PvP vs. PK and some general impressions

[Largion]

Benedikt wrote:

Largion wrote:

So whats so stupid about that post? Its stupid because I add 49% when the end result would be the same?

And yes there would be tribe wars but the freedom for those that wants to play a certen style would be lost.

again i am asking: why? they can still play that style, they just have a (small) chance of really bad consequence
why? are you affraid of a loss?

Well I will most likerly not even pvp alot outside the tribewars but I would not like to restict the ones that do.

After thinking about if for a min I realised that they could just create a tribe that delcare war on all outher tribes and they could kill everyone without anything happening.

[Largion]

Bruise187 wrote:

Is this going to have a bounty system in place? I like that if you get PKed and lose a lot or anything you can place a bounty/reward on the player. If he is gotten in the the next (however many PLAYED hours) you might get some of your loot back reguardless of if they have sold it or not or a % of your money back. they could put in a way to track a red player by saying he was last seen in this area at this time and so on. Think that might be as mch fun a doing pvp to me. The thrill of the hunt or hunted. try to avoid the posey that is after you. Can also go the rout of if you accept a bounty on someone and they kill you the bounty is wiped off. A lil risk for trying to hunt someone down and not let it be just a free kill for the bounty hunter.

Things like this have been talked about in every game that have pvp but in the end the person would just ask a m8 to kill him and collect the bounty so now he killed you took your stuff and you payed him for it.

[Jadzia]

Benedikt wrote:

problem is, there is more or less no way to "deal" with pk's/gankers in game which doesnt have permadeath (or at least jail where you can throw captured pk for extensive period of time when he/she wouldnt be able to do anything at all)
i would deal with it this way:
there would be 3 types of players:
1. "white" - nonpvper
2. "blue" - pvper (switched on pvp flag, cd to turn it off would be 1hr)
3. "red" - pk (red flag would go off after 24 hr since last PK kill)

killing red player would be ok and anyone could do it (only if it would do white player, it would turn on his pvp flag)
killing blue player would be also ok, but if a white player would attack blue player, it would turn on pvp flag with 2hrs cd
killing white player would give you a red PK flag.

what is the catch? if you die as a red flagged PK, there would be 1% chance of permadeath

My personal opinion is that permadeath is really harsh. There is a combat mode implemented in the game...when someone wants to attack another player, he has to enter combat mode. In this mode his movement speed is way slower, so the target can easily run away. The developer stated that the goal of this feature is to allow those who want to run away to do so. Griefing/ganking/random PKing is kind of impossible this way.

[Benedikt]

Jadzia wrote:

My personal opinion is that permadeath is really harsh. There is a combat mode implemented in the game...when someone wants to attack another player, he has to enter combat mode. In this mode his movement speed is way slower, so the target can easily run away. The developer stated that the goal of this feature is to allow those who want to run away to do so. Griefing/ganking/random PKing is kind of impossible this way.

well, that could work, as long as he will not be able to kill you with ranged weapons before you get out of reach

[Jadzia]

Benedikt wrote:

Jadzia wrote:

My personal opinion is that permadeath is really harsh. There is a combat mode implemented in the game...when someone wants to attack another player, he has to enter combat mode. In this mode his movement speed is way slower, so the target can easily run away. The developer stated that the goal of this feature is to allow those who want to run away to do so. Griefing/ganking/random PKing is kind of impossible this way.

well, that could work, as long as he will not be able to kill you with ranged weapons before you get out of reach

You are right, I wonder how ranged weapon aiming works in the game...if they have to aim manually, it would be fun to run in zig-zag to avoid arrows :P And I wonder as well if we can hide behind trees or other landscape elements.

[MrDDT]

Geez this thread never ends.

My ideas on what FFA PVP on how to work for most people.

PVP anywhere is the first rule.
You attack someone, you should be flagged unless they are already flagged.
If you are a murderer / Evil, you should get the reward of killing people anywhere and just be more Evil and whatever loots you get from that, having said that you should also have punishments put on you to limit who and why you attack someone.
Attacking someone just because they are there and no threat to you isnt normally going to be an option because the reward (loot, or fame whatever) isnt high. But if you see say a lone guy with pockets full of loot, attacking them with little other risks (like people attack you right then too) out weighs the consequences killing/attacking normal people. Its worth some stats/skill loss or bad karma to attack these people.

Now I believe that people should be able to get away MOST of the time (90+%) of the time if they see a fight coming and jet. If you get jumped and you jet right away you should have a good chance (60+%) to get away. If you stand there and fight for a bit and then see that you are out matched, you should have a very small chance (10% to 40% depending on your life when you started to jet).

This would allow people to craft and not be super worried of being killed, BUT still allow people to be killed, and controlling areas. A PKer could force you out of an area by forcing you to run. Now they didnt get to kill you but they now control that area. Also with good planning they might be able to trap and kill you better using numbers. But then again if you are a crafter all alone out there, your risking it yourself.

Ways to make it so this can happen.
1) Use the current system of movement for combat, to attack someone you move about 5 to 10x slower than someone not in combat. This allows people to get away.
2) Make it so every 2 or 3% life down, you move like 1% slower. This would mean if you were in a middle of a fight, and you were down to 1/3 life left you would move about 20% slower. This would allow you a small chance to get away, but not really all that good. Also this would allow if you were jumped and only hit once or twice before running you would run at near full speed. The attacker would have to go out and in combat mode making it very hard to catch you. Moving 20% slower would make you a much easier target for him, and any of his allies.
3) Make it so there are semi safe areas so that people can have a little protection like maybe a locked house, or use gates of your city, something that would slow there attack but still allow them to get you if you just try to camp there forever.
4) Also make it so some areas are more value than others, thus if you are a crafter/non combatant there you can get resources or mats better/faster/ or of higher value so you would want to fight or stay there and being forced to run would be a larger negative.

Using systems like this would allow for most parties to be happy I believe.

Crafters would tend to stay near back, and there towns, and have little fear of being killed IF they were active. If you are afk or not watching whats going on, you are likely to be a much higher risk and die. Also if you are far away from your back up / town you are at a higher risk.

Pkers(gankers,Evils, reds etc) will be happy because they can fight for things that matter, resources and your loots. They would have to use teamwork, or fore planning to get some of there skills, and other kills it would be with people that want to fight them.

I think that would be a win win.

Im not going into how combat is now, and balances it should have due to the fact that we dont know how its going to work because features are off. But these are basic ideas.

I want people not focus on things that are in the details but talk about overall how things should be.

Do you believe that non PVP people should be safe anywhere? Do you believe non PVP people should get away as they choose? Do you believe its ok to flee mid fight and get away most,some,all, none etc.
Please dont focus on how to fix it with snares, or Mez, or ranged weapons, or digging a trap etc. Talk about the overall until the public and devs can understand what overall is wanted. Then after they come back with how they want it done (which they already sorta did) we can debate how to get it done with snares, or ranged weapons etc.

[Jadzia]

MrDDT wrote:

Im not going into how combat is now, and balances it should have due to the fact that we dont know how its going to work because features are off. But these are basic ideas.

I want people not focus on things that are in the details but talk about overall how things should be.

1.Do you believe that non PVP people should be safe anywhere?
2.Do you believe non PVP people should get away as they choose?
3.Do you believe its ok to flee mid fight and get away most,some,all, none etc.

Please dont focus on how to fix it with snares, or Mez, or ranged weapons, or digging a trap etc. Talk about the overall until the public and devs can understand what overall is wanted. Then after they come back with how they want it done (which they already sorta did) we can debate how to get it done with snares, or ranged weapons etc.

Since you asked to focus on these questions, I won't comment your whole post, though I do like some of your ideas, I don't like others, and some of them aren't clear for me

I numbered your questions to make it easier to reply.

1. I'm not sure what do you mean by this...safe zones ? The game has open PvP so noone can be safe everywhere...

2. Yes, I do believe they should be able to get away, with the chance of 90-95%. Its enough punishment to be forced away from their resources or activity, dieing just adds more to the irritating factor.

3. No, I think if someone decided to fight back, then he shouldn't be a coward later on :P If he decided to fight, he has to face the consequences.

[sisler86]

Jadzia wrote:

MrDDT wrote:

Im not going into how combat is now, and balances it should have due to the fact that we dont know how its going to work because features are off. But these are basic ideas.

I want people not focus on things that are in the details but talk about overall how things should be.

1.Do you believe that non PVP people should be safe anywhere?
2.Do you believe non PVP people should get away as they choose?
3.Do you believe its ok to flee mid fight and get away most,some,all, none etc.

Please dont focus on how to fix it with snares, or Mez, or ranged weapons, or digging a trap etc. Talk about the overall until the public and devs can understand what overall is wanted. Then after they come back with how they want it done (which they already sorta did) we can debate how to get it done with snares, or ranged weapons etc.

Since you asked to focus on these questions, I won't comment your whole post, though I do like some of your ideas, I don't like others, and some of them aren't clear for me

I numbered your questions to make it easier to reply.

1. I'm not sure what do you mean by this...safe zones ? The game has open PvP so noone can be safe everywhere...

2. Yes, I do believe they should be able to get away, with the chance of 90-95%. Its enough punishment to be forced away from their resources or activity, dieing just adds more to the irritating factor.

3. No, I think if someone decided to fight back, then he shouldn't be a coward later on :P If he decided to fight, he has to face the consequences.

These are my personal beliefs:

1. I do not believe that Non-PvP players should be safe anywhere, however, I also believe that they should never be forced to PvP if they choose not to. My remedy for this is safe zones for those who absolutely do not like PvP.

2. This next one depends. IF there were safe zones then I think that Non-PvP's outside of those safe zones should not have any advantage to get away (it's fair and balanced). If, however, there are no safe zones then yes, I believe that a Non-PvP should have the escapist advantage.

3. Again, to be fair, if you start to fight then you should forfeit your advantage to get away.

[MrDDT]

sisler86 wrote:

These are my personal beliefs:

1. I do not believe that Non-PvP players should be safe anywhere, however, I also believe that they should never be forced to PvP if they choose not to. My remedy for this is safe zones for those who absolutely do not like PvP.

Im not doubting your opinion but its not clear here, you are flip flopping.

You say no they shouldnt be safe anywhere, but then say there should be safe zones. Doesnt make since. Again no an opinion on your beliefs just confusion of them.

[sisler86]

MrDDT wrote:

sisler86 wrote:

These are my personal beliefs:

1. I do not believe that Non-PvP players should be safe anywhere, however, I also believe that they should never be forced to PvP if they choose not to. My remedy for this is safe zones for those who absolutely do not like PvP.

Im not doubting your opinion but its not clear here, you are flip flopping.

You say no they shouldnt be safe anywhere, but then say there should be safe zones. Doesnt make since. Again no an opinion on your beliefs just confusion of them.

I think I just didn't explain myself well enough. I'll rephrase.

I personally feel that there should be safe zones for players that absolutely do not like to PvP, but still enjoy other aspects of this game. I do not think that any player should be forced to PvP against their will so the choice of not PvPing would be to go to a safe zone to play.

I do not, however, feel that the entire game should be made to protect non-PvP's which is why I think there should be safe zones.

Basically, I think there should be safe zones, not because I want them, but because there are other players out there that do not enjoy any type of PvP, but other than that, this is their dream game. It's a bit unfair to penalize either party because of their playstyle, so safe zones are the fair and balanced alternative. In my opinion of course.