evil players need to have fun.

Jazdia never said that but that's beside the point.

It's pretty cut and dry to me.


1. If you're good and they attack you then they are either evil or will become evil. In either case you can kill them freely


2. If you're hired out to stop them then you will go evil for killing him if he's good, simple as that. If you were hired in reality to kill someone to stop their supplies you wouldn't get off scott free because you were paid >.<

Actually, she did say something very similar. Do a little searching.


Lol you make me feel like I was famous or something ( not a nice feeling ).

He doesn't need to take my lines...I'm sure Shrimps has his own thoughts and experiences about games, not surprisingly it seems to be similar to mine.

I understand you can imagine a reason for every PK act, but you should understand as well that not everyone thinks the way you do, not every PKer search for a reason to kill. A lot of them PK only for the fun of killing others...and that behavior drives non-Pkers away from games, thats why that behavior should (and will) get severe penalties in Xsyon.

I think a few of you just need thicker skin. I don't think we all need to spam :P after every joke.

**Your suggestions have been more than severe. They've been game crippling and/or taking away from the original idea of the game. I've never said there shouldn't be a consequence. You all fail to see that. The ideas just can't be a mind-boggling "who the hell would ever think of that?" suggestion.

My suggestions were more than severe ? Hmm. I suggested PvP zones and PvP flagging. Thats not even a penalty, so cannot be severe. All the other things were others' ideas, some of them I was agreeing with, some of them I wasn't. After such a long debate you simply don't remember what I've said ? Aw that hurts :(

jessebfox
04-03-2010, 07:04 PM
JCatano,

Your most recent post that started with a quote by me, was that directed to me specifically (with statements such as "your camp") or are you directing that at someone else?

You won, you successfully trolled me.

Before you answer, you may want to read my posts again, and maybe some other posts you loosely referenced.

JCatano
04-03-2010, 07:16 PM
Jadzia wrote:

JCatano wrote:
**Your suggestions have been more than severe. They've been game crippling and/or taking away from the original idea of the game. I've never said there shouldn't be a consequence. You all fail to see that. The ideas just can't be a mind-boggling "who the hell would ever think of that?" suggestion.

My suggestions were more than severe ? Hmm. I suggested PvP zones and PvP flagging. Thats not even a penalty, so cannot be severe. All the other things were others' ideas, some of them I was agreeing with, some of them I wasn't. After such a long debate you simply don't remember what I've said ? Aw that hurts :(

PvP zone/PvP switch. (When talking about a game that has open-PvP already in.)

The jail and a temporary ban ideas weren't from you, of course.

JCatano
04-03-2010, 07:25 PM
jessebfox wrote:

JCatano,

Your most recent post that started with a quote by me, was that directed to me specifically (with statements such as "your camp") or are you directing that at someone else?

You won, you successfully trolled me.

Before you answer, you may want to read my posts again, and maybe some other posts you loosely referenced.

The first 2 lines were for you.

I was trying to add in the reply to Jadzia in there, but formatted it all wrong, so the "Jadzia -" and quote boxes were gone. That was to her, unless you're in that camp, too.

I think all you've said is that the devs will do whatever it is they want to do, or something like that.

jessebfox
04-03-2010, 08:37 PM
Ahh, ok your post makes more sense then. The open mind thing?

You said:

Stopped reading it objectively right there.

Of course you did. In all the posts I have read with the silly arguments between you and Jadzia, you have never been objective, addressed anything, and used semantics to try to dance your way to a point that never really truly comes to fruition. That is my objective opinion of how I see it from a sideline view. Your posts mostly use words instead of ideas to try to trick people in to being wrong, when if you spent that time trying to understand the other person's point you would get it.

The reason I have called you a troll twice is because the rest of your posts contain intelligent comments, so I believe you are simply trying to string out an argument and be contrary. You simply like the argument, it is like a forum pvp fight. In essence you are simply trolling to keep the arguments going. I think this is far more complimentary than the alternative of why you do these things.

Of course I could be wrong about all that. But seeing as you got my point of view, for the most part, I suspect you get theirs too. Yeah my basic point of view is to just wait and see the system the devs use, and don't pre-judge but see it in action, and then if it sucks. Complain then. Going back and forth over all this crap before we even experience the system is pointless. That is my PoV.

The reason for my initial post was to try to explain something I felt i understood from one side but they seemed to be struggling to convey. I'm sorry you decided not to read the majority of it objectively.(your words)

On a personal note, I will be heavy into PvP, and prolly a small bit into roleplay, crafting, and terraforming. It's really hard to tell how this game will end up 'feeling' so who knows. I just like when someone tries something off the beaten path. If they did everything the way other MMOs do them, they would get the same results. That's something I am kinda tired of. I crave something new, and these features really sparked an interest in me to see how it turns out.

-Jes

jessebfox
04-03-2010, 08:40 PM
Oh btw, unless it was posted somewhere else I didn't see (I don't read all threads if they don't have a dev/mod post in them) I posted the idea about a jail. It was very much a joke just to show an extreme way of dealing with things the other way that would still be 'sand box.' I tire of people trying to equate sandbox to griefing.

JCatano
04-03-2010, 09:17 PM
jessebfox wrote:

Ahh, ok your post makes more sense then. The open mind thing?

You said:

Stopped reading it objectively right there.

Of course you did. In all the posts I have read with the silly arguments between you and Jadzia, you have never been objective, addressed anything, and used semantics to try to dance your way to a point that never really truly comes to fruition. That is my objective opinion of how I see it from a sideline view. Your posts mostly use words instead of ideas to try to trick people in to being wrong, when if you spent that time trying to understand the other person's point you would get it.

The reason I have called you a troll twice is because the rest of your posts contain intelligent comments, so I believe you are simply trying to string out an argument and be contrary. You simply like the argument, it is like a forum pvp fight. In essence you are simply trolling to keep the arguments going. I think this is far more complimentary than the alternative of why you do these things.

Of course I could be wrong about all that. But seeing as you got my point of view, for the most part, I suspect you get theirs too. Yeah my basic point of view is to just wait and see the system the devs use, and don't pre-judge but see it in action, and then if it sucks. Complain then. Going back and forth over all this crap before we even experience the system is pointless. That is my PoV.

The reason for my initial post was to try to explain something I felt i understood from one side but they seemed to be struggling to convey. I'm sorry you decided not to read the majority of it objectively.(your words)

On a personal note, I will be heavy into PvP, and prolly a small bit into roleplay, crafting, and terraforming. It's really hard to tell how this game will end up 'feeling' so who knows. I just like when someone tries something off the beaten path. If they did everything the way other MMOs do them, they would get the same results. That's something I am kinda tired of. I crave something new, and these features really sparked an interest in me to see how it turns out.

-Jes

"A crafter is not penalized because him sitting by the anvil crafting is not affecting anyone else's gameplay." - jessebfox

You're right. Of course, I did. That quote is just not true, which is why I said what I said.

The only thing I've argued against is the people who are trying to change the game into something else other than the original PvP mechanics Xsyon has set. Open-PvP. Nobody has even tried it, yet. The consequences already in place may work well.

I never once said there should be no consequence, but I will point it out when a person makes a suggestion that is unreasonable under the basis of both good and evil having fun (per the dev).

When you see something get as ridiculous as a temporary ban for a PK or not being able to PvP for a period of time thrown around as a suggestion... That isn't going to fly, especially when they come in here knowing it's open-PvP.

I get their point. They want to make the penalty so harsh that it's practically non-existent, but... Why even code in "evil" alignment, then? Why code in open-PvP rather than tribe v. tribe PvP only?

The penalty can't be so harsh that it's a wasteful mechanic, and anyone playing needs to understand they will get randomly PK'd (whatever that really means). There is a difference between getting randomly PK'd and being griefed (bind-camped for a long period of time, blocked-in if there is character collision, etc.). Simply getting killed by someone you've never heard of shouldn't set off the "Oohhhh! Why me?! My playstyle is being ruined!" alarm.

That's very similar to seeing this in Darkfall chat:

Newie Newbie: "I can't believe I lose everything when I die! This sucks! When will they change this?"

Vetty Veteran: "Did you know it was full loot before playing?"

Newie Newbie: "Yeah, but it's horrible."

Vetty Veteran: "Well, why did you start playing?"

And on, and on...

jessebfox
04-03-2010, 10:47 PM
Here is exactly what I am talking about. You know darn right well what I meant if you read my post. That crafter by the anvil is NOT imposing a game play change on anyone, not at all,not in any way. You decided to take this one sentence out due to semantics. Because I said he is notaffecting anyone. Next you will say 'but he gives weapon to joe, and joe uses weapon to kill pvp jack, so jack kills crafter first.

Yay.

Yet you know the point was that no matter who crafts that axe, joe is going to get a weapon of some sort to kill jack. It makes no difference in how people are playing, joe will find a stick to bash jack over the head with, or find some other way. Game play is not being affected here in any way, simply the items used. The whole point of my post is that the griefer is imposing his gameplay style on others, the pvp player who decides to camp the craft anvil, if allowed, is imposing his gameplay style on others. The crafter is not changing any gameplay style.

Does this really need to be spelled out for you? No, I am sure it doesn't yet you continue to troll this into a longer argument. Please, stop insulting everyone's intelligence. You know what was meant.

I agree with about everything you stated in your post, but cut out the non-sense. I don't know whether you are just trying to prolong the argument, or whether you are trying to win a victory of attrition, but you can make valid points without resorting to this, and without completely ignoring entire things people ask you or point out. This whole attack of the word "affect" is deflecting from the point of my post which remains intact. The reason some people want to see harsh penalties for the griefer/anvil camper/pvp player that just wants no rules in order to prey on anyone anywhere is because they can effectively impose their play style on others, where the reverse does not happen. Not unless every weapon is tagged no drop, so no trading and everyone has to make their own stuff.

Now, I like your ending and completely understand that DF conversation but once again you completely are sidetracking something that is the flip side. If Xsyon turns out to be a game where penalties are so stiff against random pks, that you personally feel it is a 'wasted mechanic' are you going to exit the game gracefully saying it was not for you, or are you going to complain about said mechanic while continuing to stay around? In other words is this going to be the conversation overhead:

Newie Newbie: "I can't believe the penalties for killing someone in an open pvp game are so harsh! This sucks! When will they change this?"

Vetty Veteran: "Did you know it had harsh consequences for random pvp before playing?"

Newie Newbie: "Yeah, but it's horrible."

Vetty Veteran: "Well, why did you start playing?"

And on, and on...

jessebfox
04-03-2010, 10:48 PM
btw, since this will be a war of words, what you are doing is not technically semantics here it is taking something out of context.

Ajax
04-03-2010, 11:36 PM
jessebfox wrote:


The whole point of my post is that the griefer is imposing his gameplay style on others, the pvp player who decides to camp the craft anvil, if allowed, is imposing his gameplay style on others. The crafter is not changing any gameplay style.


Should probably look into joining another tribe if your whole tribe can't stop 1 griefer from camping the anvil inside your player city..


Besides didn't I read somewhere that good aligned cities will have the option of essentially making their city a safe zone with no pvp? I don't see many "carebears" choosing to be evil knowing they are perma pvp flagged.

The argument of a player imposing his will upon another is silly. I believe if you read the "about" section this game is listed as an MMORPG meaning Multiplayer, not single player. Player interaction is what makes the game. If you are going to be transporting a heafty amount of goods have a few friends/tribe mates/allies escort you. If someone is in fact griefing you (not a random kill) then call out in chat and let others know, there is bound to be players around willing to kill him for you. Now getting killed at random should never be a problem, only time PVP becomes a problem if when someone is griefing, such as killing you repeatedly, following you around, trash talking you in general chats, tea-bagging your corpse, and other low-life mommy didn't love me cries for attention.

With your argument I would state that if I am returning home from a trip out in the wilderness chopping trees and get killed by a bear then the bear is imposing his will upon me. So I propose that all NPC creatures be removed from the game so that no wills are being forced upon me.

For truly the only difference between a PC and a NPC is that one is artificially programmed and one is not. They both deal damage, they both take damage, they both move, they both act and react. They can both kill and can be killed.

JCatano
04-03-2010, 11:41 PM
jessebfox wrote:

Here is exactly what I am talking about. You know darn right well what I meant if you read my post. That crafter by the anvil is NOT imposing a game play change on anyone, not at all,not in any way. You decided to take this one sentence out due to semantics. Because I said he is notaffecting anyone. Next you will say 'but he gives weapon to joe, and joe uses weapon to kill pvp jack, so jack kills crafter first.

Yay.

Yet you know the point was that no matter who crafts that axe, joe is going to get a weapon of some sort to kill jack. It makes no difference in how people are playing, joe will find a stick to bash jack over the head with, or find some other way. Game play is not being affected here in any way, simply the items used. The whole point of my post is that the griefer is imposing his gameplay style on others, the pvp player who decides to camp the craft anvil, if allowed, is imposing his gameplay style on others. The crafter is not changing any gameplay style.

Does this really need to be spelled out for you? No, I am sure it doesn't yet you continue to troll this into a longer argument. Please, stop insulting everyone's intelligence. You know what was meant.

I agree with about everything you stated in your post, but cut out the non-sense. I don't know whether you are just trying to prolong the argument, or whether you are trying to win a victory of attrition, but you can make valid points without resorting to this, and without completely ignoring entire things people ask you or point out. This whole attack of the word "affect" is deflecting from the point of my post which remains intact. The reason some people want to see harsh penalties for the griefer/anvil camper/pvp player that just wants no rules in order to prey on anyone anywhere is because they can effectively impose their play style on others, where the reverse does not happen. Not unless every weapon is tagged no drop, so no trading and everyone has to make their own stuff.

Now, I like your ending and completely understand that DF conversation but once again you completely are sidetracking something that is the flip side. If Xsyon turns out to be a game where penalties are so stiff against random pks, that you personally feel it is a 'wasted mechanic' are you going to exit the game gracefully saying it was not for you, or are you going to complain about said mechanic while continuing to stay around? In other words is this going to be the conversation overhead:

Newie Newbie: "I can't believe the penalties for killing someone in an open pvp game are so harsh! This sucks! When will they change this?"

Vetty Veteran: "Did you know it had harsh consequences for random pvp before playing?"

Newie Newbie: "Yeah, but it's horrible."

Vetty Veteran: "Well, why did you start playing?"

And on, and on...

I knew what you meant... That's why I said it was wrong...

There is going to be PvP in this game. Crafters are going to supply the people you're PvP'ing against. If you can disrupt and/or loot what that crafter is making, it serves a purpose. If you don't think a crafter supplying their tribe with weapons/gear/etc. isn't part of a bigger dynamic, then I don't know what to tell you.

We've been told there will be territory control which will affect resources, which will affect the crafters in the respective clan, which will affect the people in that clan who want the gear. There are going to be haves and have-nots. Unless, of course... You are happy to supply your enemies. There is no guarantee neutral clans and/or your allies will be part of the haves.

If your intelligence is insulted, then that's your deal. If you've played any type of game where land and resources can be controlled, you'd understand how it works. Saying that a crafter doesn't affect the overall dynamics is very short-sighted, especially when you take into consideration that this game will have a skill cap. (Can't be an elite fighter/crafter/farmer/etc.)

I already said that if I don't like a core mechanic in a game I simply don't play it. My past example was LoTRo. I liked the features of the game, until I read that there wasn't any PvP (Monster-play is a poorman's PvP). I didn't go onto their forums and beg for PvP. I just looked for another game. With Xsyon, I am not the one trying to change anything with PvP.

One thing you need to understand is that I'm not what that small camp on here would consider a "PK'er". I've played DF since initial launch, and probably 20%-30% of my hours-played were spent in Copperdale and other cities in the human starting area waiting for reds to attack the newer players at the newbie spawns.

In no way does that mean I won't PK a random player, though. If some ungeared harvester is mining in the wrong place, I have no problem with attacking the person to get some loot. But, I also have no problem with riding up to a blue who is almost dead at a spawn and cast a few heals.

I feel confident the mechanics will be fine for both styles to have fun, since the dev stated that is his goal. Virtus also state that open-PvP will not change, so no matter what the penalty is... We are all going to get "randomly" PK'd. Not only that, but we are all going to get PK'd a whole lot in tribe wars.

The funny thing about the above is that Jadzia (for example) says that a tribe war death would be ok with her, but a random PK wouldn't be. As I said before, both have the same end result... She's dead and looted. The only difference is that the attacker would not get an alignment hit in a tribe war. *Shrug*

JCatano
04-03-2010, 11:43 PM
Ajax wrote:

jessebfox wrote:


The whole point of my post is that the griefer is imposing his gameplay style on others, the pvp player who decides to camp the craft anvil, if allowed, is imposing his gameplay style on others. The crafter is not changing any gameplay style.


Should probably look into joining another tribe if your whole tribe can't stop 1 griefer from camping the anvil inside your player city..


Besides didn't I read somewhere that good aligned cities will have the option of essentially making their city a safe zone with no pvp? I don't see many "carebears" choosing to be evil knowing they are perma pvp flagged.

The argument of a player imposing his will upon another is silly. I believe if you read the "about" section this game is listed as an MMORPG meaning Multiplayer, not single player. Player interaction is what makes the game. If you are going to be transporting a heafty amount of goods have a few friends/tribe mates/allies escort you. If someone is in fact griefing you (not a random kill) then call out in chat and let others know, there is bound to be players around willing to kill him for you. Now getting killed at random should never be a problem, only time PVP becomes a problem if when someone is griefing, such as killing you repeatedly, following you around, trash talking you in general chats, tea-bagging your corpse, and other low-life mommy didn't love me cries for attention.

With your argument I would state that if I am returning home from a trip out in the wilderness chopping trees and get killed by a bear then the bear is imposing his will upon me. So I propose that all NPC creatures be removed from the game so that no wills are being forced upon me.

For truly the only difference between a PC and a NPC is that one is artificially programmed and one is not. They both deal damage, they both take damage, they both move, they both act and react. They can both kill and can be killed.

** They will only be safe during the Prelude.

Farmerbob
04-04-2010, 12:10 AM
JCatano wrote:


The funny thing about the above is that Jadzia (for example) says that a tribe war death would be ok with her, but a random PK wouldn't be. As I said before, both have the same end result... She's dead and looted. The only difference is that the attacker would not get an alignment hit in a tribe war. *Shrug*

There is a difference.

Being killed by a some sort of psychopathic serial killer as compared to being killed to advance the goals of an enemy tribe.

In real life, when you are dead, you are dead, so the point is rather moot. In a game you aren't dead, your avatar is, and you can objectively understand the motivations (or lack thereof) of the person who killed you.

I would FAR rather lose a fight and equipment to an enemy with a cause than some random schmuck wandering the countryside looking for people to kill for pleasure.

I DO understand that this is my personal take on gaming. I also understand that Randomschmuck002 is likely enjoying themselves at my expense if they do manage to gank me for no reason that makes sense to me.

The problem is that these gaming psychologies are very difficult to reconcile in a single world/shard game. There will need to be either penalties or encouragements to keep the two types of players from mingling much.

For example:

If there are plans for PVP ranking, then give negative advancement in ranks for players PVPing those with far lower fighting skills. Give lots of points if you successfully PVP someone above your skill level. Have some sort of lottery system based on ranking to allow people the opportunity to win or buy nice equipment/perks/resources so there will be a way for players who desire to do so to lower their visible ranking without having to kill weaker players. Perhaps even allow the non-PVP players to place items they create into the pool of possible rewards so high skill crafters can create incentives to keep the pvp crowd fighting each other instead of ganking crafters.

Giving crafters rank for donations to such a pool of prizes would encourage even low level characters to donate resources which might be in short supply for the pvp crowd.

In essence maintain sandbox by creating some minimal structure.

JCatano
04-04-2010, 12:14 AM
Farmerbob wrote:

JCatano wrote:


The funny thing about the above is that Jadzia (for example) says that a tribe war death would be ok with her, but a random PK wouldn't be. As I said before, both have the same end result... She's dead and looted. The only difference is that the attacker would not get an alignment hit in a tribe war. *Shrug*

There is a difference.

Being killed by a some sort of psychopathic serial killer as compared to being killed to advance the goals of an enemy tribe.

In real life, when you are dead, you are dead, so the point is rather moot. In a game you aren't dead, your avatar is, and you can objectively understand the motivations (or lack thereof) of the person who killed you.

I would FAR rather lose a fight and equipment to an enemy with a cause than some random schmuck wandering the countryside looking for people to kill for pleasure.

I DO understand that this is my personal take on gaming. I also understand that Randomschmuck002 is likely enjoying themselves at my expense if they do manage to gank me for no reason that makes sense to me.

The problem is that these gaming psychologies are very difficult to reconcile in a single world/shard game. There will need to be either penalties or encouragements to keep the two types of players from mingling much.

For example:

If there are plans for PVP ranking, then give negative advancement in ranks for players PVPing those with far lower fighting skills. Give lots of points if you successfully PVP someone above your skill level. Have some sort of lottery system based on ranking to allow people the opportunity to win or buy nice equipment/perks/resources so there will be a way for players who desire to do so to lower their visible ranking without having to kill weaker players. Perhaps even allow the non-PVP players to place items they create into the pool of possible rewards so high skill crafters can create incentives to keep the pvp crowd fighting each other instead of ganking crafters.

Giving crafters rank for donations to such a pool of prizes would encourage even low level characters to donate resources which might be in short supply for the pvp crowd.

In essence maintain sandbox by creating some minimal structure.

Why do you assume it's not for a good reason just because it is not a tribe war? You'll drop loot. Maybe he/she wants the resources in that area to himself/herself for awhile. Could be anything.

He/she can also be advancing their own solo goal, whatever that may be.

Ajax
04-04-2010, 12:15 AM
JCatano wrote:


** They will only be safe during the Prelude.

I know there is safezones in prelude, but I could have swore just a little while ago I read somewhere that the good aligned cities will be able to denote their cities as being "pvp free zones". trying to find the post now.

JCatano
04-04-2010, 12:28 AM
Ajax wrote:

JCatano wrote:


** They will only be safe during the Prelude.

I know there is safezones in prelude, but I could have swore just a little while ago I read somewhere that the good aligned cities will be able to denote their cities as being "pvp free zones". trying to find the post now.

11.) Will there be PvP?

Yes, the game is open PVP with consequences and a sparring / training combat mode. In the early Prelude towns will be safe zones.

-----

"Towns will be safe zones in the early Prelude for good and neutral tribes. This will give players players time to build walls with gates, and dig ditches.

Once it appears that players are ready the safe zones will be removed.

You can also expect to see towers at some point during prelude along with other features that can't yet be disclosed that should be in over the summer." - Virtus

That's all I have found.

Ajax
04-04-2010, 12:32 AM
Yeah I can't find it, perhaps it was someones misinterpretation of that which you cited.

Either way, the rest of my post still stands. :)

Farmerbob
04-04-2010, 12:45 AM
JCatano wrote:

Farmerbob wrote:



I DO understand that this is my personal take on gaming. I also understand that Randomschmuck002 is likely enjoying themselves at my expense if they do manage to gank me for no reason that makes sense to me.

Why do you assume it's not for a good reason just because it is not a tribe war? You'll drop loot. Maybe he/she wants the resources in that area to himself/herself for awhile. Could be anything.

He/she can also be advancing their own solo goal, whatever that may be.

I bolded the important parts. Remember, different playstyles. I do not need to understand why before accepting that a player might gain something from killing someone much weaker than them. However if I can do something as a crafter to help protect myself from PVPers, that would be very nice.

I think that some sort of pvp ranking system that allows crafters to encourage PVPers to fight opponents of roughly equal or greater strength would be very nice.

I'll give it some more thought and put the idea in it's own thread later I think.

Ajax
04-04-2010, 12:56 AM
Farmerbob wrote:

However if I can do something as a crafter to help protect myself from PVPers, that would be very nice.


There is. It is called cooperative game play. Group with friendly pvp'ers who are in the area and willing to assist with your protection. This is a multiplayer game, if you wanna be by yourself there are console games for that.

jessebfox
04-04-2010, 05:20 AM
Jcatano,

I stand corrected. Apparently you are not a troll you just simply don't understand anyone else's point. You said you did get it and say you were wrong, then the entire rest of your post is dedicated to the point that you did NOT get it. At all. And again you did not answer a single one of my points or questions. Nothing. Your post had absolutely no content that had to do with the debate at hand.

Jcatano said:

If you don't think a crafter supplying their tribe with weapons/gear/etc. isn't part of a bigger dynamic, then I don't know what to tell you.

When did I ever say this? Your previous quote was quite obviously in reference to imposing play styles upon others. You said you got this, but then you go on with this quote. Let's try it your way, where did I ever say it's not part of the bigger dynamic? quote me once. Let's play your war of words. Your one and only quote is not proof of anything but a failure to comprehend my point. Even though you said you did understand it and are wrong. I am not sure anymore what you understand and now feel you totally don't understand and I have no clue what you think you are wrong about.

1) Answer this directly: what were you wrong about, because at this point I don't know.


If your intelligence is insulted, then that's your deal.
Here you don't get it as well. It clearly reflects on your intelligence, not mine, when you do this. You are completely missing others' points and never answering their counter argument. Either you are doing this on purpose, which is what I thought, or you truly do not get it.

2) Which is it? Or are you going to dodge this question?


g that a crafter doesn't affect the overall dynamics is very short-sighted, especially when you take into consideration that this game will have a skill cap.

3) where did I say this? Quote me a line that is not out of context.

I said that a crafter sitting alone in town is not imposing his play style on others. He isn't. He is of course affecting the game and the world, but he is not imposing his play style. Remember when it was said everyone should be able to play their style in a sandbox game? This is a point to those people, explaining why some people want harsh restrictions.


I already said that if I don't like a core mechanic in a game I simply don't play it

Yay! At least you kinda sorta somewhat answered the question. But I want it more direct. If Xsyon ends up that it has consequences for random pvp so harsh that you feel the mechanic of open rvr is wasted, and you feel the devs didn't make it fun to play all sides, will you leave quietly or complain about it?

4) If the game is not designed like you want it, will you champion a change from the devs and be hypocritical to what you said? Or will you just quietly pick up and leave realizing the end product of the game is not what you want?

5) Do you even consider the possibility that what you imagine it will be like based on the dev quotes you have will bot be what it is like in the end?

There are too many different things said for me to say for sure what it will be like, or that it will be what I like. The harsh consequences they speak of may be so much that it effectly ends up being a tribe pvp game. You can't say for sure until the game gets going.

I have posted 5 questions and numbered them for you. Answer these or don't bother retorting. You have clearly misunderstood what I was saying and my point. Yet you say you didn't. Maybe it stems from you, by your own words, not reading my entire post objectively. Try re-reading it and I will give you the cliff notes. I am talking about one specific type of player who changes the play style of others and how the other play styles do not do the same, hence why some want harsher consequences for that person. Some. Not me, I was expressing for others because I can see their point of view, just like I can see yours. I am in neither camp but somewhere firmly between. And I suspect you are not going to like the end mechanics, but it's only speculation now. Time will tell.

jessebfox
04-04-2010, 05:35 AM
Ajax said:

Should probably look into joining another tribe if your whole tribe can't stop 1 griefer from camping the anvil inside your player city..

A) I am not part of a tribe
B) I was not championing a change or harsh penalties, just explaining why some are
C) No tribe will be able to stop this from happening ever, without in game mechanics dissuading it. No tribe will have a 24 hour guard for inside their city watching every anvil. I get your point though that they should be able to respond to the first kill and get someone there to chase out a griefer from repeatedly attacking a person, but that is completely besides the point I was making...

It seems JCatano quoting me out of context has you not reading my initial post. I was simply stating, and you can find the post and read it for more in depth, that the reason some people want stiff penalties for things such as this are as follows:

Earlier it was argued that as part of a sandbox game people should be able to play how they want. My point was that the person who can waltz into another tribe's territory and freely attack someone at the anvil is imposing his PLAY STYLE (not his will) on another player. That crafter is then forced to pvp, not his play style of choice. The PVPer is never forced, by the crafter, to sit and combine mats for an hour. The PVPer is never forced, by a gatherer, to go chop wood for a time. But the PVPer forces others to conform to his play style.

Read the post for further details and why I mention the crafter at the anvil and not the gateherer out alone chopping wood in dangerour lands without an escort. I'm not talking about the people out asking to be hit by bandits etc, I am talking about the people in a civilized town. Please read my full post before commenting on it, not just parts that someone else quoted out of context.


With your argument I would state that if I am returning home from a trip out in the wilderness chopping trees and get killed by a bear then the bear is imposing his will upon me. So I propose that all NPC creatures be removed from the game so that no wills are being forced upon me.

No, not per my argument if you read my post. MY post, not JCatano's. My argument, and really it is not so much an argument as an explaination, had to do with specifically 1 person inside the city attacking someone at an anvil. Without game mechanics of any sort, this can not, and will not be prevented by any tribe realistically. This is why some people want harsh penalties for it. If you actually read my argument I specifically say that this does not apply to the gatherer.

Also be careful here you proposing a ludicrous game change in order to make a point will be taken literal by Jcatano then he will use this against you later in a post saying that you seriously wanted to do it. Fortunately I get your tongue in cheek suggestion. Unfortunately it does not apply since your whole paragraph is based on false assumption of my point without reading my original post.

JCatano
04-04-2010, 06:20 AM
jessebfox wrote:

Jcatano,

I stand corrected. Apparently you are not a troll you just simply don't understand anyone else's point. You said you did get it and say you were wrong, then the entire rest of your post is dedicated to the point that you did NOT get it. At all. And again you did not answer a single one of my points or questions. Nothing. Your post had absolutely no content that had to do with the debate at hand.

Jcatano said:

If you don't think a crafter supplying their tribe with weapons/gear/etc. isn't part of a bigger dynamic, then I don't know what to tell you.

When did I ever say this? Your previous quote was quite obviously in reference to imposing play styles upon others. You said you got this, but then you go on with this quote. Let's try it your way, where did I ever say it's not part of the bigger dynamic? quote me once. Let's play your war of words. Your one and only quote is not proof of anything but a failure to comprehend my point. Even though you said you did understand it and are wrong. I am not sure anymore what you understand and now feel you totally don't understand and I have no clue what you think you are wrong about.

1) Answer this directly: what were you wrong about, because at this point I don't know.


If your intelligence is insulted, then that's your deal.
Here you don't get it as well. It clearly reflects on your intelligence, not mine, when you do this. You are completely missing others' points and never answering their counter argument. Either you are doing this on purpose, which is what I thought, or you truly do not get it.

2) Which is it? Or are you going to dodge this question?


g that a crafter doesn't affect the overall dynamics is very short-sighted, especially when you take into consideration that this game will have a skill cap.

3) where did I say this? Quote me a line that is not out of context.

I said that a crafter sitting alone in town is not imposing his play style on others. He isn't. He is of course affecting the game and the world, but he is not imposing his play style. Remember when it was said everyone should be able to play their style in a sandbox game? This is a point to those people, explaining why some people want harsh restrictions.


I already said that if I don't like a core mechanic in a game I simply don't play it

Yay! At least you kinda sorta somewhat answered the question. But I want it more direct. If Xsyon ends up that it has consequences for random pvp so harsh that you feel the mechanic of open rvr is wasted, and you feel the devs didn't make it fun to play all sides, will you leave quietly or complain about it?

4) If the game is not designed like you want it, will you champion a change from the devs and be hypocritical to what you said? Or will you just quietly pick up and leave realizing the end product of the game is not what you want?

5) Do you even consider the possibility that what you imagine it will be like based on the dev quotes you have will bot be what it is like in the end?

There are too many different things said for me to say for sure what it will be like, or that it will be what I like. The harsh consequences they speak of may be so much that it effectly ends up being a tribe pvp game. You can't say for sure until the game gets going.

I have posted 5 questions and numbered them for you. Answer these or don't bother retorting. You have clearly misunderstood what I was saying and my point. Yet you say you didn't. Maybe it stems from you, by your own words, not reading my entire post objectively. Try re-reading it and I will give you the cliff notes. I am talking about one specific type of player who changes the play style of others and how the other play styles do not do the same, hence why some want harsher consequences for that person. Some. Not me, I was expressing for others because I can see their point of view, just like I can see yours. I am in neither camp but somewhere firmly between. And I suspect you are not going to like the end mechanics, but it's only speculation now. Time will tell.

You aren't really making any points other than saying "you don't get their points", when I actually do. It's not hard to understand that they don't want people ruining their "playstyle". They want meaningful PvP, but most of us here do, too. None of them are going off on a detailed report about the point, because there is only one they are making and it's very straightforward... "Don't interfere with my fun by using random PvP." (That's totally reasonable in an open-PvP game :huh: )

Anyway...

1.) What? I never said I was wrong... I said you were wrong, since you said this:

"A crafter is not penalized because him sitting by the anvil crafting is not affecting anyone else's gameplay." - jessebfox

And, ummm... Aren't #1 and #3 the same question...?

2.) *Psssstt* Their only counter is in orange. But, it's not really an "argument" since most of us want that, too. So, that simply brings us back to blue.

3.) "I said that a crafter sitting alone in town is not imposing his play style on others. He isn't. He is of course affecting the game and the world, but he is not imposing his play style." - jessebfox

See #1.

4.) o.O I already gave a direct answer with a past example. You even quoted the direct statement...

"I already said that if I don't like a core mechanic in a game I simply don't play it." - Me

Can't be more direct than saying I wouldn't play something if I didn't like a core mechanic.

5.) Is this a serious question? :laugh: I have played MMOs before, ya know. They don't always end up how you want them to, but that doesn't mean you can't have confidence in certain mechanics.

---

"And I suspect you are not going to like the end mechanics, but it's only speculation now." - jessebfox

Maybe you need to answer #5...? ;) (Before you have a mini-freakout, that was a joke.)

jessebfox
04-04-2010, 10:31 AM
1 & 3)Then please explain how the crafter sitting at an anvil IMPOSES HIS PLAY STYLE on others? The PvPers will still fight PvPers, the gatherers will still gather, the tribal hunters will still hunt, tribal warfare players will still have their warfare, and the griefer still will grief.

No one else is forced to sit and craft just because the crafter wants to.

Or are you playing a war with words again? Because clearly as I have explained it, if you truly get the point of imposing a playstyle on others, you can explain what I am missing.

2) they do have counter arguments, that you apparently do not choose to acknowledge or deem not worthy enough of a response. They post counter opinions which you ridicule and discount as well.

4)I had to make sure you were stating that crystal clear because your answer was somewhat vague and you could easily go back on it. If you do not like the game mechnics how they are implemented you are out of here without complaint. Got it.

5)Yes it was serious. Because you consistently are pointing to quotes from the devs, interpreting them a certain way and then declare your interpretation as fact. Any time anyone else gives their opinion of the interpretation, you discount it. So in otherwords you acknowledge that the designers idea of open pvp could be different than yours and they could implement things that are very "unfair" to evil as many would see it. That maybe things won't be as you picture it.If so, I am glad you were very clear on your answer to #4.

pid73
04-04-2010, 12:42 PM
On many posts here I just say:

/* no comment */

Also, this:

Trolls and gankers are everywhere!

inb4 carebear which is btw wrong 'cause I enjoy PvP, but not the mindless ganker way

pid73
04-04-2010, 12:47 PM
jessebfox wrote:

1 & 3)Then please explain how the crafter sitting at an anvil IMPOSES HIS PLAY STYLE on others?

You waste your time. These trolls are just trying to bend the Devs to their point of view, not realizing that DFO and MO are dead because they were designed the way the trolls are promoting here.

I'm very confident that the Devs are intelligent and will not take into consideration these trolls. It has no importance how "loud" or often the trolls bark or try to have it their way. Reasoning is something trolls are not capable of and therefore, in the end, they are doomed :D

pid73
04-04-2010, 01:02 PM
What would be "fair" pvp?

In my opinion, if a crafter takes a certain amount of time and resources to obtain an item, than the victor should have to invest the same amount of "energy" to loot that item.

This may mean, in certain occasions, that a plain pvper would need a *WEEK* to get his hands on a decent weapon.

He should not be better off crafting the item or buying it, but it should be the same!

This is my measure of fairness:


|PvPer does his thing------------>|
|Crafter crafts------------------>|
|Trader trades to get money------>|
| |
START +---------------------------> DONE
-- Effort axis ->


Whatever you choose, the total *effort* would be the same. This is obviously impossible to implement, but it would be *FAIR* towards other players. Losing a valueable item is annoying.

Try being robbed IRL, then tell me if you liked it :)

Crunch
04-04-2010, 02:41 PM
As long as i can piss people off...

Jadzia
04-04-2010, 04:37 PM
Farmerbob wrote:

JCatano wrote:


The funny thing about the above is that Jadzia (for example) says that a tribe war death would be ok with her, but a random PK wouldn't be. As I said before, both have the same end result... She's dead and looted. The only difference is that the attacker would not get an alignment hit in a tribe war. *Shrug*

There is a difference.

Being killed by a some sort of psychopathic serial killer as compared to being killed to advance the goals of an enemy tribe.

In real life, when you are dead, you are dead, so the point is rather moot. In a game you aren't dead, your avatar is, and you can objectively understand the motivations (or lack thereof) of the person who killed you.

I would FAR rather lose a fight and equipment to an enemy with a cause than some random schmuck wandering the countryside looking for people to kill for pleasure.


Exactly. I've tried to explain this to JCatano about 3 times, but he still doesn't get it :)

JCatano
04-04-2010, 06:09 PM
jessebfox wrote:

1 & 3)Then please explain how the crafter sitting at an anvil IMPOSES HIS PLAY STYLE on others? The PvPers will still fight PvPers, the gatherers will still gather, the tribal hunters will still hunt, tribal warfare players will still have their warfare, and the griefer still will grief.

No one else is forced to sit and craft just because the crafter wants to.

Or are you playing a war with words again? Because clearly as I have explained it, if you truly get the point of imposing a playstyle on others, you can explain what I am missing.

2) they do have counter arguments, that you apparently do not choose to acknowledge or deem not worthy enough of a response. They post counter opinions which you ridicule and discount as well.

4)I had to make sure you were stating that crystal clear because your answer was somewhat vague and you could easily go back on it. If you do not like the game mechnics how they are implemented you are out of here without complaint. Got it.

5)Yes it was serious. Because you consistently are pointing to quotes from the devs, interpreting them a certain way and then declare your interpretation as fact. Any time anyone else gives their opinion of the interpretation, you discount it. So in otherwords you acknowledge that the designers idea of open pvp could be different than yours and they could implement things that are very "unfair" to evil as many would see it. That maybe things won't be as you picture it.If so, I am glad you were very clear on your answer to #4.

1.) and 3.) War with words? I addressed what you originally said:

"A crafter is not penalized because him sitting by the anvil crafting is not affecting anyone else's gameplay." - jessebfox

Then, you finally said:

"I said that a crafter sitting alone in town is not imposing his play style on others. He isn't. He is of course affecting the game and the world, but he is not imposing his play style." - jessebfox

Maybe you should start being more clear from the start.

2.) Please show me their counter arguments besides:

"I don't enjoy PvP."

"I don't want to be forced into PvP."

"Anyone who randomly PK's me is a 12 year old angry griefer."

"<Insert quote that starts with 'In real life'>"

"Being killed by a some sort of psychopathic serial killer as compared to being killed to advance the goals of an enemy tribe." - (An actual quote from Farmerbob)

4.) It was simpleton-clear the first time.

5.) It may not work out the way you want it to, either.


Layman's version, which I have typed out 9000 times (maybe over 9000):

Open-PvP is in the game. It will have consequences. That's a good thing. Some people know this, but still want it to be changed to consentual/zone/switch PvP. Those same people want the penalty so harsh that it makes a "random PK" basically non-existent, even though it's open-PvP. If good and evil players are going to have fun (per the dev), it cannot be that extreme. You know... Jail, temporary bans, time-based no-PvP locks, etc. Those are simply ridiculous suggestions, especially when nobody knows how the current mechanics will work.

NullZero
04-04-2010, 06:13 PM
Sorry if it's already been discussed, but as a potential member of a completely evil tribe, I'd like to know if the odds are already stacked against these kinds of people?

Firstly, you will have to define "ganking" and "gank-fests" compared with evil killing (when stated that gankfests won't be allowed). I mean, as an evil person, I can have any dark or evil motive, and don't really have to have any logical or reasonable reason to raid a town or kill in pvp. After-all, we are evil. We can be sadistic. We can do it for fun. We can do it because we are in that kind of evil mood. Therefore, it seems the developers don't actually support those that are evil?

Secondly, evil persons are more open to attack than the neutral or good guys, and thus less consequence protection. Though I can understand perhaps why it was implemented, I would like to question why the game mechanics are perhaps not un-biased, where consequences for being evil depend on the victim(s)or other players, and if they should actively hunt them down/announce they are to be killed on sight/etc.

Just a few thoughts.

Farmerbob
04-04-2010, 10:22 PM
NullZero wrote:

Sorry if it's already been discussed, but as a potential member of a completely evil tribe, I'd like to know if the odds are already stacked against these kinds of people?

Firstly, you will have to define "ganking" and "gank-fests" compared with evil killing (when stated that gankfests won't be allowed). I mean, as an evil person, I can have any dark or evil motive, and don't really have to have any logical or reasonable reason to raid a town or kill in pvp. After-all, we are evil. We can be sadistic. We can do it for fun. We can do it because we are in that kind of evil mood. Therefore, it seems the developers don't actually support those that are evil?

Secondly, evil persons are more open to attack than the neutral or good guys, and thus less consequence protection. Though I can understand perhaps why it was implemented, I would like to question why the game mechanics are perhaps not un-biased, where consequences for being evil depend on the victim(s)or other players, and if they should actively hunt them down/announce they are to be killed on sight/etc.

Just a few thoughts.

There are many different flavors of "evil"

There's Dracula evil, then there's Cthulu evil.

I suppose I have to go Waaay back to good old pen and paper D & D for the best descriptions.

Lawful evil individuals live by certain rules, codes, standards, and basically view the rest of the universe as their tools. They do not actively engage in harming others unless those others are somehow obstructing their goals. They normally have at least some degree of empathy but are fully willing to crush their own emotions to fulfil their goals.

Chaotic evil individuals recognize no rules and rarely have much in the way of long term goals. They do what they want when they want to. They will actively engage in harming others simply for entertainment if the opportunity arises. They have no capacity for empathy.


Excessive chaotic gameplay is harmful in nearly any game, even sandbox games. In order for there to be something to tear down, there must be something built first. If too many people are tearing things down and not enough are building, you end up with a terribly boring game. The other end of the evil spectrum is actually quite fine. Build your power base. Battle the good tribes for control of resources. Crush your enemies ruthlessly and be feared as a force of destruction. Sow the earth with salt and blood if you have no desire to occupy the land. If you want to occupy the land, slaughter those that resist and use their ashes to fertilize the fields.

Ajax
04-04-2010, 11:02 PM
jessebfox wrote:

Ajax said:

Should probably look into joining another tribe if your whole tribe can't stop 1 griefer from camping the anvil inside your player city..

A) I am not part of a tribe
B) I was not championing a change or harsh penalties, just explaining why some are
C) No tribe will be able to stop this from happening ever, without in game mechanics dissuading it. No tribe will have a 24 hour guard for inside their city watching every anvil. I get your point though that they should be able to respond to the first kill and get someone there to chase out a griefer from repeatedly attacking a person, but that is completely besides the point I was making...

/snip yet included

Ok I understand what your saying about playstyles (I am not a troll just a player who does in fact enjoy pvp)

My questions and statements would thus be..

Even in civilized society there is law enforcement. Would it not then be prudent to have a branch within your clan, or allies who are actively involved in pvp to play "guard duty" for the town? Thus preventing the gank from happening by squashing the griefer before he got to the anvil?

And while I agree that MOST (if any mega zerg clans form a "no" wouldn't qualify here) clans won't have 24 hour protection. However most clans also have a select timeframe that the bulk membership operates in. Why not just harvest until either someone is online who could lend protection, or the main time frame comes along and more players are on granted added security. Even a city full of half naked crafters will post more threat to the griefer then 1 griefer will pose to them. Whle I understand this doesn't negate the playstyle imposing situation it does however offer a solution to the crafter wanting to craft.

However I do feel that given that this game is being broadcast as a game that has Open PvP with Looting capabilities that NO PLAYER has the right to come in and complain about the system. They come into the game either knowing that the game is PvP based by researching, or not knowing by being dumb and buying without researching. I find that a non-pvp'er coming to this game then complaining about open pvp would be much like me joining a football team and complaining that they tackle instead of touch.

Jadzia
04-05-2010, 05:27 AM
Ajax wrote:

jessebfox wrote:

Ajax said:

Should probably look into joining another tribe if your whole tribe can't stop 1 griefer from camping the anvil inside your player city..

A) I am not part of a tribe
B) I was not championing a change or harsh penalties, just explaining why some are
C) No tribe will be able to stop this from happening ever, without in game mechanics dissuading it. No tribe will have a 24 hour guard for inside their city watching every anvil. I get your point though that they should be able to respond to the first kill and get someone there to chase out a griefer from repeatedly attacking a person, but that is completely besides the point I was making...

/snip yet included

Ok I understand what your saying about playstyles (I am not a troll just a player who does in fact enjoy pvp)

My questions and statements would thus be..

Even in civilized society there is law enforcement. Would it not then be prudent to have a branch within your clan, or allies who are actively involved in pvp to play "guard duty" for the town? Thus preventing the gank from happening by squashing the griefer before he got to the anvil?

And while I agree that MOST (if any mega zerg clans form a "no" wouldn't qualify here) clans won't have 24 hour protection. However most clans also have a select timeframe that the bulk membership operates in. Why not just harvest until either someone is online who could lend protection, or the main time frame comes along and more players are on granted added security. Even a city full of half naked crafters will post more threat to the griefer then 1 griefer will pose to them. Whle I understand this doesn't negate the playstyle imposing situation it does however offer a solution to the crafter wanting to craft.

However I do feel that given that this game is being broadcast as a game that has Open PvP with Looting capabilities that NO PLAYER has the right to come in and complain about the system. They come into the game either knowing that the game is PvP based by researching, or not knowing by being dumb and buying without researching. I find that a non-pvp'er coming to this game then complaining about open pvp would be much like me joining a football team and complaining that they tackle instead of touch.

I think its not a good idea to make crafters to depend on the protection of tribemates. Xsyon population won't be high at the beginning, so a tribe probably will have 10-30 members. Seeing the different timezones it may happen that the amount of people online at the same time will be like 5. And why should a combat oriented person stay in town just for incase because his crafter tribemate wants to craft in safe ? Or why should he stand for 1-2 hours beside the gatherer friend, being bored and waiting for a potential attack ?

About the game is being broadcast as a game that has Open PvP...this is broadcast like this by players, not by the developers. If you read the feature list of the game, there is no one word about PvP. And you can't say a person should do a research before buying a game....he should read the feature list and decide if he likes what he read or not. Most of the people never reads the forums, since its usually full of hatred and drama lol :) At least the FAQ mention PvP now, but it was added like a week ago....till then a person who doesn't bother himself by reading the forum ( and why would he, he read the feature list) would never heard a word about the game having open PvP.

And I think you got the wrong impression about the game...this game isn't PvP based, its based on world building-crafting-exploration, with the opportunity of PvP.

jessebfox
04-05-2010, 05:50 AM
JCatano, you really make this quite easy.

#1 & 3) you yourself said you stopped reading my post, but it clearly says after your sentence you pulled out to use out of context that I was talking about imposing the playstyles. Everyone else seemed to get this but you did not. Perhaps that is an indication not of me not being clear, but by your arrogance of not reading any more, because it was unworthy of your time. If everyone else understood except you, maybe it was your reading comprehension that is the issue not the clarity of the statement. Maybe it was my fault for how wording it, even though others complimented the way it was put.

It doesn't matter, because now that you understand I am speaking of play styles being imposed you can admit you were wrong and we can move on. That crafter is not forcing anyone else to be a crafter but that anvil camper is forcing the crafter to pvp. The gatherer if he goes to dangerous lands to gather, that is his own fault and a completely different situation.

#2) if after all this time you can not see it, and you clearly did not understand my meaning and points in my original post, and given the fact that you did not read my entire post, at least not objectively, then I am not equipped to help you here. You simply will not see any of them. I'm sorry I can not help more, if you don't see it by re-reading posts objectively then there is not much more I can do, this one is closed.

#4) with your display of trying to take words, and things out of context and meaning and changing points based on wordplay it was not simpleton-clear enough for you. If the game is not how you expect, if it has harsh consequences, then I expect you to vanish quietly

#5) I have not posted how I would want it, mostly because it is irrelevant. I am almost positive it will not be how I want it, things like this rarely are. I am almost positive it will not be how you want it, or how jadzia wants it either. This part you don't grasp. You have taken a couple things they have stated and ignored others and are latching on to "the dev said this" while ignoring that they said other things, and glazing over yet more things. The big difference is you don't see me posting things that my opinion is how it is gonna be, and your opinion and interpretation fo what the devs said is wrong.

Then you finish off with the 9001st time of explaining how you know exactly what the game is going to be like, and how everyone else is wrong and they will have to deal with it. Time will tell.

But you have proven one thing. You are unwilling to read fully through others' posts objectively, you do not get the point of their posts (as evidence of you harping something I said you did not understand), and even after you do you continue to argue about something that was never implied. So it is obviously fruitless to explain anything to you that you refuse to try to understand, so there is no reason for ever really taking any of your posts seriously. Which is a shame, because you do make some good points and as far as actual game play I bet we see eye to eye.

HamsterofDoom
04-05-2010, 05:57 AM
It's been said several times that non combat people will just have to find protection. But lets put the shoe on the other foot.

How would the pvp centric crowd feel if every time you wanted to pvp you needed to find a few non combat players with to repair your armor because at any moment all your armor could be destroyed in battle? Or like SWG where if you played at an odd hour and couldn't find a medic to buff you, you were severely gimped?


I agree with Jadzia.... overall it'd be nice if we could count on always having a few people around to just stand there while we whack trees and take the resources back to our village. However, I imagine that people will be too busy protecting the village itself, and every hour that the player guards stand there not doing anything is another hour of someone's play time wasted. Since they would not be fighting anything and gaining skills.


As far as all the chest puffing about it being a pvp game just deal with it... it has already been said there will be consequences for non consensual pvp... so deal with it. ;)

jessebfox
04-05-2010, 06:08 AM
Ajax,

The problem with having tribesmen be the policemen or guards of their tribe is several. First without game mechanics they really can do little about things. When they find an offender, they can not restrain them, or inhibit them really from attacking a crafter. They can only attack them back. Without mechanics this means the guarding tribesmen take a faction hit with their own town. This also means that the person commiting this act will simple wait and do it again, since there is no way of preventing them

If you give them mechanics, then those mechanics will most likely be abused and used against the guard. look at mortal online for an example, where a thief robs you in the open, in a city, next to the bank, and if you try to do anything about it they use the system to get the guards to attack you.

If you put in some kind of mechanic to restrain the person, then this can be abused and be too extreme. Imagine a player made jail where they put people in and let them sit. The game to start would be a single character server, which means that person now can not play at all. That is a bit too extreme in the other direction in my opinion, because it can be abused and end up being another method of griefing.

But there has to be some kind of mechanic to allow people to defend themselves, or make themselves an unappealing target. Which is one of the reasons some people want harsh consequences for doing things such as this.

The game has no features list, as Jadzia said, about open pvp. However some devs have mentioned that it is open pvp with consequences. Many many people will argue if there are consequences then it is not true open pvp. The consequences part should not be overlooked. We don't know yet what kind of consequences there are, it may make the game much less of an open pvp game. They may be trivial and you have thieves at the bank like in mortal online. We don't really know yet.

So in short we don't know if we are playing flag football, two hand touch, tackle, or what rules. But once the rules are established, I agree with your assessment that once the rules are established, it would be silly to play anyway and then complain about it.

jessebfox
04-05-2010, 06:41 AM
Jadzia,

The devs have stated it is open rvr, that isn't just a player rumor. Also from the FAQ:


11.) Will there be PvP?

Yes, the game is open PVP with consequences and a sparring / training combat mode. In the early Prelude towns will be safe zones.


It's the with consequences that is the wild card. We don't know what kind exactly, some have been outlined but the extent and exact nature of how much this is hinders is an unknown.

pid73
04-05-2010, 06:56 AM
Has anyone here ever thought about the fact that an alliance with crafters is a long-term advantage while looting is a one-time thing?

Confront the roman empire versus the huns.

So-called pure PvP tribes will have a hard time getting to the good stuff... I think the PvPers will also need crafters among them.

As I see it this game has a great potential because it can subvert the order of things.

What I mean is that, on the long run, all tribes will have some kind of functioning government which has to be heterogenic. In other words, all long-lasting tribes will require this:


a way to take decisions:

single leader (dictatorship)
fixed subgroup (oligarchy)
variable subgroup (democarcy)
none/random/fate (anarchy)


a way to obtain items, tech and resources:

looting (raiders)
crafting (constructors)
trading (explorers)
none/random/fate (collectors or whatever)


a way to defend themselves: army (PvP-ers)
other structures that constitute a society...


These heterogenic tribes will most likely have the most success in the long run, while "pure/homogenic" tribes will struggle to stay on par with the faster ones.

The true line between allies and enemies will be drawn transversally, across the structuring. This means that the "good" will fight the "evil" and viceversa. But the good will do PvP and PK too, and the evil will have to do healing/crafting/reparing.

This will be very interesting. Most probably the true advantages will come from inter-tribe alliances, grand-scale embargos, strategic military moves (4 "allied" tribes coordinating an attack against 2 "axis" tribes) and the will of the gods...

Maybe what you all are discussing here is way too simplified.

Jadzia
04-05-2010, 11:39 AM
jessebfox wrote:

Jadzia,

The devs have stated it is open rvr, that isn't just a player rumor. Also from the FAQ:


11.) Will there be PvP?

Yes, the game is open PVP with consequences and a sparring / training combat mode. In the early Prelude towns will be safe zones.


It's the with consequences that is the wild card. We don't know what kind exactly, some have been outlined but the extent and exact nature of how much this is hinders is an unknown.

Yes, I'm aware of that, what I meant was that a newcomer who only reads the feature list can't figure that out of it. They should add it to the feature list to avoid misunderstandings....or if its left out of there intentionally, thats even better, then for me it means they are confident enough to think that a non-combat player won't find PvP bugging or irritating in this game.

Kitsume
04-05-2010, 12:38 PM
It all comes down to a group of players want to force their play style on other players who don't share their views towards gaming, but they don't want their own play style infringed upon.

Sounds hypocritical to me.

JCatano
04-05-2010, 01:48 PM
jessebfox wrote:

JCatano, you really make this quite easy.

#1 & 3) you yourself said you stopped reading my post, but it clearly says after your sentence you pulled out to use out of context that I was talking about imposing the playstyles. Everyone else seemed to get this but you did not. Perhaps that is an indication not of me not being clear, but by your arrogance of not reading any more, because it was unworthy of your time. If everyone else understood except you, maybe it was your reading comprehension that is the issue not the clarity of the statement. Maybe it was my fault for how wording it, even though others complimented the way it was put.

It doesn't matter, because now that you understand I am speaking of play styles being imposed you can admit you were wrong and we can move on. That crafter is not forcing anyone else to be a crafter but that anvil camper is forcing the crafter to pvp. The gatherer if he goes to dangerous lands to gather, that is his own fault and a completely different situation.

#2) if after all this time you can not see it, and you clearly did not understand my meaning and points in my original post, and given the fact that you did not read my entire post, at least not objectively, then I am not equipped to help you here. You simply will not see any of them. I'm sorry I can not help more, if you don't see it by re-reading posts objectively then there is not much more I can do, this one is closed.

#4) with your display of trying to take words, and things out of context and meaning and changing points based on wordplay it was not simpleton-clear enough for you. If the game is not how you expect, if it has harsh consequences, then I expect you to vanish quietly

#5) I have not posted how I would want it, mostly because it is irrelevant. I am almost positive it will not be how I want it, things like this rarely are. I am almost positive it will not be how you want it, or how jadzia wants it either. This part you don't grasp. You have taken a couple things they have stated and ignored others and are latching on to "the dev said this" while ignoring that they said other things, and glazing over yet more things. The big difference is you don't see me posting things that my opinion is how it is gonna be, and your opinion and interpretation fo what the devs said is wrong.

Then you finish off with the 9001st time of explaining how you know exactly what the game is going to be like, and how everyone else is wrong and they will have to deal with it. Time will tell.

But you have proven one thing. You are unwilling to read fully through others' posts objectively, you do not get the point of their posts (as evidence of you harping something I said you did not understand), and even after you do you continue to argue about something that was never implied. So it is obviously fruitless to explain anything to you that you refuse to try to understand, so there is no reason for ever really taking any of your posts seriously. Which is a shame, because you do make some good points and as far as actual game play I bet we see eye to eye.

I read it. I didn't objectively read it, because you were wrong from the get-go. Be clear, and there wouldn't have been an issue.

And yeah, I have made this thread easy. You've made it forehead-slapping. Let me post it again for the 9001st time:

Fact: Open PvP is in the game. **

Fact: It will have consequences. **

Fact: Getting PK'd when you're minding your own business will happen, not only because of open-PvP, but also as a result of tribe wars. **

Fact: There is a small camp who doesn't want open-PvP.

Fact: There are some ridiculous suggestions from that small camp (jail, temporary bans that keep you from logging in, time-based no-PvP locks) - Your jail idea may have been said it jest, but others have suggested it.

Fact: There are some suggestions from the small camp that are fine with me if it wasn't for a game that has a lot of deep mechanics, and clearly states that open-PvP (with consequences) is the choice. PvP zones, tribe-based PvP-switch if done similar to SWG... Those are fine, but I don't want to see them here. Virtus stated that will not happen, anyway.

Fact: The only point that small camp makes comes down to: "I don't want to be forced into PvP." They don't make any counter arguments with any real substance. Why not? Because they can't. I wouldn't be able to if I didn't want to forced into PvP, either. You try it.

Fact: There isn't any serious debate after reading a post that says: "I don't want to be forced into PvP, because it's not fun when a 'psychopathic serial killer' ruins my non-PvP activity", or... "I hate when some random asshole lets his frustration out on me after his boss or teacher made him feel miserable in his real life." (Italics are quotes from this thread and another.) Lots of substance, isn't it? :laugh:

Fact: The facts with ** is how the game is going to be PvP-wise.

Fact: I have never strayed from the above facts.

Fact: I'm tired of typing "fact".

Fun Fact: Tasos sucks.

jessebfox
04-05-2010, 01:59 PM
You read it incorrectly because either a) you didn't read the whole paragraph, or b) you were hell bent on it being what you wanted it to be and weren't objective, which you already admitted to.

I vote b) since you already admitted to it, and since others seemed to understand the point but not you.

Now since you seem to understand my point you surely agree, and I was not wrong, is that correct? Or is it physically impossible for you to concede a point? You still haven't said how I was wrong, just how you didn't understand my point (even though you said you did when you clearly did not)

Oh and here, there is obviously more confusion so I will help you

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact

I notice that you quoted me, and in a list of things that quite possibly could be why you did not understand me you decided to pull the one part that was my fault but ignore the rest. Then glaze over the fact that this admits you did not get my point in the first place. You win! This is why I called you a troll in the first place. You completely ignore 99% of the post, pull out 1 line, out of context (usually due to you misunderstanding something that apparently others got) and feel you made a point.

jessebfox
04-05-2010, 02:09 PM
And wow if you failed to understand my original post, there is no chance your reading comprehension is to the level of understanding that butchering of the english language that is my last post. Not that yours are any better, but those were some terrible sentences. Let me sum up for you:

1) You did not understand my point. Now that you do, am I wrong? *edit: Oh wait, do you finally understand what I was saying or do I have to explain yet again?

2) You obviously do not know what a fact is

3) You ignored most of my post, again, in order to pull 1 sentence out of context to try to illustrate I am wrong. Unfortunately for you in doing so you admitted that you did not understand my point when obviously others did.

JCatano
04-05-2010, 02:15 PM
jessebfox wrote:

You read it incorrectly because either a) you didn't read the whole paragraph, or b) you were hell bent on it being what you wanted it to be and weren't objective, which you already admitted to.

I vote b) since you already admitted to it, and since others seemed to understand the point but not you.

Now since you seem to understand my point you surely agree, and I was not wrong, is that correct? Or is it physically impossible for you to concede a point? You still haven't said how I was wrong, just how you didn't understand my point (even though you said you did when you clearly did not)

Oh and here, there is obviously more confusion so I will help you

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact

I notice that you quoted me, and in a list of things that quite possibly could be why you did not understand me you decided to pull the one part that was my fault but ignore the rest. Then glaze over the fact that this admits you did not get my point in the first place. You win! This is why I called you a troll in the first place. You completely ignore 99% of the post, pull out 1 line, out of context (usually due to you misunderstanding something that apparently others got) and feel you made a point.

Did you ever once stop to think that the rest of your post didn't bother me, but still did not make me change my position on anything? Do you need someone to address every, single sentence?

What you wrote still came back to:

"I don't want to be forced into PvP, because I'll quit and leave if it happens." You didn't make any counter-arguments for them. You just made their simple statement more wordy.

If anything, you're trolling since I've told you exactly what the situation is and have made it very, very clear. But, you are still harping on the idea that you're "right" about something I said has no real substance.

"Carebear" players are trying to impose their playstyle on PK'ers by asking for mechanics to punish them so harshly that the style is non-existent.

I'm sure you'll have fun with that statement.

P.S. - Please, tell me which "fact" isn't a fact.

P.S.S. - I didn't quote you in that "fact" post.

jessebfox
04-05-2010, 02:52 PM
You took the bait, because you are easy. Let's start with the fun
Fact: Open PvP is in the game. **

Incorrect. This should have been stated "Devs have stated Open Pvp will be in the game." As this is truly a fact, can be proven. What you stated is not a fact by definition of the word. Also note that the term "Open PvP" means many different things to many different people. Read the Mortal Online forums for just a small set of examples. Perhaps you should have been more clear.



Fact: It will have consequences. **
This is not a fact, what should have been stated is "The devs have said there will be consequences for pvp".



Fact: Getting PK'd when you're minding your own business will happen, not only because of open-PvP, but also as a result of tribe wars. **

While this is incredibly likely and I believe you are right here, it is most certainly not a fact.


Fact: There is a small camp who doesn't want open-PvP.


This is your opinion based on your observation of a small pool of people who post on the Forums. You can not know how many people feel this way, and have no way of being able to prove how many there are, much less assign a subjective adjective such as "small" to it. Therefore not a fact


Fact: There are some ridiculous suggestions from that small camp (jail, temporary bans that keep you from logging in, time-based no-PvP locks) - Your jail idea may have been said it jest, but others have suggested it.


This is close to a fact, however it contained an opinion on the suggestion so it can not be a fact. What you are stating here is merely that their suggestion is ridiculous. Or that they made a suggestion, which really states nothing without promoting your opinion that it is ridiculous (which most of these in their simplest terms I agree are pretty silly, but just because I agree does not make it a fact)


Fact: There are some suggestions from the small camp that are fine with me if it wasn't for a game that has a lot of deep mechanics, and clearly states that open-PvP (with consequences) is the choice. PvP zones, tribe-based PvP-switch if done similar to SWG... Those are fine, but I don't want to see them here. Virtus stated that will not happen, anyway.

This is technically a fact, as the only thing you are stating here is you agree with something. Odd way to put it. Fact: I wouldn't have put it this way, but it doesn't really matter you did, just odd in my opinion.


Fact: The only point that small camp makes comes down to: "I don't want to be forced into PvP." They don't make any counter arguments with any real substance. Why not? Because they can't. I wouldn't be able to if I didn't want to forced into PvP, either. You try it.

Not only is this not a fact, it is simply not true. You just don't see it. In actuality earlier in this thread Hamster of Doom put it a pretty good way when he said
How would the pvp centric crowd feel if every time you wanted to pvp you needed to find a few non combat players with to repair your armor because at any moment all your armor could be destroyed in battle? Or like SWG where if you played at an odd hour and couldn't find a medic to buff you, you were severely gimped?

There was no rebuttal. It was pretty much ignored. Just because they have opposing viewpoints than you does not mean they make no points at all. This is extremely arrogant and short sighted of you to even say.


Fact: There isn't any serious debate after reading a post that says: "I don't want to be forced into PvP, because it's not fun when a 'psychopathic serial killer' ruins my non-PvP activity", or... "I hate when some random asshole lets his frustration out on me after his boss or teacher made him feel miserable in his real life." (Italics are quotes from this thread and another.) Lots of substance, isn't it?


This is opinion, not fact. You do not think it is a serious debate therefore it is fact? That is very arrogant as well. "I disagree, therefore there is no serious debate."


Fact: The facts with ** is how the game is going to be PvP-wise.

This is not a fact either. Those were how you think the game will be based on what devs said. What if the devs change their mind? What if something in the next phases change? It is possible, those things you listed as ** were just based on what devs said, which does not make it a fact that the game will actually end up that way. They could change their mind or the game could end up in a way that was not intended, which has happened in a great number of games. Time will tell.


Fact: I have never strayed from the above facts.


Since the above, on a large part, are not facts this statement is dubious.


Fact: I'm tired of typing "fact".. Well you nailed a fact in there, didn't you.

As for the rest of your post you have pretty much proven you STILL don't get my point because it has nothing to do with not being forced into pvp.

What I was harping on is you said I was wrong about something, yet you still don't understand what I was saying. You obviously don't get my point, and most likely never will. You have made it clear you don't get the point I was driving at, yet continue to harp I was wrong. You won't even admit you were wrong when you said you understand my point when by now it should be painfully obvious even to you that you did not. Actually you admitted as such when you said I should be more clear, yet you still have put no effort into understanding someone else's point of view.

most likely because in your mind if it is not your point of view, it is wrong. Because your point of view is fact.

darkrounge
04-05-2010, 02:52 PM
Wow, someone spent time reviewing stuff.

JCatano
04-05-2010, 03:21 PM
Yes or no:

Is open-PvP in the game?

Will the system have consequences?

Is someone going to get randomly PK'd?

Is there a small camp in here that doesn't want to be forced into PvP?

Are there some ridiculous suggestions on ways to deal out consequences?

Are there some decent suggestions on how to deal with PvP, but not necessarily fitting for Xsyon, since it's open-PvP?

Is the basis of the "carebear" argument more than "I don't want to be forced into PvP"? Do they explain how it would affect the dynamics of gameplay? Not their dynamics... The game's dynamics along the entire spectrum and how it relates to other players.

Have the devs said anything about changing their mind with regard to open PvP? (Virtus actually said quite the opposite. He said it will not change.)

Have you ever played with subjective fact? (Rhetorical question)

I get what you were saying. I got it from the first time I read it, even though you backtracked on your statement of how crafters don't affect anyone's gameplay.



jessebfox wrote:

As for the rest of your post you have pretty much proven you STILL don't get my point because it has nothing to do with not being forced into pvp.

Really?

jessebfox wrote:


I say this as a PVPer but as a PVPer that has the game's best long term interest at heart:

I think the reason many want to see this kind of penalty is because the rampant murderer play style is one that directly impacts, usually negatively, other play styles.

A crafter is not penalized because him sitting by the anvil crafting is not affecting anyone else's gameplay. It is not stopping the gatherer from getting stuff, nor the pvpers out fighting each other, or the tribal wars going on. However, the murderer who jumps him at his anvil and kills him is imposing his play styles on others. I think that is why many want to see stiff consequences for such actions.

Not to eliminate pvp or even totally eliminate the random kill crazy player, but to reduce their numbers by not making it as attractive.

The crafter will not pack up and leave the game because of the gatherer out chopping wood, or the pvper out in the field fighting other pvpers or those in risky areas, but he will leave if he is being griefed by someone who's only goal is to ruin someone else's fun.

The legitimate pvper won't leave because there are severe consequences to attacking that crafter by the anvil as long as he has other pvper's out and about and he can get fights.

The only person who would leave is the person who is only out to ruin others' fun, because that is what is fun for them. That play style is generally bad on the population. And even some of those people probably would not care about the consequences so much.

I think that is why many people propose stiffer penalties.

Looks like it has everything to do with "not" being forced into PvP.

Fact? ;)

Kitsume
04-05-2010, 03:34 PM
JCatano wrote:


"Carebear" players are trying to impose their playstyle on PK'ers by asking for mechanics to punish them so harshly that the style is non-existent.


If you are paraphrasing my earlier post (http://www.xsyon.com/forums/28-features/232-conflict-death-consequences-and-decisions?limit=10&start), I think you got my intent backwards. Reading any of my other posts on the subject, you would see that I am anti-PK, Griefing and Ganking. Those types usually try to impose their play style on those who do not wish it. However, I am not anti-PvP. I think PvP is necessary for a healthy MMO gaming environment. I have no problems with an open style PvP system, but with some limits or consequences in place.

I am glad that the devs are looking at both the positive and negative effects of players on the game environment. When I go out alone, I stay aware of my surroundings, and avoid conflict when I can. But I am not afraid to defend myself, my friends or my tribe. I am aware of the dangers both PvE and PvP and choose to risk those dangers. Every action should have some sort of consequence, be it positive or negative.

Too many PvP games have allowed the worst player elements free reign, which in turn drive out the less aggressive players. In looking over some of the new games coming out, I've noticed there are more restrictions being implemented on the PK type attitudes. If this trend continues, PKers will become the players that will need to change their play style, instead of dominating the games. PKers may be a minority group, but their actions hurt the environment for the majority of the players. I think MMO gaming developers have realized this and are making changes accordingly.

Call me a 'Carebear' if you like, in fact I'll wear the label proudly. It is because I care about a meaningful game experience and environment, that I bear the hostility of those who wish to cause it harm.

Jadzia
04-05-2010, 03:40 PM
JCatano wrote:

Yes or no:

Is open-PvP in the game?

Yes.


Will the system have consequences?

Yes.


Is someone going to get randomly PK'd?

This is something noone can tell for sure, so not a fact at all.


Is there a small camp in here that doesn't want to be forced into PvP?

No. The camp is actually huge.


Are there some ridiculous suggestions on ways to deal out consequences?

No. You can call that ridiculous, but its only your opinion, not a fact.


Are there some decent suggestions on how to deal with PvP, but not necessarily fitting for Xsyon, since it's open-PvP?

Again, calling it decent shows your opinion only. The proper question is: "Are there some suggestions what I find decent on how to deal with PvP, but not necessarily fitting for Xsyon, since it's open-PvP?"
If that was the question, the answer is yes.


Is the basis of the "carebear" argument more than "I don't want to be forced into PvP"? Do they explain how it would affect the dynamics of gameplay? Not their dynamics... The game's dynamics along the entire spectrum and how it relates to other players.

Yes. It has been explained to you so many times, you simply ignore the arguments.



Have the devs said anything about changing their mind with regard to open PvP? (Virtus actually said quite the opposite. He said it will not change.)


Yes, they did.
"We are considering two separate worlds to accomodate a different game play style if we have enough players that are interested in a 'safer' environment." quoted from Xsyon.

Ajax
04-05-2010, 03:41 PM
Kitsume wrote:

Reading any of my other posts on the subject, you would see that I am anti-PK, Griefing and Ganking. Those types usually try to impose their play style on those who do not wish it. However, I am not anti-PvP. I think PvP is necessary for a healthy MMO gaming environment. I have no problems with an open style PvP system, but with some limits or consequences in place.


You can't be pro pvp yet anti PK. PK means Player Kill, or in other words the act of killing a player, (deffinition - Means "Player Kill" Which is used most often for online games such as MMORPG's.) which is what pvping is. so take that out of there. I hate when people use the term PK'er as a griefer...

Griefing - 3 deffinitions - 1. Purposefully shooting or otherwise sabotaging your teammates in an online game.

2. In online gaming where one repeatedly killing the same individual or individuals over and over again, or camping their corpse to prevent them from retrieving it, or otherwise performing actions in a game to prevent the player from enjoying the game.

3. In online gaming, someone who takes pleasure in creating grief for an opponent via various "cheap" tactics.

Ganking - by deffinition - It is a word commonly used in online video games, usualy used in an MMORPG. Ganking is the process in which a group of charecters gang up on one or more players that do not have a chance to defend themselves, Or when one high level player does the same action to a player way below his or her own level


so by your own words so long as your character is of even or close to even level, and you are not being camped or having cheap tactics used on you, then it is ok for someone to attack you freely and without consent.

jessebfox
04-05-2010, 03:48 PM
Jcatano you illustrate once again your inability to acknowledge anything, the ability to ignore what you don't want to see, and your mastery of taking single lines out of context. I will make it short and sweet:

read my post again. They are not facts. If you are still confused, consult my link to the definition. In many cases I stated what would have been fact, if you knew what a fact was.

No, you do not get what I was saying because I never retracted anything. I stand by my original post and always have. Everyone else got the point, you did not.

The ironic thing about you completely ignoring Hamster of Doom's post is that it was the only thing close to pointing out I could be wrong about the very statement you seem to want to harp on (but still don't get). That is pretty good comedy right there.

And your pulling out individual line clearly demonstrates you did not understand the point. Others seemed to hmm. Yes must clearly be my fault, not yours. Mine and everyone else's

Certainly can not be yours. Your opinions are fact, after all. And you don't have to objectively read anything to know it is wrong and discount it out of hand.

jessebfox
04-05-2010, 03:49 PM
Ajax,

I like your point on pker vs griefer. Too many people use terms and think everyone has the same definition of it.

Add to that list "Open PvP" and many more.

JCatano
04-05-2010, 03:58 PM
Kitsume -

I was speaking in general. I don't have any problem with most of your viewpoint.


Jadzia wrote:

JCatano wrote:

Yes or no:

Is open-PvP in the game?

Yes.


Will the system have consequences?

Yes.


Is someone going to get randomly PK'd?

This is something noone can tell for sure, so not a fact at all.

You know very well it will happen.



Is there a small camp in here that doesn't want to be forced into PvP?

No. The camp is actually huge.

Make a list and let's see.


Are there some ridiculous suggestions on ways to deal out consequences?

No. You can call that ridiculous, but its only your opinion, not a fact.

Did you miss the "subjective fact" part? I know you didn't, since you edited it out.


Are there some decent suggestions on how to deal with PvP, but not necessarily fitting for Xsyon, since it's open-PvP?

Again, calling it decent shows your opinion only. The proper question is: "Are there some suggestions what I find decent on how to deal with PvP, but not necessarily fitting for Xsyon, since it's open-PvP?"
If that was the question, the answer is yes.


Is the basis of the "carebear" argument more than "I don't want to be forced into PvP"? Do they explain how it would affect the dynamics of gameplay? Not their dynamics... The game's dynamics along the entire spectrum and how it relates to other players.

Yes. It has been explained to you so many times, you simply ignore the arguments.

Show me where it has been explained in a way I stated above.



Have the devs said anything about changing their mind with regard to open PvP? (Virtus actually said quite the opposite. He said it will not change.)


Yes, they did.
"We are considering two separate worlds to accomodate a different game play style if we have enough players that are interested in a 'safer' environment." quoted from Xsyon.

That would a be new server... Not changing the mechanic of open-PvP on the current.

Kitsume
04-05-2010, 03:59 PM
A PKer is a player who goes out and actively seeks easy kills for their own satisfaction, like a solo Ganker. That is how I have always seen the term, which is been quite a long time. If the definition has changed over the years, I guess I can use a different term. Pick apart my post how ever you like.

PvP is player versus player. My play style is more CvC character versus character. I won't hunt you down just because you seem to be an easy kill or are just there unawares.

No one likes being the target or attacked unawares with no chance of survival.

If we meet in combat and I inexplicitly happen to defeat your character, I won't gloat over your character's body, nor will I loot your prized possessions. I am more likely to watch over your body until you can recover and send you on your way.

But someone who constantly grief kills me, my friends or my tribe, then my character might not have the same compassion.

When I go into wild areas, I expect to be ambushed, but it doesn't mean I support the PK-Griefing play style of some other players.


Woo Hoo! I got the 15000th post!

JCatano
04-05-2010, 04:24 PM
jessebfox wrote:

Jcatano you illustrate once again your inability to acknowledge anything, the ability to ignore what you don't want to see, and your mastery of taking single lines out of context. I will make it short and sweet:

read my post again. They are not facts. If you are still confused, consult my link to the definition. In many cases I stated what would have been fact, if you knew what a fact was.

No, you do not get what I was saying because I never retracted anything. I stand by my original post and always have. Everyone else got the point, you did not.

The ironic thing about you completely ignoring Hamster of Doom's post is that it was the only thing close to pointing out I could be wrong about the very statement you seem to want to harp on (but still don't get). That is pretty good comedy right there.

And your pulling out individual line clearly demonstrates you did not understand the point. Others seemed to hmm. Yes must clearly be my fault, not yours. Mine and everyone else's

Certainly can not be yours. Your opinions are fact, after all. And you don't have to objectively read anything to know it is wrong and discount it out of hand.

Fact: You are Jadzia's alternate forum account.

Did you conveniently gloss over my "subjective fact" part?

What exactly am I not acknowledging? I'm not confused about your original post at all. You said crafters don't affect anyone's gameplay (in a later post you said they affect the game and world), PK'ers impose their playstyle on crafters, and crafters want harsh penalties. What's not to understand? Just because I didn't read it objectively after you said that crafters don't affect anyone's gameplay doesn't mean I don't understand it.

I read Hamster's post when he first made it. The part you quoted isn't a problem at all. That's called interdependency and happens in most good games. He's not against open-PvP. He wants consequences, which we all want.

I didn't pull out individual lines. I quoted your entire post and highlighted parts that were about forced PvP. (Remember, you said your post was not about that.)

I'm not even sure you know what your point is, anymore. So... What is it?

Jadzia
04-05-2010, 07:21 PM
JCatano wrote:

Kitsume -

I was speaking in general. I don't have any problem with most of your viewpoint.


Jadzia wrote:

JCatano wrote:

Yes or no:

Is open-PvP in the game?

Yes.


Will the system have consequences?

Yes.


Is someone going to get randomly PK'd?



This is something noone can tell for sure, so not a fact at all.

You know very well it will happen.



No, I really don't. What if someone lives out of nowhere and never meets anyone ? What if he spends his time in safe towns ? What if Xsyon world will be so huge that you have to walk real hours to get to other tribe's base ?
What if PVP oriented players find the game boring or the consequences so severe that they leave after 2 days ?

I can't see the future. Neither can you. We can't tell something will happen or not. We can guess the probabilities, but it can never be stated as a fact.





Is there a small camp in here that doesn't want to be forced into PvP?

No. The camp is actually huge.

Make a list and let's see.

I'd love to see a poll about this after the game launches.




Are there some ridiculous suggestions on ways to deal out consequences?

No. You can call that ridiculous, but its only your opinion, not a fact.

Did you miss the "subjective fact" part? I know you didn't, since you edited it out.

I've edited it out because I didn't really understand it. Subjective fact ? Whats that ? A fact what is a fact only for you ? How can that take part in any discussion...facts need to be things what cannot be questioned by anyone. If a fact can be questioned, than its not a fact anymore.




Are there some decent suggestions on how to deal with PvP, but not necessarily fitting for Xsyon, since it's open-PvP?

Again, calling it decent shows your opinion only. The proper question is: "Are there some suggestions what I find decent on how to deal with PvP, but not necessarily fitting for Xsyon, since it's open-PvP?"
If that was the question, the answer is yes.


Is the basis of the "carebear" argument more than "I don't want to be forced into PvP"? Do they explain how it would affect the dynamics of gameplay? Not their dynamics... The game's dynamics along the entire spectrum and how it relates to other players.

Yes. It has been explained to you so many times, you simply ignore the arguments.

Show me where it has been explained in a way I stated above.

No way, lol, you won't trick me into this again. Search it yourself, I don't want to start a semantic debate about what you call game's dynamics. In a way you stated above ? Why should we follow the way you choose ? The arguments were clearly worded, just read them again.





Have the devs said anything about changing their mind with regard to open PvP? (Virtus actually said quite the opposite. He said it will not change.)


Yes, they did.
"We are considering two separate worlds to accomodate a different game play style if we have enough players that are interested in a 'safer' environment." quoted from Xsyon.

That would a be new server... Not changing the mechanic of open-PvP on the current.


A new server, so ? The question was if they said anything about changing open PvP...yes, they did say, the question wasn't how it would be implemented.

Ajax
04-05-2010, 08:26 PM
Kitsume wrote:

A PKer is a player who goes out and actively seeks easy kills for their own satisfaction, like a solo Ganker. That is how I have always seen the term, which is been quite a long time. If the definition has changed over the years, I guess I can use a different term. Pick apart my post how ever you like.

PvP is player versus player. My play style is more CvC character versus character. I won't hunt you down just because you seem to be an easy kill or are just there unawares.

No one likes being the target or attacked unawares with no chance of survival.

If we meet in combat and I inexplicitly happen to defeat your character, I won't gloat over your character's body, nor will I loot your prized possessions. I am more likely to watch over your body until you can recover and send you on your way.

But someone who constantly grief kills me, my friends or my tribe, then my character might not have the same compassion.

When I go into wild areas, I expect to be ambushed, but it doesn't mean I support the PK-Griefing play style of some other players.


Woo Hoo! I got the 15000th post!

thank you, for the PK thing. Yeah it drives me nuts only because I often refer to myself as a PKer in the sense that I kill players in pvp, but I am in no way a griefer. I pvp for the challenge of a good fight against something smarter then the AI. Often times if I start attacking someone and they don't fight back I won't kill them because there is no pride in killing someone who doesn't defend themself.

I typically seek out the griefers and gankers who run around tormenting newbies and crafters and have turn the role on them camping them and taking their stuff til they leave. So I guess I don't support griefing, unless your griefing a griefer? lol

JCatano
04-05-2010, 08:51 PM
Jadzia -

Yes. Someone who doesn't want to engage in PvP is going to get ganked. Saying otherwise is simply being intentionally dumb.

I'd love to see a poll, too. Anyone who doesn't want to be forced into PvP won't play an open-PvP game (besides you), unless they are willing to see what it's like.

Subjective fact is exactly what it says. Same as subjective truth. Both can be based on observational fact/truth.

What trick...? It's not semantics... I asked you to show me where the people who don't want to be forced into PvP support their crusade with statements other than:

"I dislike PvP."

"PK'ers ruin my day."

"PK'ers are psychopathic serial killers."

"PK'ers are 12 year old assholes who hate life." (Paraphrase from you.)

"I shouldn't have to PvP if I don't want to." (Even though we all know it's open-PvP.)

So... No trick. It's a straightforward request. Where are the great arguments at?

A new server doesn't affect the code on normal servers. It's not a change to the fundamental design of their code. They just turn it off for a PvE server.

Jadzia
04-06-2010, 05:31 AM
JCatano wrote:

Jadzia -

Yes. Someone who doesn't want to engage in PvP is going to get ganked. Saying otherwise is simply being intentionally dumb.


I think you should understand that your opinion isn't a fact...if you can't, I'll leave you in your imaginary world alone :)



I'd love to see a poll, too. Anyone who doesn't want to be forced into PvP won't play an open-PvP game (besides you), unless they are willing to see what it's like.

I have no problem playing a game with open PvP if random PKing and ganking is rare there. As far as I see from posts, others (non-PvP players or even some PvP players too ) have the same opinion.



Subjective fact is exactly what it says. Same as subjective truth. Both can be based on observational fact/truth.

Perhaps thats why you never understand others' posts ? You see everything only from your own point of view...you don't even try to see the world with someone else's eye. Try to use objective facts, you'll be surprised how handy they are.


What trick...? It's not semantics... I asked you to show me where the people who don't want to be forced into PvP support their crusade with statements other than:

"I dislike PvP."

"PK'ers ruin my day."

"PK'ers are psychopathic serial killers."

"PK'ers are 12 year old assholes who hate life." (Paraphrase from you.)

Can you please quote where did I say anything like this ? I said they are teens frustrated by their teacher, or adults frustrated by their bosses. Never said they hate life, nor they were 12 years old. I would never call a 12 year old kid an asshole, thats something only goes to adults :)



"I shouldn't have to PvP if I don't want to." (Even though we all know it's open-PvP.)

So... No trick. It's a straightforward request. Where are the great arguments at?

The arguments are in the thread called "PvP vs. PK and some general impressions". You know very well. I won't quote it for you, read it again. I did, and a lot of people (not only me) worded very clear arguments. Again, if you don't understand, its probably because you have a filter in your head, which seems to make some sentences invisible for you :P



A new server doesn't affect the code on normal servers. It's not a change to the fundamental design of their code. They just turn it off for a PvE server.

They didn't say PVE server. They said a safer environment. That can mean PvP zones, no loot, PvP flagging, anything. Definitely a change in code. You always read more into the sentences than what is really there.

jessebfox
04-06-2010, 05:44 AM
Comical. Now you are changing from "Fact:" to "Subjective Fact:" of which many of those still don't apply. Perhaps you should be more clear next time.

You clearly did not get the point of my post at all, and still don't. The point was that a crafter sitting at an anvil does not make the pvper, or anyone else have to craft nor does he force them to change their play style, this is very clearly written in that post if you read the entire thing objectively. Others have gotten this and commented. The average pvp player does not truly impose his play style on others.

If the gatherer goes in to the woods away from safe haven, then they are entering a known danger. They better have protection or a careful eye.

Now here is the part where you will pick out a sentence and use it out of context because you don't read things objectively, by your own words. In what many call a true "open pvp" world, which already it has been stated that Xsyon is not, where anyone can attack anyone else without significant consequences, the anvil camping pvp player who is just out to ruin others' fun is not imposing his play style on others, because the game is built that way, and crafters simply should not play unless they expect to be constantly robbed and attacked without protection.

However, it has been stated numerous times by devs that there will be consequences. It has also been stated that the consequences are designed to prevent a "gankfest". It has also been stated that the head designer (Jooky) does not intend pvp to be a focus of the game. It has also been stated that the game will be rebalanced to prevent gank fests. Now you throw around the "open pvp" term a lot, quoting devs but ignore these other statements by them. From these statements many many people will say that it is not true "open pvp". That there will be too many limitations to call it "open". I have seen this argument many times before.

You also like to say "there will be consequences" but close your mind to the idea that they may be so heavy as to make it essentially a tribal pvp game with duals. You fall back to devs saying they want to make it viable to be both evil and good, but do not seem to understand, or acknowledge that they are referring to tribal alignments, and not necessarily random pointless pvp players.

You still never understood my post. It has not changed. Because you did not understand my point does not make it my fault. Others got it. I wasn't even saying it was my point of view, I just saw what they were saying. I also get the point of people who just want to play death match style games. They have a right to their opinion too. Not enough have been posted about Xsyon the game to really see what kind of game it will end up being. You apparently are omniscient and can tell us exactly how things will be even tho nothing is set in stone yet.

You obviously didn't get the point either I was making on Hamster's post, and I don't think you got his point either. Because it was pretty much the same as mine, but at the same time opened up a counter argument for something I said, and even after I point this out you STILL don't get it. These kind of things happen when you close your mind (as you said you did by not being objective when reading my post).

You copied my post, then highlighted individual lines, that if read out of context of the entire message would mean something different. It does not change the meaning of the original post just because you didn't understand the entirety of the message being conveyed.

So let us summarize:

You read my post without an open and objective mind. You still don't get the point being made.

You still don't know what a fact is.

You tried to go back and change to say you meant "subjective fact" which still isn't a fact, but continue to use the word "fact" to give things that are not facts. Read the definition.

You still take individual lines out of context and try to use them to make a point, when the only point being made is you are not understanding the whole of anyone's message.

Oh and for the record, me being Jadzia's alternate forum account is a complete joke. In game I very well could be someone she hates. I have been accused in other games of being an angry teenager raging against players. I pvp in every game I can, and I especially like ambushes. I won't have to worry about pvp being forced on me, because I will be forcing it on others. Of course this can all easily change based on how the game turns out, because frankly this is looking to be a pretty crappy pvp game but the other aspects are interesting to me. The combat does not seem as thought out and planned as the rest of the systems and looks like it won't be nearly as fun.

Just because I can see someone else's point, doesn't mean I am them. Or agree with them. I have my opinions but I acknowledge others have opinions too. I don't have the luxury you do of knowing all my opinions are facts (correction: subjective fact) and that no one else can possibly be right if they disagree with me. If so I probably wouldn't read other people's posts objectively either as I would know they are wrong by the name of the person posting (it's not me). Must be nice being you.

Btw, do you know what a subjective fact is? By admitting all those are subjective facts, you are admitting that any and all of them could turn out to be incorrect, as in not true. If you mean subjective fact, you should state as such instead of incorrectly calling them facts.

You like to use the "show me" a lot. Show me where the devs said that the consequences will be minor. Show me where the devs have said that they are trying to make the lone wolf pvp player who likes to target lone crafters by their workbench just as viable to play as a member of a community. Show me how that crafter forces the pvp player to craft. Show me one post by you where you concede a point (one that you did not agree with in the first place). Show me one time where I said that I don't want to be forced in to pvp.

One time you got all on someone (don't remember who) because they were using terms like pk and pvp and griefer together and you didn't like it and tried to make a whole point of just that. Yet you use "open pvp" when that is just as subjective. You point to that the devs used this term in the faq, but assume they mean what you think it means. I can acknowledge that my definition of open pvp is not the same as some others, so who knows what the devs mean.

That was rhetorical. I am aware you believe to know what they mean. Correction it is a fact you know what they mean. You don't even have to read their posts objectively.

*edit = oh btw "they just have to turn it off for the other server". you really think it's that simple? You asked a question and were proven wrong. Yes, adding another server would be a change to pvp. It absolutely would impact pvp in a big big way. You can't even admit you were wrong here?

VowOfSilence
04-06-2010, 12:50 PM
Ajax wrote:

I find that a non-pvp'er coming to this game then complaining about open pvp would be much like me joining a football team and complaining that they tackle instead of touch.

No, it's like players choosing the "football manager" class and then complaining about the football simulation.

Why? Well, several teams of football players regularly storm the management offices and tackle everyone unconsious, then they scream TOUCHDOWN!! and do a victory dance on their desks.

These footballers also stubbornly argue that this is a valid playstyle in a sandbox football mmo, because sandboxes are all about player freedom and stuff, and carebears are simply too lazy and stupid to hire their own football team for protection/law enforcement/yaddayadda. Therefore, they deserve to be tackled unconsious as often as possible!

Komaf
04-06-2010, 01:37 PM
I see tons of mmorpg theory craft on these forums - but has anyone had a chance to play yet?

MrDDT
04-06-2010, 01:42 PM
I think everyone is going to far in the open PVP.
Open PVP or FFA PVP can mean a lot of things.

What if you kill someone you get 100% skill loss on your next death? Still open PVP/FFAPVP.

Key is here is what the devs want NOT what you want. He already stated he doesnt want people going around able to grief people, and he wants a few Evils, mostly neutrals and more Goods than Evils.

There are many ways to go about insuring that will happen, now just come up with ideas that fit into there, and Im sure he will take it into consideration. But saying "OMG I should be able to kill anyone any time and not have XYZ imposed on me" isnt going to cut it. Good ideas using the rules you are set with.
Just as someone saying "We need a PVE only server with no PVP" isnt going to work either.

MrDDT
04-06-2010, 01:44 PM
Komaf wrote:

I see tons of mmorpg theory craft on these forums - but has anyone had a chance to play yet?

http://www.xsyon.com/forums/6-general-discussion/12421-official-xsyon-videos-thread

Reading before you post is great.

jessebfox
04-06-2010, 02:09 PM
MrDDT wrote:

I think everyone is going to far in the open PVP.
Open PVP or FFA PVP can mean a lot of things.

What if you kill someone you get 100% skill loss on your next death? Still open PVP/FFAPVP.

Key is here is what the devs want NOT what you want. He already stated he doesnt want people going around able to grief people, and he wants a few Evils, mostly neutrals and more Goods than Evils.

There are many ways to go about insuring that will happen, now just come up with ideas that fit into there, and Im sure he will take it into consideration. But saying "OMG I should be able to kill anyone any time and not have XYZ imposed on me" isnt going to cut it. Good ideas using the rules you are set with.
Just as someone saying "We need a PVE only server with no PVP" isnt going to work either.

+1

jessebfox
04-06-2010, 02:11 PM
MrDDT wrote:

Komaf wrote:

I see tons of mmorpg theory craft on these forums - but has anyone had a chance to play yet?

http://www.xsyon.com/forums/6-general-discussion/12421-official-xsyon-videos-thread

Reading before you post is great.

I don't think he meant has anyone played the game at all, i think he means with all the "consequence" features to know how the game even is in the first place before complaining. The answer is no, it is all theory and no fact (objective fact, which is what "fact" is when not coupled with the identifier of "subjective")

JCatano
04-06-2010, 02:26 PM
Jadzia wrote:

JCatano wrote:

Jadzia -

Yes. Someone who doesn't want to engage in PvP is going to get ganked. Saying otherwise is simply being intentionally dumb.


I think you should understand that your opinion isn't a fact...if you can't, I'll leave you in your imaginary world alone :)

It's not my opinion that someone is going to get ganked in Xsyon. Call it a predetermined fact. Now, if this game was going to only have tribe v. tribe PvP, then you'd be correct, since the person could simply stay out of a tribe and never have to PvP. That isn't the case, though.



I'd love to see a poll, too. Anyone who doesn't want to be forced into PvP won't play an open-PvP game (besides you), unless they are willing to see what it's like.

I have no problem playing a game with open PvP if random PKing and ganking is rare there. As far as I see from posts, others (non-PvP players or even some PvP players too ) have the same opinion.

Ganking is fine with me. Tribe v. tribe wars will have ganking, too. Griefing is a different story. There aren't many ways to grief in open-PvP when talking about that part of the game, though. Camping a spawnpoint would be the only one really.



Subjective fact is exactly what it says. Same as subjective truth. Both can be based on observational fact/truth.

Perhaps thats why you never understand others' posts ? You see everything only from your own point of view...you don't even try to see the world with someone else's eye. Try to use objective facts, you'll be surprised how handy they are.

I understand everyone's posts. Not agreeing with them isn't the same as not understanding them. I do use some objective facts. Open-PvP is here. Some people don't like it and are trying to get it changed. Virtus said it was not going to change. "PK'ing" will have consequences.


What trick...? It's not semantics... I asked you to show me where the people who don't want to be forced into PvP support their crusade with statements other than:

"I dislike PvP."

"PK'ers ruin my day."

"PK'ers are psychopathic serial killers."

"PK'ers are 12 year old assholes who hate life." (Paraphrase from you.)

Can you please quote where did I say anything like this ? I said they are teens frustrated by their teacher, or adults frustrated by their bosses. Never said they hate life, nor they were 12 years old. I would never call a 12 year old kid an asshole, thats something only goes to adults :)

That is why it's called a paraphrase...

"I have no problem with meaningful PvP, but I hate when some random asshole lets his frustration out on me after his boss or teacher made him feel miserable in his real life." - Jadzia




"I shouldn't have to PvP if I don't want to." (Even though we all know it's open-PvP.)

So... No trick. It's a straightforward request. Where are the great arguments at?

The arguments are in the thread called "PvP vs. PK and some general impressions". You know very well. I won't quote it for you, read it again. I did, and a lot of people (not only me) worded very clear arguments. Again, if you don't understand, its probably because you have a filter in your head, which seems to make some sentences invisible for you :P

I understand them. And again... All it comes down it is "I don't want to be forced into PvP". It's not hard to understand that. Nobody has given a good argument as to why other than the idea that they rather engage in PvP on their own terms.


A new server doesn't affect the code on normal servers. It's not a change to the fundamental design of their code. They just turn it off for a PvE server.

They didn't say PVE server. They said a safer environment. That can mean PvP zones, no loot, PvP flagging, anything. Definitely a change in code. You always read more into the sentences than what is really there.

"And Xsyon said there might be another server with safer environment if there is a demand with enough players for that...how will he get to know there is a demand if we don't voice our opinion?" - Not-so-anonymous

Who said that? See? You knew what he meant.

pid73
04-06-2010, 02:30 PM
Who's winning this verbal duel?
jessefox or jcatano?

and... will the winner be able to loot the loser?

jessebfox
04-06-2010, 02:36 PM
pid73 wrote:

Who's winning this verbal duel?
jessefox or jcatano?

and... will the winner be able to loot the loser?

He is because he is not debating, just trolling. No need for logic when your entire purpose is to extend an argument.

I lose because I failed to honor the age old adage of "Never argue with an idiot, they just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." But I am a slow learner so...

jessebfox
04-06-2010, 02:50 PM
JCatano said:

Call it a predetermined fact.

Yay another kind of "fact." This again is not a fact, it is extremely lucky. Almost a foregone conclusion, but it's like saying "It is a fact I will not win the lottery." A pretty safe bet by definition not a fact. Sorry you are wrong here, and yet you continue to try to insist you are not. You STILL don't know what the word fact means. Just stop using it.



JCatano said:

Ganking is fine with me

Sorry, the devs said they do not approve of ganking and will rebalance the game to prevent it. See how I am taking what they said and interpreting it much like someone who takes "Open PVP" out and seperates it from "with consequences" to give the impression that the game is going to be something that will prove their point (and apparently to let them gank). But my point here is also rooted in a dev post which you love. They clearly don't want the game about ganking and will change consequences to ensure that.

Which means this is not the game for you. Time to move on without complaint, just like you said you would. You will be missed. If you are gonna complain about mechanics put in to prevent ganking such as stiff consequences, then find another game that has "open ganking!" listed in the features. Buh bye now.

JCatano said:

I understand everyone's posts

Well you clearly did not understand my post was about imposing game play styles. You did not understand I was saying that the pvper isn't forced to craft by the person standing next to the anvil. You took it to mean something either totally different. So either this quote is incorrect and you don't understand everyone's post or you STILL don't understand it, in which case it is hopeles.

hate to tell you, but your reading comprehension fails again because

"I have no problem with meaningful PvP, but I hate when some random asshole lets his frustration out on me after his boss or teacher made him feel miserable in his real life." - Jadzia

does not equate

"PK'ers are 12 year old assholes who hate life.

not even in a paraphrase. All poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles. I will let someone else explain what poodles have to do with the above quotes.

Your last quote I have no idea where you were going. I fail for not understanding you. I will paraphrase tho, since you like that:

"Where has a dev said they were thinking of changing pvp"

"Uh right here when they were talking about adding an entire safe server, which is far more extreme than just safe zones"

"oh uh, yeah but uh. that doesn't change pvp uh... on the one server right? so that means they aren't changing anything to do with pvp! I AM NOT WRONG!!!"

See I never learn? At least the conversation is over since by his own words he won't be back now that he knows as a fact that griefing will not be allowed. (yes that last line was on purpose)

JCatano
04-06-2010, 02:58 PM
jessebfox wrote:

- A whole lot of stuff -

Go read up on subjective fact. It should be quite what it is, anyway, since you use it yourself. As for objective fact... As I told Jadzia: Open-PvP? Ganks? Consequences? Three checkmarks.


jessebfox wrote:

You clearly did not get the point of my post at all, and still don't. The point was that a crafter sitting at an anvil does not make the pvper, or anyone else have to craft nor does he force them to change their play style, this is very clearly written in that post if you read the entire thing objectively. Others have gotten this and commented. The average pvp player does not truly impose his play style on others.

Oh, you mean like I said here:


JCatano wrote:

I'm not confused about your original post at all. You said crafters don't affect anyone's gameplay (in a later post you said they affect the game and world), PK'ers impose their playstyle on crafters, and crafters want harsh penalties. What's not to understand? Just because I didn't read it objectively after you said that crafters don't affect anyone's gameplay doesn't mean I don't understand it.

The orange is in direct relation to your above quote. I completely understand it. You just had a mini-blowup after I pointed that your following statement isn't true:

"A crafter is not penalized because him sitting by the anvil crafting is not affecting anyone else's gameplay." - jessebfox

In every post after that, you just kept saying "you don't get it!", "you don't get it!". Then, finally you tell me your original post had nothing to do with forced PvP/playstyle. I quote it and show you that it certainly has something to do with it (you even touch on forced playstyle in the first quote), and you get all worked up again.

Trust me. I get it.

Virtus
04-06-2010, 03:24 PM
come on guys, cool it.

JCatano
04-06-2010, 03:30 PM
jessebfox wrote:

JCatano said:

Call it a predetermined fact.

Yay another kind of "fact." This again is not a fact, it is extremely lucky. Almost a foregone conclusion, but it's like saying "It is a fact I will not win the lottery." A pretty safe bet by definition not a fact. Sorry you are wrong here, and yet you continue to try to insist you are not. You STILL don't know what the word fact means. Just stop using it.

I won't win the lottery, because I don't play it. You are going to get PK'd in an open-PvP game, unless of course, you don't actually play in a normal manner (mule alt, etc.).

Fact: Your argument is so flustered, that you're grasping at any straw you can. I'm surprised you haven't tried to find a typo of mine to scream about.

JCatano said:

Ganking is fine with me

Sorry, the devs said they do not approve of ganking and will rebalance the game to prevent it. See how I am taking what they said and interpreting it much like someone who takes "Open PVP" out and seperates it from "with consequences" to give the impression that the game is going to be something that will prove their point (and apparently to let them gank). But my point here is also rooted in a dev post which you love. They clearly don't want the game about ganking and will change consequences to ensure that.

Which means this is not the game for you. Time to move on without complaint, just like you said you would. You will be missed. If you are gonna complain about mechanics put in to prevent ganking such as stiff consequences, then find another game that has "open ganking!" listed in the features. Buh bye now.

I used to get ganked in SWG, which does not have open PvP. You're onto semantics, now? This game sounds like a perfect MMO for me. Just because I don't want the consequences to be too harsh for a "random PK", doesn't mean I plan on running around killing everything in sight. That's one flaw of Darkfall I do not like. On the other hand, a reasonable option to play that should be available in an open-PvP game.

JCatano said:

I understand everyone's posts

Well you clearly did not understand my post was about imposing game play styles. You did not understand I was saying that the pvper isn't forced to craft by the person standing next to the anvil. You took it to mean something either totally different. So either this quote is incorrect and you don't understand everyone's post or you STILL don't understand it, in which case it is hopeles.

See my previous post. Actually, I'll paste it for you:


JCatano wrote:

I'm not confused about your original post at all. You said crafters don't affect anyone's gameplay (in a later post you said they affect the game and world), PK'ers impose their playstyle on crafters, and crafters want harsh penalties. What's not to understand? Just because I didn't read it objectively after you said that crafters don't affect anyone's gameplay doesn't mean I don't understand it.

-----

hate to tell you, but your reading comprehension fails again because

"I have no problem with meaningful PvP, but I hate when some random asshole lets his frustration out on me after his boss or teacher made him feel miserable in his real life." - Jadzia

does not equate

"PK'ers are 12 year old assholes who hate life.

not even in a paraphrase. All poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles. I will let someone else explain what poodles have to do with the above quotes.

A paraphrase of a sentence in an article will usually be about the same length as the original sentence – just in your own words.

2. the act or process of restating or rewording.

She has used all of those words in her different generalization statements, except for maybe "12" which can be related to her use of "bored kids".

-----

Your last quote I have no idea where you were going. I fail for not understanding you. I will paraphrase tho, since you like that:

"Where has a dev said they were thinking of changing pvp"

"Uh right here when they were talking about adding an entire safe server, which is far more extreme than just safe zones"

"oh uh, yeah but uh. that doesn't change pvp uh... on the one server right? so that means they aren't changing anything to do with pvp! I AM NOT WRONG!!!"

See I never learn? At least the conversation is over since by his own words he won't be back now that he knows as a fact that griefing will not be allowed. (yes that last line was on purpose)

At least that was an attempt by you... *golf clap*

A PvE server isn't going to change any mechanic on the normal server to appease the "safer" crowd.

JCatano
04-06-2010, 03:39 PM
Virtus wrote:

come on guys, cool it.

Maybe, but only if you fix my:

User Type: Registered

to...

User Type: Subscriber

:)

Jadzia
04-06-2010, 03:41 PM
JCatano-
I think I understood your motivation finally. You are not here to discuss anything...your only goal is to win the forum fight. You don't care about the arguments, you don't want to understand other people's point of view...all you do is to try to prove you are right.

I've never seen anyone who kept loosing focus so much as you do...you kind of admitt that yourself, as you sometimes ask back what was the original point or question...since you were lost somewhere inbetween. I don't know if you do that intentionally or its only because of lack of concentration, or its because you are so eager to win the debate.

Let me show you what I mean from your last post. It was so out of track that I didn't even understand it first.

Your original question was this :

JCatano wrote:


Have the devs said anything about changing their mind with regard to open PvP? (Virtus actually said quite the opposite. He said it will not change.)

Then came my answer.

Jadzia wrote:


Yes, they did.
"We are considering two separate worlds to accomodate a different game play style if we have enough players that are interested in a 'safer' environment." quoted from Xsyon.

Then came your reply :

JCatano wrote:


That would a be new server... Not changing the mechanic of open-PvP on the current.

See ? You were proved wrong, so you try to change the original point into another one.
At this point I still had hope that you might understand, so I tried to get you back on track.

Jadzia wrote:


A new server, so ? The question was if they said anything about changing open PvP...yes, they did say, the question wasn't how it would be implemented.


JCatano wrote:


A new server doesn't affect the code on normal servers. It's not a change to the fundamental design of their code. They just turn it off for a PvE server.


See ? You don't want to admit you were wrong, and since the original question was answered correctly, you try to keep going on a new track.
At this point I decided to prove you wrong even in your new track, which was that the code won't be changed even in the new server.

Jadzia wrote:


They didn't say PVE server. They said a safer environment. That can mean PvP zones, no loot, PvP flagging, anything. Definitely a change in code. You always read more into the sentences than what is really there.


And here comes your last post...lol it really didn't make any sense.

JCatano wrote:


"And Xsyon said there might be another server with safer environment if there is a demand with enough players for that...how will he get to know there is a demand if we don't voice our opinion?" - Not-so-anonymous

Who said that? See? You knew what he meant.


At this point you totally lost the original track, and you even lost the new track which you chose when you were proved wrong in the first one. You try to act like anyone was arguing if there was a new server mentioned or not.

Just to help you a bit:
Original question:
Have the devs said anything about changing their mind with regard to open PvP?

New track:
A new server doesn't affect the code on normal servers. It's not a change to the fundamental design of their code. They just turn it off for a PvE server. ( So the question is if the code would change or not)

After all this all I can say that arguing with you is useless. You don't want a discussion, you want to win a fight of words. Thats not my intention, so I'm out of this pointless and neverending debate.

Virtus
04-06-2010, 03:45 PM
i said that's enough

Jadzia
04-06-2010, 03:50 PM
Virtus wrote:

i said that's enough
Well, I was writing my post, so didn't see yours.

jessebfox
04-06-2010, 04:30 PM
Virtus wrote:

i said that's enough

I had started one as well, but real life delayed so I refreshed the forum and saw this. Aye aye, captain!

It was never gonna end anyway. I don't need the last word, I can agree to disagree.

JCatano
04-06-2010, 04:34 PM
Virtus -

Any update on if we actually have a record-of-purchase by you guys, since our forum account does not say Subscriber? I'm not the only person with this issue. Do you need the transaction #?

I tried to PM, but the page isn't loading for me right now.

*Edit* Just saw your "enough" post, too. I'll start a Kumbaya thread.








:lol:

Primavera
04-12-2010, 08:35 AM
At the risk of inviting more self indulgent blarney (I got to page 16 before skipping to 23 which I think is a real acheivement :lol: ), can anyone tell me if people who are killed by the enviroment are lootable, and do opportunities for theft and deception exist and do they also have consequences?

FPrime
02-10-2011, 01:47 PM
Bumping this to bring it to others' attention. I didn't read the entire thread, but the OP by Jooky is enlightening. If this is the pvp system that is still in place/going to be in live then I am happy with it. It has room for different playstyles/values and seems balanced overall.

Can anyone confirm or deny if this is still the plan? Seems to be a lot of confusion on these boards about this subject.

JCatano
02-10-2011, 03:41 PM
Bumping this to bring it to others' attention. I didn't read the entire thread, but the OP by Jooky is enlightening. If this is the pvp system that is still in place/going to be in live then I am happy with it. It has room for different playstyles/values and seems balanced overall.

Can anyone confirm or deny if this is still the plan? Seems to be a lot of confusion on these boards about this subject.

I don't even think he knows, anymore.

Most of it sounded good, but needs to be simplified. All of those extra rules aren't needed.

vorg
02-11-2011, 01:24 AM
I don't even think he knows, anymore.

Most of it sounded good, but needs to be simplified. All of those extra rules aren't needed.

Don't dumb it down. So many games start out with great ideas, but then to passify the lazy roaming crowds, the game is distroyed becoming just like every other game out there. If a player has to think too much for his liking, he can go play one of the many many many simple games. These players tend to come in, complain a lot about it being too hard or complex making a lot of noise about it. The game gets dumbed down, they get board in a few months or less and move on to the next.

JCatano
02-11-2011, 02:19 AM
Don't dumb it down. So many games start out with great ideas, but then to passify the lazy roaming crowds, the game is distroyed becoming just like every other game out there. If a player has to think too much for his liking, he can go play one of the many many many simple games. These players tend to come in, complain a lot about it being too hard or complex making a lot of noise about it. The game gets dumbed down, they get board in a few months or less and move on to the next.

It has nothing to do with dumbing it down or needing to think in the game. All of the looting rules and "you won't really die in Prelude, but will after", etc. are simply inflated for no good reason. Go read them.

mgilbrtsn
02-14-2011, 09:14 AM
Sounds good, but I have a couple of questions:

If you are defending yourself from a good or neutral player does it still count as having killed a friendly player? I wouldn't think so, but I want to make sure.

If you do kill a good/neutral player and turn evil, how do you become good again. Will it be time based, do you have to kill a certain amount of reds, etc. I think this is important because mistakes do happen and it shouldn't be a permanent banishment from the forces of good.

This may have already been covered and I just missed it. Thanks in advance.

TweFoju
02-14-2011, 10:18 AM
Sorry if this has been asked, but will players able to loot that only in the Inventory, or even the armor you are wearing?

how about Money? will the Victor have the options to loot the defeated player's money as well?

Jadzia
02-14-2011, 01:18 PM
Sounds good, but I have a couple of questions:

If you are defending yourself from a good or neutral player does it still count as having killed a friendly player? I wouldn't think so, but I want to make sure.

If you do kill a good/neutral player and turn evil, how do you become good again. Will it be time based, do you have to kill a certain amount of reds, etc. I think this is important because mistakes do happen and it shouldn't be a permanent banishment from the forces of good.

This may have already been covered and I just missed it. Thanks in advance.

Good questions, but there is no information about them. Would be nice to know before launch for sure.

Niburu
02-16-2011, 05:24 PM
Isn't the stat/skill loss abit annoying. You already lose all your items isn't that enough ?

chaosegg
02-19-2011, 02:14 AM
Exciting inside look from the dev team; thanks for that!
I am quite impressed with the obvious thought put into this game so far.
I daresay that within this PvP structure I see influences from several other games I have played....

As to the ongoing walls of text being spammed into this thread...
I've seen this "PvP philosophy in online gaming" discussion played out time after time in so many games over the last 10 years,
and it rarely reaches a solid conclusion, but I'll throw my two cents in.

No matter what, it's still a game, and people are always going to play for fun,
as well as realize that the consequences of their actions are virtual (unless they aren't).

For example:
In real life people would generally not do any of the ganking, stealing, random harassment, or smack talking that goes on in the male-dominated online gaming arena.
If they did, there would be a set of consequences that would be orders of magnitude more harsh from what happens if they did it relatively anonymously in a game over the internet.

So ramp up the penalties in-game to deal with the over-zealous little bastards you say?
That makes sense, but at the same time the level of fun must be maintained since it is a game and supposed to be fun.

Then you have the realism issues and other things...
all I know is that I don't like bound items. I liked how Darkfall had only crappy bound items that allowed you to not be completely screwed, when ganked,
and there wasn't a race for badass bound stuff (I'm thinking EQ 1 PvP server gear being completely different from the PvE server gear).
I also don't like the idea that someone can grief and not pay a significant price each time they do. Somethingawful goons are a perfect example of groups of players who become notoriously good at sniffing out opportunity for getting a bit more grief than they get consequence, and using the leverage in the difference to find humor in ruining the play experience for others.
The world has plenty of these types of pathetic creatures, but they are generally vastly outnumbered by "nice" good folks... but if you are not vigilant on the internet, the ignorant, immature sociopath, and/or jackass can band together with others like themselves and find that they not only outnumber, but overpower everyone else (who is used to being the majority, and not having to deal with all sorts of bullshit, so they say F-this and leave).

/end tiredbrain rant:o