PvP and PvE do not need to be mutually exclusive.

[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).