PvP and food for thought

The have been many debates on these forums with regards to PvP and safe zones. There is the Free for all, nowhere is safe PvP mentality on one end and I shouldn't have to particpate in PvP if I don't want to crowd on the other end. I ran across a great article posted on the Darkfall forums. Please give the time it deserves and read it. Then post your thoughts here.

bringing-eves-empire-space-to-darkfall

I believe this style of PvP is more in line with what the Devs want. I really like the idea of there being safe zones (but not completely safe) so that the crafter/social types don't get stomped out of the game. But, the penalty for being well protected is they don't get easy access to the more valuable resources that are out in the PvP hotspots. They can venture out into those riskier zones if they want to, or maybe they never do.

More risk = more reward.

You're missing the point. In Darkfall, there are no safe zones for clans that just got torn apart by better players. There are safe cities but no safe zones to farm mobs, craft, etc...

Games like Darkfall really don't have varying degress of risk that you as a player can choose to take on besides what you wear to fight in.

In general I agree. Small, fixed safe zones for new players and tribes that need to reorganize is a must and these zone cannot have access to anything valuable.

After that I favor tribal territories as safe zones as long as the tribe members have to work to keep that territory in existence. Becoming safe is a good motivator for game play. If a tribe is able to extend their territory against other tribes to cover valuable resources then they should be able to do so.

So I favor a flexible "empire space" instead of the fixed model as it exists in Eve.

Oakstead wrote:

Quote:

---

In general I agree. Small, fixed safe zones for new players and tribes that need to reorganize is a must and these zone cannot have access to anything valuable.

After that I favor tribal territories as safe zones as long as the tribe members have to work to keep that territory in existence. Becoming safe is a good motivator for game play. If a tribe is able to extend their territory against other tribes to cover valuable resources then they should be able to do so.

So I favor a flexible "empire space" instead of the fixed model as it exists in Eve.

---

/signed

I pretty much feel same way.

zephar123 wrote:

Quote:

---

Oakstead wrote:

Quote:

---

In general I agree. Small, fixed safe zones for new players and tribes that need to reorganize is a must and these zone cannot have access to anything valuable.

After that I favor tribal territories as safe zones as long as the tribe members have to work to keep that territory in existence. Becoming safe is a good motivator for game play. If a tribe is able to extend their territory against other tribes to cover valuable resources then they should be able to do so.

So I favor a flexible "empire space" instead of the fixed model as it exists in Eve.

---

/signed

I pretty much feel same way.

---

Agreed

Make sure a game exists before asking for extras like PvP ;)

I'm logging on again today. Hopefully I'll see more than the five people I saw yesterday.

i fell like there sud be a small to medium non terraform/ no pvp area around spesefic starter location

Agreed.
I enjoy my PvP, but sometimes I just want relax while doing something other than killing. If I wanted to fight everytime I logged on, i'd just play call of duty :woohoo:

Blue Pig wrote:

Quote:

---

Make sure a game exists before asking for extras like PvP ;)

I'm logging on again today. Hopefully I'll see more than the five people I saw yesterday.

---

Five people? Whoa, that's a lot =D
Max people I have seen so far together are 2 (+ me makes 3 on-screen).

We should try a kind of stress-test. Gather all in one place to see how the graphics engine deals with large numbers of players in the same spot.

nvm

On topic please...

im a ex eve online player. i enjoyed the pvping in 0.0 and low sec and mining and mission running in high sec space. i agree on having safe areas for people to do what they want in without having to look over there back every 5 mins.

I disagree.

Llorkt wrote:

Quote:

---

I disagree.

---

Wow, that was enlightening and insightful...

I think a few small safe villages for new players to get their feet wet would be ok. I don’t think resource gathering or crafting should be protected as a whole but maybe have some limited low value stuff in a safe village for the new players and groups that need to retreat and lick their wounds.

What’s nice about EVE is that for the most part you can try the game without getting ‘ WTFpwned’ repeatedly by much more experienced players. Don’t get me wrong, I plan to do my fair share of PVP, just don’t think noob farming is good for the game or very sporting.

Outside of a few starter villages, safety should be player made. Guilds should have to protect their crafters and gatherers. The good resources should be up for grabs by who can take them.

lilxenobean wrote:

Quote:

---

Agreed.
I enjoy my PvP, but sometimes I just want relax while doing something other than killing. If I wanted to fight everytime I logged on, i'd just play call of duty :woohoo:

---

Exactly, and everyone knows i am an open pvp advocate, but to have open pvp one must have a closed zone, only accessible to non pvpers. Not meaning that you can't enter if your over a certain level, but only that it would be impossible to kill someone, or more or less incapable. Possibly in that zone have looting turned off, and have reflection damage. Or have something like DF in the since that there would be some sort of mystical protection.

I fell in love with crafting in DF which seems to be quite similar in this game, which I think gives me the crafter and pvper, a chance to really enjoy this game. Not only should I have the relative saftey of my tribe town (though it should be capable of being raided/destroyed/taken if not properly taken care of) but also I will have the wilds and a place to be capable of pvping.

With hunting enabled and things such as that, this game should be a home run, I just can't wait till they drop features in.

I'm more for no safe zones it's up to the local tribe to police their claimed area. Maybe a system where if a non tribe member kills someone on the tribe's land the local 'sheriff' gets informed where he can then create bounty missions to go and slay that player/members from the player's tribe.

If a tribe cant protect their own land from bandits they dont deserve to keep it, it's going to be a harsh world out there where the strong prey on the weak in a struggle for the limited resources.

Thought the game was open pvp with astringent penalties? Your idea is fine, but why not wait and let the man work and see what his intentions are first?

Im for the sector'ish based pvp style that was mentioned earlier.

Many a 100% pvp game started and crashed because players were getting ganked even before they knew how to open their inventory.

A base starting zone to get ones feet wet and to understand the fundamentals would be a huge advantage to keeping players that can later hold their own in the game.

Plus there's a big problem when only having PC's guarding Tribe territory..namely that tribes off time. Unless it's a zerg tribe, many will have people from their RW geographical regions, for grouping etc..

This will lead to other groups simply walking in on the off time and destroying everything with 0% risk..and PvP without Risk is just *farty sound* :laugh:

I feel a great future game mechanic would be to incorporate tribe npc guards..who's (skills/strengths/numbers) are based on a combination of the tribes and a tax brought in from the members.
The stonger the tribe the stronger the guards, and the tax's will help with a money sink...Crap taxes and a bee could kill em...Insane taxes and members will leave dropping the guard S/S/N as well.

Jalisar wrote:

Quote:

---

Thought the game was open pvp with astringent penalties? Your idea is fine, but why not wait and let the man work and see what his intentions are first?

---

Agreed.

How about we see what Jooky actually has in mind before you start telling him what will work better.

Personally - I'm against safe zones, and I find it even pretty ridiculous they are being added for the entire tribal area in Prelude, but that's for another topic.

Add the ability to take steps to safeguard your tribal area, sure - but to plain old say it's a "safe zone" or to even just add "safe zones" is rather contradictory to the "open PvP with severe consequences" that Jooky has been toting.

Safe zones =/= Open PvP. (and in what Apocalypse have you heard of fucking safe zones?.. oh, such a catastrophe *rolls eyes* )

Regardless, I'm gunna stay outta this thread after this post, this topics been talked about too much and we don't even have the slightest clue how it will truly work.

Risk wrote:

Quote:

---

Im for the sector'ish based pvp style that was mentioned earlier.

Many a 100% pvp game started and crashed because players were getting ganked even before they knew how to open their inventory.

A base starting zone to get ones feet wet and to understand the fundamentals would be a huge advantage to keeping players that can later hold their own in the game.

Plus there's a big problem when only having PC's guarding Tribe territory..namely that tribes off time. Unless it's a zerg tribe, many will have people from their RW geographical regions, for grouping etc..

This will lead to other groups simply walking in on the off time and destroying everything with 0% risk..and PvP without Risk is just *farty sound* :laugh:

I feel a great future game mechanic would be to incorporate tribe npc guards..who's (skills/strengths/numbers) are based on a combination of the tribes and a tax brought in from the members.
The stonger the tribe the stronger the guards, and the tax's will help with a money sink...Crap taxes and a bee could kill em...Insane taxes and members will leave dropping the guard S/S/N as well.

---

The game is planned to be free from griefing-ganking, so I guess killing new players in the starting zone will be out of the question :)

And NPC city guards are planned in the future.

Xsyon wrote:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

4. Will there be NPC guards for player tribal cities/villages?

---

Currently no. There is a planned system for the future, but again I can't reveal the details until they are implemented.

---

aye aye..im just saying there's no harm converting a winning system to a fantasy base...Eve was a looser...they started at basics and take on WOW these days..let's kill WOW on our side!

Risk wrote:

Quote:

---

This will lead to other groups simply walking in on the off time and destroying everything with 0% risk..and PvP without Risk is just *farty sound* :laugh:

---

It's normal that PvP players attack smaller foes, picking less risk. When they band up they do it because alone they cannot PK the higher enemy. So, in other words, PvP is always a question of risk assessment. Believe me, most would just accept that 0% risk if the rewards are the same. the other way around is not true, nobody would accept the same risk for no reward.

PvP is not about heroism, the "code fo the warrior", having the guts, being "da man" or whatever, it's about adrenaline in a way that you don't get hurt while the other does. It's about smashing with a tank over a minicar and looting it's trunk.

pid73 wrote:

Quote:

---

Risk wrote:

Quote:

---

This will lead to other groups simply walking in on the off time and destroying everything with 0% risk..and PvP without Risk is just *farty sound* :laugh:

---

It's normal that PvP players attack smaller foes, picking less risk. When they band up they do it because alone they cannot PK the higher enemy. So, in other words, PvP is always a question of risk assessment. Believe me, most would just accept that 0% risk if the rewards are the same. the other way around is not true, nobody would accept the same risk for no reward.

PvP is not about heroism, the "code fo the warrior", having the guts, being "da man" or whatever, it's about adrenaline in a way that you don't get hurt while the other does. It's about smashing with a tank over a minicar and looting it's trunk.

---

Dont try and explain pvp if your against it and an overall carebear. Open pvp is the only reason why I bought this game stop qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn I have already been warned about about my language so im tryn to be on my best behavior but yall are making it hard.

You bought the game for a single feature?

pid73 wrote:

Quote:

---

It's about smashing with a tank over a minicar and looting it's trunk.

---

Love it... siggied in fact.

I'm all for open PvP. I love it in fact. BUT, I think there should be some kind of "High Sec" protection for newbies learning the game and tribes that have had their asses handed to them that need a place to regroup and lick their wounds.

Otherwise, you end up with what you have in Darkfall - Top PvP clans and a couple zerg clans that survived the onslaught and that's about it. Population will slowly dwindle.

Just think of how fun the game would still be if alliances like Hyperion were still around to beat on? They go into the "High Sec" area to regroup, and do their role playing thing. Then after morale has improved they make their move again to claim more valuable real estate and resources.

The only reason I can think of for people to be against this is because they are afraid of fair competition. They would rather gank newbies all day or beat up on tribes that are already demoralized and have lost too many members to defend themselves.

After all, it is still open PvP minus ganking the newbies and tribes that would have otherwise left the game for good. If you can still rape, pillage, and shit stomp anyone in the "Low Sec" areas, and get better rewards for doing so - what is the problem? Afraid of a little competition?

Okie wrote:

Quote:

---

pid73 wrote:

Quote:

---

Risk wrote:

Quote:

---

This will lead to other groups simply walking in on the off time and destroying everything with 0% risk..and PvP without Risk is just *farty sound* :laugh:

---

It's normal that PvP players attack smaller foes, picking less risk. When they band up they do it because alone they cannot PK the higher enemy. So, in other words, PvP is always a question of risk assessment. Believe me, most would just accept that 0% risk if the rewards are the same. the other way around is not true, nobody would accept the same risk for no reward.

PvP is not about heroism, the "code fo the warrior", having the guts, being "da man" or whatever, it's about adrenaline in a way that you don't get hurt while the other does. It's about smashing with a tank over a minicar and looting it's trunk.

---

Dont try and explain pvp if your against it and an overall carebear. Open pvp is the only reason why I bought this game stop qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn I have already been warned about about my language so im tryn to be on my best behavior but yall are making it hard.

---

I just hope you won't badmouth the game if it turns out to be something very different than you thought it would.

Relandi wrote:

Quote:

---

Jalisar wrote:

Quote:

---

Thought the game was open pvp with astringent penalties? Your idea is fine, but why not wait and let the man work and see what his intentions are first?

---

Agreed.

How about we see what Jooky actually has in mind before you start telling him what will work better.

Personally - I'm against safe zones, and I find it even pretty ridiculous they are being added for the entire tribal area in Prelude, but that's for another topic.

Add the ability to take steps to safeguard your tribal area, sure - but to plain old say it's a "safe zone" or to even just add "safe zones" is rather contradictory to the "open PvP with severe consequences" that Jooky has been toting.

Safe zones =/= Open PvP. (and in what Apocalypse have you heard of fucking safe zones?.. oh, such a catastrophe *rolls eyes* )

Regardless, I'm gunna stay outta this thread after this post, this topics been talked about too much and we don't even have the slightest clue how it will truly work.

---

As mentioned repeatedly, severe penalties for pvp outside of having a dance-card, or some type of invitation to be aggressive. Does the severity of that 'concept' begin to loosen as we progress past prelude? We dont know. But it does leave more questions than answers, and leaves more that find free-form, organic sandboxy mmo environment growth appealing, with concerns about short-term or long-term interest.

Its appealing to think of a game that releases with a mostly-empty sandbox mechanic with some dev-controlled safeguards as everyone gets settled into prelude and in preparation for future chapters, but where the focus of the mid-to endgame perhaps is on player cooperation and conflicts not presided over by the devs.

Jadzia wrote:

Quote:

---

I just hope you won't badmouth the game if it turns out to be something very different than you thought it would.

---

The Indie appreciative players are on the fringe of the mmo market as opposed to the mainstream, typically not following or grovelling at the pve or rvr heavy themeparks, but more widely interested in orgainic environments rather than heavily scripted or severely dev-controlled environments.

I also find this Indie market of players to be very aware of all Indie projects, and very vocally honest about their likes and dislikes.

So expect honest vocal appraisals of this or any other title, regardless of whether someone spins it as being overly flamboyantly fanboish or badmouthing.

Ciik wrote:

Quote:

---

Relandi wrote:

Quote:

---

Jalisar wrote:

Quote:

---

Thought the game was open pvp with astringent penalties? Your idea is fine, but why not wait and let the man work and see what his intentions are first?

---

Agreed.

How about we see what Jooky actually has in mind before you start telling him what will work better.

Personally - I'm against safe zones, and I find it even pretty ridiculous they are being added for the entire tribal area in Prelude, but that's for another topic.

Add the ability to take steps to safeguard your tribal area, sure - but to plain old say it's a "safe zone" or to even just add "safe zones" is rather contradictory to the "open PvP with severe consequences" that Jooky has been toting.

Safe zones =/= Open PvP. (and in what Apocalypse have you heard of fucking safe zones?.. oh, such a catastrophe *rolls eyes* )

Regardless, I'm gunna stay outta this thread after this post, this topics been talked about too much and we don't even have the slightest clue how it will truly work.

---

As mentioned repeatedly, severe penalties for pvp outside of having a dance-card, or some type of invitation to be aggressive. Does the severity of that 'concept' begin to loosen as we progress past prelude? We dont know. But it does leave more questions than answers, and leaves more that find free-form, organic sandboxy mmo environment growth appealing, with concerns about short-term or long-term interest.

Its appealing to think of a game that releases with a mostly-empty sandbox mechanic with some dev-controlled safeguards as everyone gets settled into prelude and in preparation for future chapters, but where the focus of the mid-to endgame perhaps is on player cooperation and conflicts not presided over by the devs.

Jadzia wrote:

Quote:

---

I just hope you won't badmouth the game if it turns out to be something very different than you thought it would.

---

The Indie appreciative players are on the fringe of the mmo market as opposed to the mainstream, typically not following or grovelling at the pve or rvr heavy themeparks, but more widely interested in orgainic environments rather than heavily scripted or severely dev-controlled environments.

I also find this Indie market of players to be very aware of all Indie projects, and very vocally honest about their likes and dislikes.

So expect honest vocal appraisals of this or any other title, regardless of whether someone spins it as being overly flamboyantly fanboish or badmouthing.

---

I would just like to point out for a moment that this post is more or less a perfect post, so far as argument posts go. Intelligent arguments, put forth with quotes, tied in well together. Its a shame that so many people on the internet don't take the time to flush out posts like this.

Pro is all I can say.

But to move along I agree, I believe during the prelude period there will be stricter dev control. I don't blame them, they are simply acting as the police of the game, and during this early period they are simply going to see if things run smoothly, and with tighter control they can reroute or change anything that begins to go wrong.

Not that I want to compare to DF again but their devs did the same thing, and I feel that the launch of DF was one of the smoothest I've ever participated in. Almost no server crashes, massive bugs, flocks of exploiters destroying the game right off the bat. It was pleasant until of course thousands of ganks raided noob towns.

Point being is that if there is to be more strict control from devs so be it, as long as it is for the interest of the players in early stages, with eventual release of said control to a minimum level.

sicarius -

You must not have played DF at launch.

- Could not long into human area because it was so crowded

- Invisible mobs for a week.

- People exploiting the invisible mobs for massive gains and gold, since they wouldn't attack back.

- Major desync issues for a few weeks.

- Queue lines to get ingame that would last 1-4 hours.

Hopefully, Xsyon launch is much smoother.

Oh how I remember those queues to get into DF!! :S

Always an emotive topic...

A couple of points ..

1/ No Pain no gain: For me, PvP in games like WoW, Aion etc.. where PvP is just die and then come back offers no sense of risk or creates little addrenalum... because you don't loose anything.

Take EVE. In EVE, if you die you potentially loose most of your gear and your ship is destroyed...sometimes you are podkilled too... so you loose some skills/experience too - a little insurance helps to replace it but all in all it hurts in both time and cost. This can be painfull as ships can be expensive and your gear could be rare - and the adren rush is high! Basically, this ensures that you and your attacker are more cautious and therefore consider the PvP tactics more closely before you attack... doesn't totally discourage ganking but helps to ensure players don't just start a fight because they are bored or because they want to be irritating. Certainly removes corpse ganking because you spawn back at a base and have to somehow find a way to get back to the place of your death... often too far to bother and knowing your stuff will have been looted anyway.

2/ PvP is not about the better players winning... it's more often players that have more time to play the game and therefore have the better gear - usually the yongsters because they play 24x7. So you get 12 year old's ganking and greifing because, for them, it's fun. For the more serious gamer interested in total immersion into the game this is just an irritation. The question is, how do you balance this...

Unprovoked attacks should carry a penalty (EVE) where the attackers rep is affected. Once that rep hits a certain point he/she is flagged as a criminal for both other players and NPC's. Some players thrive in this environment... others will avoid them but at least you have a choice and you can better avoid being ganked whilst at the same time the 'criminals' have to balance the game in a differnt way - ie: if I can't go to certain regions because I pissed everyone off.. I am denied certain resources or access to settlements etc.. I made my choice now I have to live with it.

If we want to create a more realistic environment you can't avoid PVP or create zones where PvP is not allowed... just make it harder or carry some consequenses...

Just my opinion after 5 years in both EVE and WoW... looking for a balance.

Some food for thought on what I've seen in this topic:

Due to the eventual release having only 1 character per account, what is there to stop someone from killing and griefing new/ old players, getting a negative rep, then deleting and making a new character?

Surely some people wouldn't think twice at doing something like this.

The only downside to deleting and making another character is any time put into that character.

I therefore put forward a suggestion, perhaps that rep would be tied to your account, or that there would be a timer like EVE currently has for it's characters.

On another note, I would hope the anti-cheating code is solid, otherwise we might have other problems to that effect.

EmyLightsaber wrote:

Quote:

---

Some food for thought on what I've seen in this topic:

Due to the eventual release having only 1 character per account, what is there to stop someone from killing and griefing new/ old players, getting a negative rep, then deleting and making a new character?

Surely some people wouldn't think twice at doing something like this.

The only downside to deleting and making another character is any time put into that character.

I therefore put forward a suggestion, perhaps that rep would be tied to your account, or that there would be a timer like EVE currently has for it's characters.

On another note, I would hope the anti-cheating code is solid, otherwise we might have other problems to that effect.

---

100% agree with this

prokop15 wrote:

Quote:

---

Christ, are you trolling?

If for some fuckin' reason someone is repeatedly remaking their character just to grief you then you definitely deserve it.

---

This is why this community will eventually fail.

EmyLightsaber wrote:

Quote:

---

prokop15 wrote:

Quote:

---

Christ, are you trolling?

If for some fuckin' reason someone is repeatedly remaking their character just to grief you then you definitely deserve it.

---

This is why this community will eventually fail.

---

Depends, if game develops rules similar to eve it will be fine. People that cuase issues will move on to other pastures.

zephar123 wrote:

Quote:

---

EmyLightsaber wrote:

Quote:

---

prokop15 wrote:

Quote:

---

Christ, are you trolling?

If for some fuckin' reason someone is repeatedly remaking their character just to grief you then you definitely deserve it.

---

This is why this community will eventually fail.

---

Depends, if game develops rules similar to eve it will be fine. People that cuase issues will move on to other pastures.

---

Exactly.

prokop15 wrote:

Quote:

---

I agree, this game will be placed on a fine balance. If the fulcrum that is the mechanic to prevent people from constantly rerolling in order to grief non-factor nancys isn't done JUST RIGHT... then the game will surely fail.

---

Quoted above is the aforementioned 12 year old.

A large difference from EVE is that in EVE your equipment and character skill are everything, and without them you are useless.

Player skill has very little impact in most battles and only comes into play by equally matched players of similar skill/ships.

When you look at the mechanics of the game you'll see there are already some type of safe zones.

Tribe cities will be reletivley safe after prelude if they are walled in, since I've seen no skills thus far that would allow you to jump over walls or gates, it would take a large concentrated force to get into the city.

And since this game seems to be more tribe vs tribe oriented and less about random raiding, I sincerely doubt that a group of 3 players will be able to bypass the walls with any regularity.

So it would be safe to assume that cities would only be targetted by large forces from warring tribes, and not bandit raider types.

The most danger around a city would likely be from people hiding just outside the city and waiting for people to leave before attacking.

I knew a guy in EVE who used to take out battleships in a Rifter. You're right in general that EVE relies mainly on stats but I've seen plenty of examples where skill (or at least intimate knowledge of EVE's mechanics) can give you significant advantages.

Also, being able to keep cool and think clearly is a major factor. That was something I never accomplished. Every time I got jumped at a gate I'd panic and make dumb mistakes that cost me many ships.

Not sure what I'm saying. I'm not really contradicting you or anything.