PvP and PvE do not need to be mutually exclusive.

[mrcalhou]

All this talk about Xsyon being such and such game or not being such and such game is just a weak arguement that has little thought put into it. Not that I'm really surprised. Safe zones are not evil. Lootable corpses are not evil. Just because Darkfall and Mortal Online failed to get a system in place to limit greifers doesn't mean that it cannot be done. Some older MMOs pretty much nailed balance on the head. It's the new crop of imitators that aren't able to do it properly.

[Hanover]

Rather moot, Xsyon doesn't really offer much of either.

[orious13]

I think the game is about neither really. Or at least prelude specifically.

[Dubanka]

All this talk about Xsyon being such and such game or not being such and such game is just a weak arguement that has little thought put into it. Not that I'm really surprised. Safe zones are not evil. Lootable corpses are not evil. Just because Darkfall and Mortal Online failed to get a system in place to limit greifers doesn't mean that it cannot be done. Some older MMOs pretty much nailed balance on the head. It's the new crop of imitators that aren't able to do it properly.

agree. whoever gets it right will make a ton of money.

[Hanover]

I think the game is about neither really. Or at least prelude specifically.

Its currently PvB

[mrcalhou]

Xsyon doesn't really offer much of either.
This is truth, but my point still stands. Both can be done in the same game, both can be done well, and one need not be overshadowed by the other.

[Hanover]

This is truth, but my point still stands. Both can be done in the same game, both can be done well, and one need not be overshadowed by the other.


I'll agree to that

[silverhaze]

xsyon is mmostuyag (massively multi-player online stick thumb up your ass game) not an mmorpg like the others that have balance.

[Hanover]

xsyon is mmostuyag (massively multi-player online stick thumb up your ass game) not an mmorpg like the others that have balance.

What you do in the privacy of your Totem is entirely up to you, we don't judge.

[Jadzia]

What you do in the privacy of your Totem is entirely up to you, we don't judge.

LOL nice reply

[orious13]

What you do in the privacy of your Totem is entirely up to you, we don't judge.

Probably does that to scare away the grizzlies.

[jokhul]

All this talk about Xsyon being such and such game or not being such and such game is just a weak arguement that has little thought put into it. Not that I'm really surprised. Safe zones are not evil. Lootable corpses are not evil. Just because Darkfall and Mortal Online failed to get a system in place to limit greifers doesn't mean that it cannot be done. Some older MMOs pretty much nailed balance on the head. It's the new crop of imitators that aren't able to do it properly.

I don't believe it can be done, not in a game that has FFA-PVP everywhere in the game world.

Mortal Online tried to emulate the old UO system of making PK'ers turn red and being KOS in NPC towns (insta-gank by all-powerful NPC guards). However, MO also allows a player to have multiple characters on one account, so the "penalty" of loss of access to NPC facilities was easily circumvented. Some "red" guilds had a small army of "blue" alts just for that pupose, lol.

In fact, Mortal Online has an incredibly complex system of flagging players, but the really inventive gankers actually used the complexity of the system to their advantage. It certainly did not seem to have any major impact on ganking.

There's usually a way around most alignment penalties, and if players have the will, they will always find a way. There are of course also those people that are dedicated to "beating the system", and will go to incredible lengths to be able to PK.

The only guaranteed way of stopping random ganking is to to have seperate zones in the game world.

Complex rule-systems are usually exploited by both sides, PK'ers and PVE'ers equally if the opportunity presents itself.

[PrinceReaper]

I don't believe it can be done, not in a game that has FFA-PVP everywhere in the game world.

Mortal Online tried to emulate the old UO system of making PK'ers turn red and being KOS in NPC towns (insta-gank by all-powerful NPC guards). However, MO also allows a player to have multiple characters on one account, so the "penalty" of loss of access to NPC facilities was easily circumvented. Some "red" guilds had a small army of "blue" alts just for that pupose, lol.

In fact, Mortal Online has an incredibly complex system of flagging players, but the really inventive gankers actually used the complexity of the system to their advantage. It certainly did not seem to have any major impact on ganking.

There's usually a way around most alignment penalties, and if players have the will, they will always find a way. There are of course also those people that are dedicated to "beating the system", and will go to incredible lengths to be able to PK.

The only guaranteed way of stopping random ganking is to to have seperate zones in the game world.

Complex rule-systems are usually exploited by both sides, PK'ers and PVE'ers equally if the opportunity presents itself.

it doesn't make a major difference if you had one character, if you have 2 accounts :)

[jokhul]

it doesn't make a major difference if you had one character, if you have 2 accounts :)

Exactly.

"One char per account" reduces the pool of potential PK'ers a bit, but it most certainly does not eliminate it.

[orious13]

it doesn't make a major difference if you had one character, if you have 2 accounts :)

Yep... people in this will just buy more than one account to take advantage of the whatever system. IMO it's many times the community's fault that those games fail in some ways.

[Dubanka]

the whole multiple account thing is because the game rewards someone for making an alt account...either to gain access to a set of skills (ie. crafter/pvp alt) or skirt a rule set (pvp/karma flag). If game design didn't reward a player for making an alt account, or rather give them a 'real' advantage by making one, then only a minority would.


I don't believe it can be done, not in a game that has FFA-PVP everywhere in the game world.
That is the absolute best place it can be done...provided the game mechanics and balance are supportive to that end.
every action needs to have a counter action
every decision needs to have a consequence

the more artificial restrictions you point an a character or mechanic the more open it is for abuse

[Hanover]

IMO it's many times the community's fault that those games fail in some ways.

Yep...Carebears killed UO.

[Jadzia]

All this talk about Xsyon being such and such game or not being such and such game is just a weak arguement that has little thought put into it. Not that I'm really surprised. Safe zones are not evil. Lootable corpses are not evil. Just because Darkfall and Mortal Online failed to get a system in place to limit greifers doesn't mean that it cannot be done. Some older MMOs pretty much nailed balance on the head. It's the new crop of imitators that aren't able to do it properly.

Can you mention one game with FFA open world PvP that the PvP and PvE crowd equally enjoyed ?

[xyberviri]

I simply can not believe that you the players would not be able to implement your own system to deal with gankers. How hard is it to have a KOS list of your own and to simply band up with your neighbors in your zone against the ganker/griefer.

Everyone here is all vocal and able to post a reply on this thread talking about how much you hate gankers and griefers and what not but no one is willing to actually try to defend them selves. because the only thing gankers strive on is you have to be weak. you have to run like a bunny and get killed and thats exactly what they want.

but no you need some artificial mechanic to create this safe zone where your warm blanky protects you and only the bears will be able to hurt you.


you know exactly whats going to happen there going to camp your bears and your resources and your not going to be able to do anything about it because you cried and cried about how much the game needs to protect you from the harsh cruel mmo world. There going to terra form around your tribes and cut down all your trees and you wont be able to stop them.




PvP doesn't always mean some one dies or even gets attacked. and in games with out combat PvP you just get it in other forms. at least with open world pvp you can defend your self with out it your just going to be stuck sitting on the side lines while some ass hole paves over your scrap, grass, sand, twigs and brush.



Instead of complaining about how you need a pve only zone and a pvp only zone, why not help by contributing to the mechanics that let you take control over that ass. what about say bounty systems, what about wanted posters that let you post rewards for killing them, what about some method to get revenge on them.

[Dubanka]

Can you mention one game with FFA open world PvP that the PvP and PvE crowd equally enjoyed ?

it hasn't been built. you can say UO...but the industry was in its infancy then. unfortunately devs have been caught in the clone loop. the industry has been dominated by the eq grind model, and the wow instance model, with tertiary grind covered by the f2p supergrind games. everyone builds a game to try to take someone elses (proven) niche. ever segway into the truly massively multiplayer arena as been attempted by indie devs who inevitably fall short due to lack of funds, talent, or in some cases their own success.

Give me 30 Mil and ill make your game.

Added after 6 minutes:


I simply can not believe that you the players would not be able to implement your own system to deal with gankers. How hard is it to have a KOS list of your own and to simply band up with your neighbors in your zone against the ganker/griefer.

Everyone here is all vocal and able to post a reply on this thread talking about how much you hate gankers and griefers and what not but no one is willing to actually try to defend them selves. because the only thing gankers strive on is you have to be weak. you have to run like a bunny and get killed and thats exactly what they want.

but no you need some artificial mechanic to create this safe zone where your warm blanky protects you and only the bears will be able to hurt you.


you know exactly whats going to happen there going to camp your bears and your resources and your not going to be able to do anything about it because you cried and cried about how much the game needs to protect you from the harsh cruel mmo world. There going to terra form around your tribes and cut down all your trees and you wont be able to stop them.




PvP doesn't always mean some one dies or even gets attacked. and in games with out combat PvP you just get it in other forms. at least with open world pvp you can defend your self with out it your just going to be stuck sitting on the side lines while some ass hole paves over your scrap, grass, sand, twigs and brush.



Instead of complaining about how you need a pve only zone and a pvp only zone, why not help by contributing to the mechanics that let you take control over that ass. what about say bounty systems, what about wanted posters that let you post rewards for killing them, what about some method to get revenge on them.

excellent post.

best part was the 5th para/sentence. I like open pvp games, not because i'm a great pvpr (im not) but because i can hold someone accountable for their behavior. I don't have to accept that bob the moron is going to ks every mob i kill, or ninja loot the uber bling from the dungeon i crawled through, or that i can only stand by helplessly as he rolls in with an uber farming group to take over the mob spawn i was working in. Nope. I, with the help of my friends, can dealt with the situation.

imo griefing in a pvpless world is soo much more worse than when it is done in an open pvp world...because yousimply dont have any options, besides crying, in the former. I want to determine the outcome of the game, not require that some dev/gm/guide hold my hand when the world doesnt go my way.

[Book]

One problem with bounty systems, or forcing someone who doesn't really like PvP into constant PvP to deal with griefers, is you're basically rewarding the problem behavior by providing an opportunity for more of the problem behavior. Someone who really likes PvP would probably enjoy having a sizable bounty wouldn't they? :)

I can see the point about them just liking to prey on the weak... but how to find a counter-mechanic that fits in with what a PvE customer likes as well is the hard part... or is it? Open to ideas.

[Jadzia]

it hasn't been built. you can say UO...but the industry was in its infancy then. unfortunately devs have been caught in the clone loop. the industry has been dominated by the eq grind model, and the wow instance model, with tertiary grind covered by the f2p supergrind games. everyone builds a game to try to take someone elses (proven) niche. ever segway into the truly massively multiplayer arena as been attempted by indie devs who inevitably fall short due to lack of funds, talent, or in some cases their own success.

Give me 30 Mil and ill make your game.


Thought so. I agree with jokhul, it can't be done. Either it has to have strict PK penalties which would upset the PvP players, or not have strict ones enough...which would upset the PvE players. Balance only means that both side is upset.

Player policy sounds nice in theory, but we all know it doesn't work.

Dub, I'd like to hear some ideas from you, how would you create a balanced system which could benefit both sides.

[xyberviri]

Statement: I dont like pvp, it sucks i think all pvpers should die
Answer: okay go find a tribe that has a group of pvpers that can protect you
Rebuttal: i dont want to join a tribe i want to be a lonely hermit that pays 14.00/mo to be antisocial and have a chat room
Answer: MMO games require you to at least come into contact with your fellow gamer even if you dont like it. your basically playing for AOL and having the internet just because you want access to there email address and chat rooms.


Do you not want pvp because you dont like getting attacked or do you not want pvp because you simply dont want to play a game where other people come into contact with you?

Really the only thing that i could think of is the alignment system in that evil aligned players shouldn't have any safe zones, im not saying that you can just run in and destroy there stuff, im saying that there safe zone should be set at like 1% of there totem radius with a minimum of 1m. where the "can not be attacked" rule does not apply.

bounty system would work in theory. but we would need currency and some way to enforce it, and with out a tracking system your just basically running around zones looking for people. you can do it old west style and talk to people to find your mark.

alignment system would have to come into play, where as a Evil player would be open to attack in there safe zone all the time and neutrals would be only if they Killed X amount of people a hour/day/session/what ever and good players were strictly prohibited from kill players with alignment neutral to good alignment.

Basically Killing Good people is Bad & Killing Bad People is Good

Thats where your penalty comes into play and it should have an affect on the tribe the player is in.

[Drevar]

The problem seems to be that all these sandbox games are trying to be hybrids. They have features from both crafter/builder and FFA PvP want lists. Most of the time, these "wants" infringe on the other group's fun.

When one side wants order and peace and the other wants chaos and contant pewpew, how the heck are they supposed to play together? Its like throwing cold water into a fire and expecting there to be no noise or steam.

Both systems in a single game require essentially two different sub-games, and that puts a major strain on development. That doesn't even include the PvE element most mainstream games include. Look at the balance issues caused by trying to balance combat in PvP without hosing those who only PvE and vice versa.

The arguments in Xsyon basically boil down to :
Crafter : "The game is centered around crafting and rebuilding civilization, wtf are you playing and bitching?"
PvP : "Because this is a open PvP/FFA loot game."

PvP :"This game is FFA PvP based, if you can't handle that go back to WoW..but QQ on the forums first, plzkthx."
Crafter : "Other games don't have the crafting and building/terraforming options that I've been looking for in an MMO for 10 years."

I would love to see a system that addresses the needs and wants of both groups that doesn't involve totally splitting the two groups into different worlds or mutually exclusive game systems within the same world. The only thing I can think of is some sort of consentual flagging, but that goes against the whole FFA PvP wants of the fighting crowd. Please cite a system / game that you think works, not just "its been done in other games".

Drev

[Jadzia]

@xyberviri: ok, let's say evil players have no safe zones. Someone kill a PKer. Now what ? He is dead, big deal. He might have lost his armor, time to grab one of the spare ones (like a 100) he has stocked up. He respawn in 2 mins, and start to bug the PvE player again. This system doesn't work.

Now let's say an evil player can be killed in his area, and get a harsh death penalty, like huge permanent stat loss. That would make him think twice before going out to PK. How is that good ? He can't play the game in the way he likes so he leaves. This system doesn't work either.

[xyberviri]

Personally i see the whole, we need a pve only server/zone/flag as the crutch to hold on to the old "Save Before entering dungeon", "save after rescuing the princess the 1st time", "save after picking the lock and not jamming it shut after reloading the last save 10 times because of a skill failure".

Also im not just a PvPer im also a Crafter and i have two accounts. one account is my pvper and the other is my crafter, they are both mutually exclusive in there abilities and play styles. my crafter can't out run my pvp and couldn't stand up to it in a fair fight specifically because i focused on just being a crafter and forsaken much of the "defend your self" ability.

so i see both sides of the argument.

Also im not a ass hat that just wants open world pvp so i can go out and kill everyone i see. how ever i do like when a game has open mechanics that allow players to deal with the problems them selves. the biggest problem is

Griefer+safe zone + pver + safezone = endless camping of one or the other.
you can't band against a griefer in his safe zone and you can't leave if your the only one there.
the safe zone for greifers is what is making it difficult to correct the situation because they can just log out if they can't leave there safe zone.
how ever you can't say lets just go in and let all there stuff be FFA because that is still wrong.

you could take into the account of If i kill you, there should be some form of mark on me that lets you kill me at least with out that mark going back to you. but not unfairly so that you intended to get kill just to gank me later.

killing too many people in a short period of time should build up kill/rep/alignment counts of some time. even in big battles your not going to rack up a bunch of kills in a big group.

At the same time if i just run up to you in a safe zone and start attacking you im pretty sure either A im stupid and dont know or B im tring to kill you and am a greifer at heart and stupid and didn't know.

[Book]

Statement: I dont like pvp, it sucks i think all pvpers should die
Answer: okay go find a tribe that has a group of pvpers that can protect you
Rebuttal: i dont want to join a tribe i want to be a lonely hermit that pays 14.00/mo to be antisocial and have a chat room
Answer: MMO games require you to at least come into contact with your fellow gamer even if you dont like it. your basically playing for AOL and having the internet just because you want access to there email address and chat rooms.


Do you not want pvp because you dont like getting attacked or do you not want pvp because you simply dont want to play a game where other people come into contact with you?

Really the only thing that i could think of is the alignment system in that evil aligned players shouldn't have any safe zones, im not saying that you can just run in and destroy there stuff, im saying that there safe zone should be set at like 1% of there totem radius with a minimum of 1m. where the "can not be attacked" rule does not apply.

bounty system would work in theory. but we would need currency and some way to enforce it, and with out a tracking system your just basically running around zones looking for people. you can do it old west style and talk to people to find your mark.

alignment system would have to come into play, where as a Evil player would be open to attack in there safe zone all the time and neutrals would be only if they Killed X amount of people a hour/day/session/what ever and good players were strictly prohibited from kill players with alignment neutral to good alignment.

Basically Killing Good people is Bad & Killing Bad People is Good

Thats where your penalty comes into play and it should have an affect on the tribe the player is in.

Initial statement seems a bit harsh :)
The answer is cool in that tribal cooperation is always a good thing, but now the PvE player is dependent upon the rl schedules of PvP players to play the game. Also, not fair to PvP players to expect them to be available for protection when there is no action. They probably have better things to do.
Homesteaders aren't necessarily lonely :) or anti-social. There can be a hermit element to it, that can be a fun RP as well (and legit for people who do enjoy that RP).

Bounty system is still rewarding a problem behavior by providing more opportunity for problem behavior. Unless you perhaps impose stat loss with increasing severity as the bounty grows so that it is not just providing reward for the culprit. The stat loss would need to last a considerable amount of time after the bounty is collected so that the culprit cannot simply farm out his bounty for a get out of jail free card.
An effective consequence should serve as a deterrent, not a motivation, imho.

[jokhul]

Everyone always holds up original UO (pre-Trammel) as the ideal, because all playstyles were present there.

However, pre-Trammel UO was an aberration, never to be repeated. Those players that were not there for the PVP and PK'ing fled en-masse as soon as they had an alternative. Unfortunately they were also the majority of the playerbase, and the diverse world of Trammel was became one-dimensional overnight.

I'm not pronouncing judgement, I'm not calling PK'ers or gankers "bad" or "evil".

The two playstyles (PK and non-PK) are simply diametrically opposed. The PK'ers always win, because in a one-on-one, a player with little or no PVP experience will lose a fight 99% of the time. The only defense for a non-PVP'er is to... learn to PVP !

Mortal Online was intended to be a "living world" where both non-PVP'ers and PVP-focused players could thrive. But no rule-set on earth can allow a non-combat playstyle to thrive in a world with FFA-PVP. MO launched with well-developed (if somewhat buggy) combat systems, but almost nothing for non-combat players. As a result, the "living, diverse world" was stillborn.

Xsyon will follow the same path. It may well become a great game of tribal conquest and epic fights, but it will have no room for anyone that cannot swing a sword.

[Book]

@xyberviri: ok, let's say evil players have no safe zones. Someone kill a PKer. Now what ? He is dead, big deal. He might have lost his armor, time to grab one of the spare ones (like a 100) he has stocked up. He respawn in 2 mins, and start to bug the PvE player again. This system doesn't work.

Now let's say an evil player can be killed in his area, and get a harsh death penalty, like huge permanent stat loss. That would make him think twice before going out to PK. How is that good ? He can't play the game in the way he likes so he leaves. This system doesn't work either.

Actually, the "griefer" is an extreme situation. Open PvP would probably work as most PvPers would probably prefer the challenge of fighting other PvPers rather than just hunting down the easy kills.

The problem, imho, is in trying to provide the reasonable, well-adjusted, PvPer with a system where his/her gameplay isn't just as destroyed by the griefer in having their mechanics screwed up just to deal with the griefer.

If a player imposed mechanic is in place that runs the griefer off the server... both sides win... someone correct me :)
Ok, I guess that's $15 less a month but would probably pay for itself pretty quickly.

[xyberviri]

-snipe-

Right but the going out and repeatably killing said pve player is not the behavior we want to reward.

like up were im at we have a player that will stalk you until you decide to log off, the dude strait up will kill you and take your stuff. but he has pretty high skill and a bad internet connection. he ports around like crazy and you have to fight him for a couple of hours before you learn to hit him with his lag.

kills everyone, even has a massive amount of logs from all the trees he cut down.

1 homestead tons of baskets, probably stolen, guy cuts down 3-4 pvpers in bone armor while running around naked, trolololol the whole time.

kill him take his stuff guy comes back, kill him again take his stuff guy comes back, get killed lose your stuff guy comes back.

I understand exactly what your talking about because some times i just simply dont feel like going out and getting killed and having to replace the stuff just to go out and get killed again.

how ever, would i want my ability to go out and fight him taken away? No

Neither would i like for his ability to go out and kill me and take my stuff away.

He strait up will tell you, im going to go and kill you and your tribe until you can stop me and that's all i plan on doing.

We followed him back to his camp and attempted to kill him and no, got killed looted and ported home. all i could do is watch him in his homestead while he put away his treasures and got read to attack us.


The only thing that would have helped is being able to go in and attack him on his turf, im not talking about taking stuff in his bags in his safe zone but just being able to stand there and not attack him because of immunity is the only thing that prevented us from being able to discourage the behavior.

That is called home field advantage, if that can be removed for Pkers then you start to discourage the behavior, onezy twozy kills no im talking about the i just logged in and killed 10 people in the last 5 minutes.

Kill tracking needs to be enabled for players, if i have 10 kills in 5 years this isn't something that should be seen as a reason to loose my safe zone. if i have 1000 kills in 5 days how ever you think there should be something up. no artificially imposed safe zone should exist for a player as bad ass as me should it, maybe im just a jerk and likes to prey on people that dont fight back. Safe zone + Greifer = bad situation.


-snipe-

Exactly, most normal pvper aren't going to go out looking for you pve players because your the sheep when were hunting wolves, yeah you might get a stray punch every now and then but that doesn't mean were actually meaning to attack you.

[jokhul]

Actually, the "griefer" is an extreme situation. Open PvP would probably work as most PvPers would probably prefer the challenge of fighting other PvPers rather than just hunting down the easy kills.

The problem, imho, is in trying to provide the reasonable, well-adjusted, PvPer with a system where his/her gameplay isn't just as destroyed by the griefer in having their mechanics screwed up just to deal with the griefer.

If a player imposed mechanic is in place that runs the griefer off the server... both sides win... someone correct me :)
Ok, I guess that's $15 less a month but would probably pay for itself pretty quickly.

If a group of players "band together and run a griefer off the server", that will most likely be reported as harassment, and the "group of players" may be staring at the wrong end of the ban stick... You cannot expel a player from a game if they are simply doing what the game allows them to do. Only the devs can pronounce judgement on what constitutes an acceptable playstyle.

[Dirt]

that was pretty funny what you said, Hanover.

[Jadzia]

Actually, the "griefer" is an extreme situation. Open PvP would probably work as most PvPers would probably prefer the challenge of fighting other PvPers rather than just hunting down the easy kills.

Actually this was sadly proven wrong in Darkfall, where PKers were constantly killing newbies in the starting areas. I'm sure there are a lot of PvPers who prefer challenging fights, but there are more who just like to pick on the weaker ones, for fun or for loot.

In Atitd there is an interesting mechanic to deal with griefers. There is an election system, players can be elected to demi-pharaos. A Demi-Pharao has the right to permanently ban another player. As far as I know this only happened once during the lifestyle of the game, but still its interesting. But its too much power for a player imo, though this is the ultimate 'player policy'.

xyberviri, the system you want is the system in plan. If they implement the alignment system then the evil players won't have safe zones. Still it won't solve the problem mentioned in the OP imo, it won't even solve your problem. You will kill that player and he will just be back in 2 minutes.

Most of PvE players don't like forced PvP. Now the point is not that why they don't like it or how they could be forced to like it. The OP said a system which makes both side happy is possible. I'm interested in ideas for such a system. Not in Xsyon exclusively, mainly in theory. I don't see how it could be done in an open PvP system. With separated zones like in Eve, yes that way it can work.

[xyberviri]

If a group of players "band together and run a griefer off the server", that will most likely be reported as harassment, and the "group of players" may be staring at the wrong end of the ban stick... You cannot expel a player from a game if they are simply doing what the game allows them to do. Only the devs can pronounce judgement on what constitutes an acceptable playstyle.

Again just because you can do something doesn't make it right to do it, because its allowed by the game mechanic doesn't mean its acceptable behavior. I can walk into a movie theater and shout fire, but that doesn't make it right.

getting a group of players banned is exactly what a greifer would do as well,

how ever there really shouldn't be anything wrong with rounding up a posse to run the player off a certain part of the map. that should not be seen as harassment. now following them and making it a point to follow them is something that could be seen as harassment. but if a group doesn't want you around them thats there right and you either should move, negotiate with them or fight. This isn't something that should require intervention from the devs/guides/GMs/whatever

[Drevar]

The situation where players will band together to fight off a common enemy almost never happens. Why? Because that group of players DOESN'T WANT TO PvP! All a carebear posse accomplishes is providing the "bad guys" with entertainment at the expense of the playtime of the other side...nothing has changed, except now the fun is coming to them instead of the PvPer having to trek a few minutes to go harrass the basket weavers and junk sorters.

[orious13]

The community in this game has the best chance to make things work. You cannot rely on the game mechanics to create a game with both pvp and non-pvp (I didn't say pve) players to coincide with no restrictions in a completely free sandbox. The way that Eve does it and the thought process behind Dawntide is the same... a safe area with poor to normal resources and a bigger area that allows for building and normal-to-high quality resources. This is the only mechanic that can create fun for both sides in a "content", but imperfect way. The only other way that this can be done is if the community allows it to be done. It will not...at least not yet.

For those asking... "Why won't the community police itself?" ask your self would you rather be the police or the criminal? Many people would say neither. Many people would say "I'll police around my tribe only". That's really not good enough. Players and people are too selfish. More people in real life fight to protect their assets and/or freedoms and avoid fighting to avoid losing those things. More people in games fight to destroy or fight just for the sake and fun of fighting with little regard to loss of pixels. The only way I see it working is to create a tribe that is specifically called "the mercenary police" or an alliance: A good aligned tribe/alliance that sends members to other tribes to help police their areas...rent-a-cops...except not fat and more useful. However, who would join that tribe or alliance? Is protecting pixels really worth it?

It's like saying "There's too much crime...we need some police here." "Ok, will you join the police?" "No...Why don't you join it? I don't want to." or "No...Because I am a criminal *stab stab*."

Hypocrisy.

[Jadzia]

Again just because you can do something doesn't make it right to do it, because its allowed by the game mechanic doesn't mean its acceptable behavior. I can walk into a movie theater and shout fire, but that doesn't make it right.

getting a group of players banned is exactly what a greifer would do as well,

how ever there really shouldn't be anything wrong with rounding up a posse to run the player off a certain part of the map. that should not be seen as harassment. now following them and making it a point to follow them is something that could be seen as harassment. but if a group doesn't want you around them thats there right and you either should move, negotiate with them or fight. This isn't something that should require intervention from the devs/guides/GMs/whatever

That could work in a PvP game. But not in a game where PvE and PvP are supposed to live together in happiness /pointing to the thread title

[Mactavendish]

Somehow personal choice seems to have been left out of the discussion.

I CAN pvp, have enough point into things and plenty fine armor and when the situation calls for it I of course CAN pvp...

But, what it I simply choose not to? I still have plenty of things to occupy my time, plenty of friends to chat with, and things to build. If we have developed our tribal area and made it defensable, then to me there is NO issue at all, since I have choices.

It is not about PVP or PVE or forcing anyone to be anything. It is, and has always been a matter of choice .. and THAT is exactly why I like playing this game

[Drevar]

In real life, if I shoot that guy breaking into my house..he stays shot (welcome to Texas, asshole!). There are real consequences.

In Xsyon its a 3 minute reload and 5 minute run and the asshat is back in my face again...and chances are HE feels wronged and needs to get revenge by chopping all the local trees or paving over nearby junk piles.

[mrcalhou]

I don't believe it can be done, not in a game that has FFA-PVP everywhere in the game world.
The mentality that it MUST be EVERYWHERE in the game world is exactly why those games failed with balancing it. It doesn't need to be everywhere. It only needs to be in a large part of the game world and have a nice variety of unique resources and things to do.



That is the absolute best place it can be done...provided the game mechanics and balance are supportive to that end.
every action needs to have a counter action
every decision needs to have a consequence

Pretty much this. Doesn't matter if it's "good" action or an "evil" action. It needs to have an appropriate consequence.

I'm personally of the opinion that an alignment system as used for punishing evil players and rewarding good players is bollocks. Time and time again have proven those systems have tons of loopholes, are exploitible, and don't really do anything to players. Moreover, in an FPS/TPS type combat system it's too easy to accidentally hit someone that you have no intention of hitting, or having them run into your line of fire for the sole reason of damaging your alignment.

I would suggest ditching an alignment system, especially since we have no NPCs, keep the rules and effects the same for everyone, and have places where PvP can happen anywhere, anytime and places where PvP can happen. They then need to stop relying on having players be the primary source content. I love the idea of emergent gameplay as anyone else on this forum, heck Eve is one of my favorite games, but even Eve doesn't completely rely on players being the sole source of content for the entire player-base (well it does behind-the-scenes so to speak, with the buying and selling from the auction).

[AngelusDD]

i dont want to stir up a swarm of hornets...
yet, i am quite radical when it comes to PvP, PvE and griefers.

just implement stat-decay (i dont call for semi-perma/perma death) once a player lose his life. and a 10min timer for healing.
from my experience, griefers are too lazy to regrind skills after they got killed by a "player police force" more than 3-5 times....so that is a reasonable (yet not perfect) way to deal with griefers.

and a good PvP or PvE experience is when you feel a thrill while you fight. because getting killed means something. and get a kill is then more rewarding.

[Dubanka]

part of the area where this game currently fails, both in execution and in design, is the ability to control territory.

hOnestly, tribes should be able to post npc guards. different types of guards do different things. guard your walls, patrol your tribal area, patrol a certain range outside your tribal area. YOu should be able to set them to allies, enemies, and individual kos. They shouldnt be godly powerful, but should be of equivalent power of a well geared, decently skilled player. They wont win a seige for you, or fight off a massed organized incursion by a rival tribe, but they would make the solo 'gankers' job much more difficult...and make the controlled tribal area more secure (without needing an organized player pvp deterrent force 24-7).

Also, without the ability to forcibly remove our neighbors, we do not have the ability to control who is within eaasy striking distance of us. I hate teh safe mechanic whereby someone can come, kill me, then hide in his mystic barrier where i can't get retribution...much less move him out of the neighborhood. Give notice that all undesirables will be removed, police your neighborhood, voila, you eliminate most of your hostile pvp incursions.

[xyberviri]

the problem with that is the current safe zones aren't going away, there just going to not need protecting from said invader.

[Dubanka]

exactly my point.

you cant secure your area because you cant remove the people youdon't like...because they're just as safe as you. So even tho you have at tribe of over 100 players, 1 homesteader can completely 'screw up' the 'game experience' for a bunch of folks (assuming they'd prefer not to engage in pvp).

if you could establish a tribal perimeter of known and friendly tribes, and let it be known that any people planting without your express permission will be forcibly CAMPED and REMOVED from the area...wow, your world just got a whole lot safer.

[mrcalhou]

the problem with that is the current safe zones aren't going away, there just going to not need protecting from said invader.

The current safe-zone system needs to be trashed. I'm honestly surprised that someone thought it would be a good idea to let the players choose where to put their safe-zone. "Oh, yeah guys. This totally won't be abused!"

The Devs need to choose where the safe-zone(s) are and where the non-safe-zones are and balance them with resources and mobs accordingly. I don't know why Eve is like the only emergent-gameplay MMO to figure this out. It's not rocket science.

[Book]

Just in the interest of seeing if there is a solution, as it's an interesting problem...

how does removal of safe zones handle the griefer type xyber was talking about?

Is it that you could destroy his homestead entirely?
From the sounds of it, I don't think he was hiding there but rather, the problem is he comes back over and over and over ad nauseum because he has an advantage (all be it cheap, I know)...

I think Orious has a valid point that (if I understood) it's up to the community to live and let live... but many people have examples of that not happening... in many games.

We need a workable deterrent for the ones that care about the other's experience only in that they can ruin it.

PvP, PvE, PvU(beats me), everybody's pretty much having the same problem, because of the same people...

[shadowlz]

There's a difference between competitive PvP, Predator/Prey PvP and Griefers. Usually the PvE players confuse Predator/Prey style of PvP with Griefers, when its not always the case. I don't like competitive PvP, I like dirty fighting. Any player that looks like a easy target is prey, does seizing the opportunity to kill and loot them make me a griefer? No. To me when you start doing dirty fighting while knowing you have nothing to gain from it, that's when you become a griefer. Even in killing noobs you have something to gain, even if its low, Its nothing personal we just want your stuff.

There are ways to make a system to appeal to both PvP and PvE, EvE has done it. Obviously this isn't EvE but you can apply a similar technique. There is a way you can stimulate the economy/trading, encourage both competitive large scale PvP and balance out Predator/Prey PvP while lowering griefing. But its a real undertaking, not an overnight tweak, heres what I think.

First the game is in DIRE need of localized resources, if you throw realism out the window for some fun here, you can create good localized conflict and also global conflict. Making one ore(or salvaged metal) better for weapon crafting up north and one ore better for armor down south, better wood to the east, better stone to the west. The towns in the middle will naturally have stronger defenses because of the building material is higher quality, super powers formed in the north or south would be kept in balance by not having instant access to the best of everything. This would drive trade towards the meeting points in the center on the east and west sides of the lake.

Next is the claiming of the resources. I think resources and your tribe area should be separate from each other. Resources should be claimed creating a small security area around them, claiming them would be selecting which resource node you want, then you build a related building(Lumber mill for trees, fishing hut for fish, etc.) in the small security area(if you found it first) that would be your resource that cant be used by anyone else. To make resource nodes worth claiming instead of just using public stuff, you would get small bonuses while in a resource node security zone. The amount of nodes you can claim depends on your tribe member count, so you cant go claiming everything in sight, this will also promote trade since you may not have the required amount of nodes needed to do what you want, driving smaller tribes trade to larger tribes.

Resources would be able to be captured, but this is the war aspect. One tribe would initiate a conflict(either by attacking the resource building or maybe just an interface) starting the 'war' a secondary sphere is place around the conflict resource, kills in this sphere count towards the war. Holding the building would count for points and killing enemies(within the sphere) would count for points, it would need to be balanced out vs tribe members and such, equations I cant really think of right now. If the attackers win, they would need to repair the resource building before having full control over the resource. And of course if you own the max amount of nodes your tribe can handle then you can't start an conflict, which would hopefully stop the griefers a bit.

Resource nodes would have a priority list, the higher the priority the better the bonuses(not up to game breaking though), if your tribe members drop behind a certain amount the lowest priority node is abandoned, which can be picked up by anyone with just a small amount of repairing.


Something else ive been brainstorming is a new way to make tribes a bit more role oriented. Each tribe when founding picks a starting role: Militaristic, Crafting, Neutral, Scavengers, etc. Each role would give small bonuses reletive to what they do.
Militaristic tribes could get +2 attack +1 defense -1 crafting -1 building strength(when tribe village waring is in)
Crafting could get -1 attack +1 defense +2 crafting -1 gathering
Scavengers could get +2 gathering +1 building strength -1 crafting -1 defense
neutral would be all +0
This would also be an attempt to stimulate the economy by encouraging trading. Although it would be controversial because there are some mixed tribes out there that don't want 'punished' for being as such, and people complaining about restrictions like that in sandbox games or w/e. so really just experimental.

TL;DR

So the main thing I thin could drive the game is the resources. We need stats based off a quality of a resource, and a type of resource that it is, then localize them to separate regions of the map. I have no doubt in my mind that it would drive the trade/economy forward. And the predator/prey PvPers can stop griefing and cutting down trees and start attacking trade caravans on their way to a major trade hub near the center of the map, to sell some high quality northern blades for some nice armor to take a resource node they need so they can have a closer scrap pile.

ADDITION: I read some more of people post about consequences for being a bad doobie. I personally think any consequences should be very harsh, i have yet to see a game go as far as i would like. EvE is close, but alts ruin it. My preference would be 2 character servers, if one character goes red, they both do. Red meaning w.e it would mean.

[mrcalhou]

Just in the interest of seeing if there is a solution, as it's an interesting problem...

how does removal of safe zones handle the griefer type xyber was talking about?

Is it that you could destroy his homestead entirely?
From the sounds of it, I don't think he was hiding there but rather, the problem is he comes back over and over and over ad nauseum because he has an advantage (all be it cheap, I know)...

I think Orious has a valid point that (if I understood) it's up to the community to live and let live... but many people have examples of that not happening... in many games.

We need a workable deterrent for the ones that care about the other's experience only in that they can ruin it.

PvP, PvE, PvU(beats me), everybody's pretty much having the same problem, because of the same people...

In a game with no safe-zones, and no real consequences to speak of, the game would most likely devolve into a persistent "quake" game; however this can be mitigated in a number of ways such as allowing players, even "homesteaders," the ability to defend their land with structures and guards. This gets rid of the troublesome player choosen safe-zones because players will have to do something to maintain that safe zone. Personally I would not be opposed to having an area where it's just not possible to PvP. Just so that there's something for everyone. If there was enough different kinds of content, then it wouldn't matter if there were safe zones and non safe zones since people will do what suits them the most. There would be people for the PvPers to gank, and there will be people for the PvEers to go socialize and do what they do.

With respect to buildings, I would think that they should be destroyable and repairable. Ideally, I think it should take a single character hours to destroy a non-defensive structure and once a structure is destroyed, there should be some arbitrary amount of time before the rubble disappears from the game world, so a player that has a destroyed structure could repair it back to full for some percentage of the cost of building a completely new structure. Defensive structures, such as walls, cannons, archery towers, etcetera should not take as long to be destroyed since they can fight back. As Dubanka, and many others in the past, has mentioned, we should be able to hire (train, and outfit) npc guards for those times when we, or our tribe, cannot realistically log-in to defend things. This would also add an additonal layer of strategy into the game.

[orious13]

Once we have tools (Xsyon will evolve how "we" want it?) to do these things it'd be great. Relying on npcs...zombies, bears, werewolves, is the way to go. Not random npcs, though. The ones you "tame" and level. Far away from now.

[Sirius]

Just popped in to say the premise of this thread is false.

PVP and PVE are mutually exclusive.

[Trenchfoot]

Just popped in to say the premise of this thread is false.

PVP and PVE are mutually exclusive.

Hehe Sirius. I've got a better one. I'd title this one 'How good evil should be required to be.'.

[mrcalhou]

Hehe Sirius. I've got a better one. I'd title this one 'How good evil should be required to be.'.

Hehe, I say you're missing the point.

[Trenchfoot]

I get the point just fine. I think the term PVE used in this discussion is a dishonest use of the term. It just sounds better than saying 'pvp vs. never being victimized by another player', which isn't what the term really means. PVE simply doesn't enter into this discussion.

You might as well try to get a coin to land on its edge instead of heads or tails. Heads isn't tails and tails isn't heads and whichever end you turn it onto you loose the other face. PVP and 'never being a victim of pvp' are indeed mutually exclusive.

The best you can do is make them both mediocre. Yet in their mediocrity only one of them becomes a charade (pvp), and the other one doesn't suffer the same fate (never being a victim of pvp). Since it was mediocre to begin with.

[d3m0nd0]

I propose a new game mode, EvE, Enviroment Vs Enviroment, Mobs killing each other and epic Volcano Vs Tsunami fights. Thats the future bro's.

[xyberviri]

I propose a new game mode, EvE, Enviroment Vs Enviroment, Mobs killing each other and epic Volcano Vs Tsunami fights. Thats the future bro's.

I purpose NG purchase Hello Kitty online and make it Xsyony, take out all the combat and just replace all the character models with HK all the weapons replaced with purses and shoes, and all the the buildings with HK litter boxes, then replace all chat so that anything you type gets converted to Meow and change the color of day to pink and make night the same brightness as day but only blue.

then we can have Hello Xsyon Online.


sigh, why is it people always play the victim card, when did society become so hypo allergenic that it required its games to be PG Rated when they involve social interaction.

[d3m0nd0]

Well if its kind of obvious but obviously you dont see the pattern, but the reason most people in online games need to be handheld through social interactions is the same reason they spend more time online than they do IRL, They fail at being social in general. Thats why theyre here playing these games instead of orcastrating a 3-way with 2 girls/2guys/2animals. The reason MMO's exsist to some extent is for those that cannot socalised with real people, and are lonely have somewhere to go so there less lonely.

[Book]

I get the point just fine. I think the term PVE used in this discussion is a dishonest use of the term. It just sounds better than saying 'pvp vs. never being victimized by another player', which isn't what the term really means. PVE simply doesn't enter into this discussion.

You might as well try to get a coin to land on its edge instead of heads or tails. Heads isn't tails and tails isn't heads and whichever end you turn it onto you loose the other face. PVP and 'never being a victim of pvp' are indeed mutually exclusive.

The best you can do is make them both mediocre. Yet in their mediocrity only one of them becomes a charade (pvp), and the other one doesn't suffer the same fate (never being a victim of pvp). Since it was mediocre to begin with.

I think one customer feeling entitled to "victimize" another, is part of the problem people are trying to address. Even the non-pvp folks are trying to help find a viable solution with a community spirit in mind that wouldn't force pvp to become a charade... whatever the vocabulary people want to ascribe to it, the concept isn't entirely unworthy of a positive discussion :)

I'm not so sure this is about "never" wanting to be exposed to pvp no matter what. Maybe for some, but I would guess few.

An outlaw running through the neighborhood in light-hearted fun is just that.

Someone abusive using pvp mechanics to infringe upon other people's fun is a problem for both pvpers who have their mechanics turned into a charade, and non-pvpers who don't get to enjoy their non-pvp ways on a habitual basis.

Same as someone abusing non-pvp centric mechanics runs the very real risk of ruining those mechanics entirely when pvp centered customers bring up the problem. (which is obviously just as legitimate as non-pvpers expressing the problem they encounter).

My version of Utopia would be as Orious has suggested(if I understood, don't mean to bastardize his point). Individuals within the community can take accountability for their own actions and behave in a way that allows everyone to have fun, but that's unlikely to happen :(. Which I think is why we're trying to have this discussion to begin with.

[xyberviri]

The problem with the PvE group is this sense of Entitlement that they should be able to go where ever and when ever in the comfort and safety of there own bubble where pvpers are unable to attack them. The problem with the PvP side is on the opposite side of the same scale in that no one should be allowed to just move about freely and unable to be attacked.

I have played games that had both /pvp flagging and zone controlled pvp as well as open world pvp.

Zone pvp worked under the principle that you enter X zone your open to attack very simple and easy to understand. the problem with this model how ever is that the zones you can not pvp in you get campers and kill stealers.

/PvP flagging works in the sense that i have to choose to enable pvp and the other person also has to enable pvp, now the pvers have to never deal with the pvpers because they have a shield of protection that keeps them from getting attacked and pretty much do what ever they want with out any consequence. The problem here is abuse from pvpers in that they toggle the cooldown of the flagging to go into and out of pvp during fights just before fights right after fights. there is also the so called ninja flagger that basically see your flagged for pvp and they flag up behind you and kill you. you also have non pvp players that run around events and gatherings or even pvp fights and try to interfere and you have no way to stop them.

Open world pvp is what we have, you can be attacked anytime anywhere, some games have safe zones others you have to just log out to be in a safe zone. The problem here is the folks that don't want to pvp are forced into it because some how they are unable or unwilling to run away or just basically not participate in it.

Open World with zones is the last one i can think of this is where you could in theory attack anyone anywhere how ever some zones are protected and if you engage in combat normally the aggressor is the one that dies since the guards in that zone are way OP.

Of all of those i would go with a open world and focus on that mechanic that needs to be refined for those that abuse it. yes you can get attacked at anyone point of the game except in your safe zone, yes they can take your stuff and yes they can grief you. how ever this presents itself to open a model that allows the community to police them self and find the solution to the problem IE a player. instead of needing intervention from the guides/GMs

[Jadzia]

Zone pvp worked under the principle that you enter X zone your open to attack very simple and easy to understand. the problem with this model how ever is that the zones you can not pvp in you get campers and kill stealers.
Camping and kill stealing wouldn't really work in Xsyon so this method would be viable here.

[Book]

I don't understand what camping and kill stealing in a non-pvp zone means :confused:

You mean someone waiting for you to get a bear close to death then jumping in and stealing that kill? Or running up and butchering the animal you just killed and then running away with the loot?

argh. I think in games like WoW (just an example, take it easy :o ) there's ownership of a kill after a certain amount of damage?

EDIT: you know, thinking about all this and I have to admit, the number of variables and permutations to juggle at once is just insane.

[orious13]

Well anyone want to join a xsyon police tribe? I don't want to lead one, but I'd join one after they open new areas...and after they fix combat/sync lol.

[d3m0nd0]

Well anyone want to join a xsyon police tribe? I don't want to lead one, but I'd join one after they open new areas...and after they fix combat/sync lol.

So basically your saying you never want to join a policing tribe?

[Trenchfoot]

I think one customer feeling entitled to "victimize" another, is part of the problem people are trying to address.

No Book. It's about this customer feeling entitled to be 'victimized'. That the triumph in combat is measured by the cost that weighs in the balance. The more you take away from that 'cost' hanging over my head, the more you cheapen my victories.


EDIT: you know, thinking about all this and I have to admit, the number of variables and permutations to juggle at once is just insane.

This should be obvious to everyone.

EDIT: Or in other words, how can one ever champion a just cause if justice is hardwired into the game? Answer: You can't. Because every time you gimp the bad guys, the good guys become that much more useless. Why even have good guys, when the game dictates how bad the bad guy can be? It's like the game replaces the good guys with rules and regulations.

[Mactavendish]

Wow, and I was just about to suggest that consequences may actually be a solution.

I fully enjoy the aspect of having risk to gain reward. But risk needs to be from all sides not just form the side of pvp'ers towards pve'rs.

If the consequence of trying to run with a heavy load gets you so winded you have to stop and catch your breath, why shouldn't the pvp/pk'er type player have similar realistic consequences.

To me both sides need a revamp. If someone can attack you, and you have good armor and it takes them a long time to "kill" you, then just make them get winded like a logger carrying a log back to camp. The pve player wanting to escape, can do so. If it is against a fellow pvp'er then they bot keep whacking till one falls.

Maybe some will view this as an artificial rule that should not be imposed, but why not?

It would add 1 simple thing that potentially could solve most of the arguments here.

Of course, Im sure I am missing something too .

[JCatano]

Wow, and I was just about to suggest that consequences may actually be a solution.

I fully enjoy the aspect of having risk to gain reward. But risk needs to be from all sides not just form the side of pvp'ers towards pve'rs.

If the consequence of trying to run with a heavy load gets you so winded you have to stop and catch your breath, why shouldn't the pvp/pk'er type player have similar realistic consequences.

To me both sides need a revamp. If someone can attack you, and you have good armor and it takes them a long time to "kill" you, then just make them get winded like a logger carrying a log back to camp. The pve player wanting to escape, can do so. If it is against a fellow pvp'er then they bot keep whacking till one falls.

Maybe some will view this as an artificial rule that should not be imposed, but why not?

It would add 1 simple thing that potentially could solve most of the arguments here.

Of course, Im sure I am missing something too .

That was the original idea in a sense. People were able to run away from combat if they wanted to. We used to move really slow in combat-mode. Fortunately, discussion led to that being changed to the current form. And, you are missing something. If someone can run away whenever they want to, they will. Even PvP'ers. I love PvP, but I'm not going to just stand there and allow myself to die if I'm losing. A common theme with people that suggest your type of idea is that they don't seem to want to use awareness, which could help keep them from a situation they'd rather not be in. They always want a game mechanic to do it for them.

On another note, they need to get rid of "combat-mode" somehow.

[mrcalhou]

They should slow combat back down a tad and keep non-combat the same. Then they need to introduce ranged combat and abilities and status effects like an ability that will cause the victim's run speed, across both modes, to be reduced. There's nothing wrong with letting people have the ability to run away, but there should be some measures to counter it. Every action should have a counter and there needs to be trade-offs for everything.

Every choice should have a positive consequence. Every choice should have a negative consequence.

[d3m0nd0]

Actually every action has an equal and opposite reaction. GAWWWWD.

[JCatano]

-100 to snares, etc.

Combat speed it fine. It just needs to actually look like combat (and get rid of the hopping around).

[orious13]

So basically your saying you never want to join a policing tribe?

They'll fix things eventually. I'm not a doom and gloomer. It just might not be before the free time is over. Then yes I probably will never join one if that's the case... or it'd be much much later.


-100 to snares, etc.

Combat speed it fine. It just needs to actually look like combat (and get rid of the hopping around).

I disagree. Sprinting and jumping make combat not look like combat...take those away while in combat mode (which will take away some of the speed problem) and it'll be a little better. That would be one step closer to having dodging and parrying be useful.

Combat mode is just another way of saying sheath/unsheath. That should stay. Then damage vulnerability could be highest when laying down and lowest in combat and with non-combat being in the middle. Switching out of combat mode should take a second.

Obviously there's other things that need to be done, but I'd rather put that in its own suggestions thread (which I already have) or wait and see what they're currently doing. I just hope they take only small portions of M&B and don't turn combat into unreal tournament. I'd rather have a more real-life based twitch combat than FPS twitch combat in an rpg.

[Book]

No Book. It's about this customer feeling entitled to be 'victimized'. That the triumph in combat is measured by the cost that weighs in the balance. The more you take away from that 'cost' hanging over my head, the more you cheapen my victories.
<snip>

I hear ya, and I really don't want to cheapen the feeling of victory or remove it as I realize that's an integral part of a good PvP system. Heck, who knows, maybe some day even I'll grab meself a victory here and there :p

Again, it's not so much about the occasional outlaw for me. One that knows how to not take it too far. It's about those who do knowingly take it too far. If that makes sense.

Frankly, I like that when I see someone, they don't know if I'm going to attack them, and I don't know if they're going to attack me. I usually try to use a friendly emote to make my intentions clear from a distance and hope they respond in kind. Adds to my sense of immersion in the world.

Trying to come up with a mutually beneficial limit on how "bad" someone can be is more directed at those who want to make the real person playing the character awful in real life rather than PvPing for any reason involving the game itself. Again, if that makes sense.

[JCatano]

Orious -

If you are constantly sprinting around in combat, you're not very smart. There is no Mana to Stamina spell here. With the way stamina works, it's going to get you killed in anything more than a very small skirmish.

Anyway, I'm not relating combat speed to sprinting. The general pace of combat is fine. The hopping around needs to go (use a lot more stamina when jumping) and the animations/synch/etc. needs a fix. Terrible animations alone make combat seem quick and jerky.

[orious13]

I wouldn't be one to waste stamina carelessly in a long fight.

I haven't seen anything more than small skirmishes...and the sprinting and jumping around is stupid. I kind of expect there to be more small skirmishes anyway than anything else. Especially in 1 on 1 where people argue that more skill might be involved. In that sense you can kill before your stamina even prevents you from sprinting (partially the PO weap problem) and I only have 75 fortitude. Even if dodging or parry had useful bonuses besides damage mitigation or avoidance, you wouldn't need it at all. My opinion is that any fight which allows sprinting and jumping like that should be frowned upon...so just remove it from combat mode or like you said make it drain 2x or 3x the current rate.

[JCatano]

Sprint was disabled before. After discussion, Jordi realized how stupid it was and increased the speed to the current levels. You couldn't kill or be killed before the change. Each time you wanted to sprint, you'd have to get out of combat-mode. If you caught up to someone and starting fighting... Yep, combat-mode. The target would just run away again. It was terrible. I don't think anyone ever died, unless they agreed to stay in combat mode for a duel.

Current sprint is fine, although regen needs a huge boost. Jumping in or out of combat mode should use a lot more stamina.