PvP and PvE do not need to be mutually exclusive.

[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.