PvP vs. PK and some general impressions

[JCatano]

Jadzia wrote:

JCatano wrote:

Jadzia wrote:

JCatano wrote:

Jadzia -
There is big possibility that you will not be happy with Xsyon, since you clearly do not enjoy PvP.

Xsyon wrote:
We are considering two separate worlds to accomodate a different game play style if we have enough players that are interested in a 'safer' environment.

Seeing the feature list and Xsyon's posts it may happen that it will be the PvPers who won't be happy with the game.

Yes, I've seen the "considering" part...

Not sure why I wouldn't be happy. There is definitely going to be a normal server, and I won't be choosing a PvE server if they even have enough cash-flow to pay for the infrastructure of one. They aren't going to spend tens-of-thousands-of-dollars to make a PvE server for a few hundred people. It would have to be a very large number of subscribers interested in one. That's why he said "if we have enough".

I didn't say you personally wouldn't be happy, I meant the PvP gankers who hope for mindless player killing. And they won't be happy on a normal server because the developers aren't willing to turn the game into a gankfest, so they probably will be crying about the severe PK punishments. And they will have to realise that this is not a PvP game, this is a building-crafting-surviving-exploring game with PvP option. I have no problem with meaningful PvP, it should be mutual, and not like 'I killed u noob coz i was bored !'

As I said... You don't make an open-pvp game without PvP being a large part of the entire system. It's not an "option" and won't be "mutual" as you stated. If it was, there wouldn't be open-pvp. We're all going to get PK'd. We'll probably get PK'd a whole lot while PK'ing others. I have no problem with that.

[Dominus]

Jadzia wrote:

I would be sorry to see you leaving, but why would you ? If there are 2 servers, you have your PvP one with your like-minded fellow PvPers...whats wrong with it ? Its nice to see you guys would miss us 'carebears' so much :P

Well, separating the community is never a good idea. Especially if the game is a niche sandbox that caters to a very certain few.
Having 2 different worlds would force me to become something I don't want to be.
I need someone besides me, who can craft me my gear, build my house and cook me dinner when I come home from war all bloody and tired.

Jadzia wrote:

I thought of mutual Pvp as a PvP-flagged system, players can flag themselves for PvP.

I don't like that system. Doesn't feel sandboxy :P
It would spring alot of turtles who'd never fight or only when it suits them.

[Jadzia]

JCatano wrote:

As I said... You don't make an open-pvp game without PvP being a large part of the entire system. It's not an "option" and won't be "mutual" as you stated. If it was, there wouldn't be open-pvp. We're all going to get PK'd. We'll probably get PK'd a whole lot while PK'ing others. I have no problem with that.

I understand you enjoy that kind of fun, and you have no problem with that. But why should I be forced to take part of it if I don't like it ? A flagging system would work for me too, since you guys seem to hate PvP zones...who want to PvP flag themselves for it, peaceful players flag themselves for non-PvP. In this way everyone get what they want. And of course there has to be a control system, like you can't unflag yourself from PvP as long as you are red named.

[Jadzia]

Dominus wrote:

Jadzia wrote:

I thought of mutual Pvp as a PvP-flagged system, players can flag themselves for PvP.

I don't like that system. Doesn't feel sandboxy :P
It would spring alot of turtles who'd never fight or only when it suits them.

Being bugged by PKers while I'm minding my own business doesn't feel sandboxy to me :P And why those slow turtles bother you ? Just ignore them, and enjoy your game.

[JCatano]

Jadzia wrote:

JCatano wrote:

As I said... You don't make an open-pvp game without PvP being a large part of the entire system. It's not an "option" and won't be "mutual" as you stated. If it was, there wouldn't be open-pvp. We're all going to get PK'd. We'll probably get PK'd a whole lot while PK'ing others. I have no problem with that.

I understand you enjoy that kind of fun, and you have no problem with that. But why should I be forced to take part of it if I don't like it ? A flagging system would work for me too, since you guys seem to hate PvP zones...who want to PvP flag themselves for it, peaceful players flag themselves for non-PvP. In this way everyone get what they want. And of course there has to be a control system, like you can't unflag yourself from PvP as long as you are red named.

Because that system destroys the dynamics. How am I supposed to keep you from supplying your Tribe with gear if you never turn on your PvP flag? How am I supposed to conquer your town if you all refuse to go to war by keeping your safe-flag on and saying "Neener neener!". It would undermine the entire game. Conflict is a large part of the game. That's why there is open-pvp, tribe wars, allies, conquering of areas, etc. I love to explore, craft, etc., too... But I also love meaningful PvP.

You cannot have a game with all of the proposed mechanics plus a PvP-flag system. While this is similar to SWG in a number of aspects, it is not SWG.

[Dominus]

JCatano wrote:

Because that system destroys the dynamics. How am I supposed to keep you from supplying your Tribe with gear if you never turn on your PvP flag? How am I supposed to conquer your town if you all refuse to go to war by keeping your safe-flag on and saying "Neener neener!". It would undermine the entire game. Conflict is a large part of the game. That's why there is open-pvp, tribe wars, allies, conquering of areas, etc. I love to explore, craft, etc., too... But I also love meaningful PvP.

You cannot have a game with all of the proposed mechanics plus a PvP-flag system. While this is similar to SWG in a number of aspects, it is not SWG.

+1. Very wise words. *strokes beard*

[Jadzia]

JCatano wrote:

Because that system destroys the dynamics. How am I supposed to keep you from supplying your Tribe with gear if you never turn on your PvP flag?

This is the first good argument i read about FFA PvP.

How am I supposed to conquer your town if you all refuse to go to war by keeping your safe-flag on and saying "Neener neener!". It would undermine the entire game. Conflict is a large part of the game. That's why there is open-pvp, tribe wars, allies, conquering of areas, etc. I love to explore, craft, etc., too... But I also love meaningful PvP.

I'm not sure about this. I think conflict should be an interesting, but small part of the game. To be honest if I was a real survivor after an apocalyps, I would be very happy to find other survivors, and the natural way would be to work together and establish our life again. And about sieges...towns will be safe areas during Prelude, and its not decided yet how that will work after Prelude.
In the feature list I haven't seen the feature conquering areas, but claiming areas.

[necoo]

Jadzia wrote:

JCatano wrote:

Because that system destroys the dynamics. How am I supposed to keep you from supplying your Tribe with gear if you never turn on your PvP flag?

This is the first good argument i read about FFA PvP.

How am I supposed to conquer your town if you all refuse to go to war by keeping your safe-flag on and saying "Neener neener!". It would undermine the entire game. Conflict is a large part of the game. That's why there is open-pvp, tribe wars, allies, conquering of areas, etc. I love to explore, craft, etc., too... But I also love meaningful PvP.

I'm not sure about this. I think conflict should be an interesting, but small part of the game. To be honest if I was a real survivor after an apocalyps, I would be very happy to find other survivors, and the natural way would be to work together and establish our life again. And about sieges...towns will be safe areas during Prelude, and its not decided yet how that will work after Prelude.

after an apocalypse society would break down and there would be no law or government or order to protect you... the people that you meet would be more likely to strip you of everything you have then leave you for dead that is where tribes come in to restore order or to bring about something for a "higher cause" then just surviving so although you might be happy to see someone you can't just approach them and say "hi guys" less you meet your doom if you are going to meet up with someone it would have to be on your terms if you are going to survive

in other words there will be conflict and a lot of it after an apocalypse it will hardly be a "small part" of the world

[JCatano]

Jadzia wrote:

JCatano wrote:

Because that system destroys the dynamics. How am I supposed to keep you from supplying your Tribe with gear if you never turn on your PvP flag?

This is the first good argument i read about FFA PvP.

How am I supposed to conquer your town if you all refuse to go to war by keeping your safe-flag on and saying "Neener neener!". It would undermine the entire game. Conflict is a large part of the game. That's why there is open-pvp, tribe wars, allies, conquering of areas, etc. I love to explore, craft, etc., too... But I also love meaningful PvP.

I'm not sure about this. I think conflict should be an interesting, but small part of the game. To be honest if I was a real survivor after an apocalyps, I would be very happy to find other survivors, and the natural way would be to work together and establish our life again. And about sieges...towns will be safe areas during Prelude, and its not decided yet how that will work after Prelude.

With all due respect, take those rose-colored glasses off. The "Prelude" is obviously a sort of beta/stress test stage whether they admit it or not. I'm sure they do want a tight community, but this game has had no large stress testing done at all. That's why they are going to let people in by stages. That tactic sounds familiar, doesn't it (Beta)?

It's all very controlled, so testing is obviously going to be a big part of Predule. We'll have to pay for it, unfortunately, but a few particular MMOs started the pre-access/paid beta rage, so it is what it is. I guess you can't blame a small independent team, though.

And we already know how the PvP system will work throughout the game:

PVP is open, but it has severe consequences. - Xsyon

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

Entire post in link:

http://www.xsyon.com/forums/28-featu...-and-decisions

Personally, I think the system has way too many layers to it. The devs need to simplify it.

[Jadzia]

necoo wrote:

after an apocalypse society would break down and there would be no law or government or order to protect you... the people that you meet would be more likely to strip you of everything you have then leave you for dead that is where tribes come in to restore order or to bring about something for a "higher cause" then just surviving so although you might be happy to see someone you can't just approach them and say "hi guys" less you meet your doom if you are going to meet up with someone it would have to be on your terms if you are going to survive

in other words there will be conflict and a lot of it after an apocalypse it will hardly be a "small part" of the world

I think we got too much of the Mad Max type movies...honestly, I have more faith in people...perhaps I'm just naiv. But I think its not only law what keeps people back from murdering...most of us simply don't have a criminal mind. Moral is more than law...its deep inside, you don't need anyone to force it on you. But this is more like philosophy and kind of off topic I guess