Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
remec

Non-Consensual PvP - Yes Please!!!!

Non-Consensual PvP  

438 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you want a game with Non-Consensual PvP?

    • Hell Yeah!!!!
      370
    • No Way!!!!
      68


Recommended Posts

lol what?

I guess he didn't see the post by Gordon where he said the splitting off  a PvE only shard in UO killed the "soul" of UO. As he put it, it made sense business wise for EA because it pulled more players in thus earning more money but basically killed the what made UO...UO. Now put that in context of this game with their so far stated goals of not trying to woo the masses and the game is to focused on playing against other players: it appears (IMHO) that no they do not want to go the UO Trammel route and kill the soul again by having a separate PvE only server. Also J. Todd Coleman when he set out his advice to the community he specially asked the Shadowbane community to take it easy on the others because "they haven't played a game like this". Now to me as part of the Shadowbane community that says Crowfall will be "like" Shadowbane and Shadowbane was open world PvP.

 

So if  it is your thing to PvE and never PvP and the twain shouldn't meet, IMHO when they say this game won't be for everyone they are talking about you.

Edited by gauis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tl;dr all the posts: 

 

My thought would to have some sort of balance between pve and pvp, with more of the focus being on pvp however: 

  • Safe zones? Yes to some extent. An example here would be <insert goal> takes 10 actions to complete. You can complete 3 of the 10 in a safe zone, then 7 of 10 in a pvp zone. Or you can achieve 10 of 10 in a pvp zone. Thus, pve zones can be minimally useful, but require you to venture into pvp areas. 
  • No pvp/pve toggling flags. It's a cheap mechanic. 
  • Same faction killing with increasing penalties. As example, 1st SFK (same faction kill) target-able in safe zones by faction members for 5 min. Second, go to 30m. 3rd SFK, your faction can kill you with no penalty anywhere. 
  • Have the advancement mechanics (gear, xp, whatever) be 95% obtainable in pvp zones only. Best in Slot anything through pvp zones only (either pvp or pve type encounters). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole thread doesnt make sense in the slightest. Just make several realm types (Pve,PVP,RP) and let the carebears have the ability to be flagged for PvP as they wish. Its that simple bruv.

It's easy to consider things simple, when you don't get it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this would be fair to many players, to maximize players there should be a simple tagging system.

If you tag in, your name turns red like an enemy. If you don't tag in, you remain green. Red players cannot attack green, green CAN attack red.

To stop the trolls, if you are green and attack a red, not only do you become red, but there will be a time limit until you can go back to no pvp, maybe like 24 hours? that way you stop trolls.

keep it fair, and allow all players and their play styles to enjoy the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this would be fair to many players, to maximize players there should be a simple tagging system.

 

If you tag in, your name turns red like an enemy. If you don't tag in, you remain green. Red players cannot attack green, green CAN attack red.

 

To stop the trolls, if you are green and attack a red, not only do you become red, but there will be a time limit until you can go back to no pvp, maybe like 24 hours? that way you stop trolls.

 

keep it fair, and allow all players and their play styles to enjoy the game.

These types of posts and threads are the reason why I reserve any constructive commentary until the end of the countdown.

 

Gif8.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this would be fair to many players, to maximize players there should be a simple tagging system.

 

If you tag in, your name turns red like an enemy. If you don't tag in, you remain green. Red players cannot attack green, green CAN attack red.

 

To stop the trolls, if you are green and attack a red, not only do you become red, but there will be a time limit until you can go back to no pvp, maybe like 24 hours? that way you stop trolls.

 

keep it fair, and allow all players and their play styles to enjoy the game.

by doing that, you allow any green players to run up and gank any red player they want at anytime or to just grief reds, since reds can't do anything back.

 

until they actually hit. but by then, Green had an unfair advantage.

Edited by Xcomvic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

by doing that, you allow any green players to run up and gank any red player they want at anytime or to just grief reds, since reds can't do anything back.

 

until they actually hit. but by then, Green had an unfair advantage.

unless you setup a system that when greeny goes to attack, it will pop up a warning message, and they have the option to say "yes i want to do this" or "no, mistake mistake". it will flag first, so you will see them change, and then attacking can commence. 1 attack isn't going to be enough to "gank" anyone, unless there is a level disadvantage, in which case even if it was "fair" you are still custarded to begin with, which is my personal gripe with open and forced pvp, are those higher levels ganking noobs, thus why I prefer no pvp. so force everyone so people like me have to miss out on the game? why can't everyone be able to play regardless of play style?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

unless you setup a system that when greeny goes to attack, it will pop up a warning message, and they have the option to say "yes i want to do this" or "no, mistake mistake". it will flag first, so you will see them change, and then attacking can commence. 1 attack isn't going to be enough to "gank" anyone, unless there is a level disadvantage, in which case even if it was "fair" you are still ****ed to begin with, which is my personal gripe with open and forced pvp, are those higher levels ganking noobs, thus why I prefer no pvp. so force everyone so people like me have to miss out on the game? why can't everyone be able to play regardless of play style?

Play2Crush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this thread count as non-consensual pvp? Or is it cause we made an account we agree to terms of service? So in a sense, if you buy the game or pay for it or the like you agree to everything regardless so there is no such thing as non-consent?

 

O.o?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

No, getting chain-ganked is good reason to quit the game and demand a refund while decrying the bad game design across all of the Intarwebz.

 

i tedn to disagree....read what i said....i advised getting a few friends and gaining some payback...that IS reacting to the situation, yes?

 

One of the MOST important rules in game design is that the game must encourage the player to internalize that losing was somehow their fault- "I should've pressed 'e' instead" or "why didn't I jump there" or simply "that was dumb".

 

see above....

 

If the game world is so hostile and irrational that the player cannot immediately recognize why they are failing and work to improve it- the game is not going to be fun for people who aren't masochists.  Well, not real masochists, but you know what I mean- people who enjoy being punched in the face repeatedly.

 

ever been in the ring? as Tyson said "everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face"... you can work the heavy bag and shadowbox all day for years...but you never know what's up until you get in the ring with someone trying to knock yer block off

 

There aren't enough of those people to support an MMO of the scale Crowfall should be.

 

i tend to disagree....15 years ago...yes, but now? with so many games offering watered down PvP added as an afterthought, but still getting a lot of Players, hell...even Wiz has some kind of PvP in it, yes? the total population of gamers has increased dramatically, even if it's still 10% that want open world Fights, that percentage of say 20 million is  alot more than when there was just 2 million online Players.....see where i'm going here?  add to that JTC's contention that they are intentionally making a niche Game for those Players and well...your proposition crumbles by the wayside, imo

 

Thus, it is incumbent on the designers to make a world that operates enough like peoples' expectations of how a (violent) fantasy world would operate that they are willing to invest money and time into that world.  That means that even NPC peasants have enough expectation of surviving until winter that they want to plant crops and harvest them.  Sure, a sizable number won't make it to winter, but enough do that the system perpetuates.

 

again..i disagree...it is up the the Designers to make the Game they want, if they need to tweak to please a Publisher or Corporate, that's one thing...if not, then why not stay true the their Vision and build what THEY want to build...not some least common denominator piece of dreck like we have littering the aether

 

Look at the real Dark Ages in Europe- it was an unbelievably violent time.  However, there was enough of a sense of stability that people got through it.  That stability came from having certain areas "safe" by custom or by force.  Sure, the occasional Ragnar Loðbrok came by, but that was uncommon.

 

actually it came directly from the effects of the Black Plagues decimating the peasantry, so Labor becamea valuable commodity, skilled labor especially...these skilled laborers became something not ever seen before, an actual middle class....not slave,not indentured peasant...not nobles, but Free with their own stream of income...

 

this added to the influence of the Moorish civilization being allowed by the Pope to keep institutions of learning in Toledo coupled wiht Florentine advances all added up over a few hundred years to break the influence of the Church over the continent's politics.....

 

i could go on, but you get the idea, i hope

 

 

hope that helps....

 

{look Ma...no video!}

 

Excelsior!

 

 

We really need a better system for nesting quotes...

 

You may disagree with a fundamental law of game design, but that law still applies regardless of your opinion.  Games in which the majority of players do not understand why they "lost" fail- either immediately or as soon as something more logical comes along in the same niche.  Part of the reason that hardcore PVP is such a rarity is that very few games make it intuitive for players to understand why they lost.

 

At this point, I'd like to remind you that I support a heavy PVP focus.  What I'm striking at is how to achieve that in a sustainable game.

 

Your argument about "getting in the ring" is not exactly relevant to the question.  The question is the aftermath- can the player understand what just happened and how to potentially do better in the future?  If they can't understand it (or at least think they do) or if the answer is seemingly unobtainable ("quit your job and grind for 600 hours"), they are going to leave the game and rightly tell people to avoid it.

 

You are welcome to disagree about the available numbers of gamers who enjoy losing for no logical reason.  You might even be right.  However, I suspect that the vast majority of hardcore PVP players still want to play a game that makes intuitive, internal sense.

 

Again, you may disagree with a fundamental law of game design- there are occasionally illogical games that due to a lack of competition or just sheer luck manage to be successful for awhile (EVE, for instance).  However, the battlefield of game design is littered with the corpses of games whose designers stuck to their vision in spite of a well-established set of principles of good game design.

 

You completely missed my point about the Dark Ages.  I wasn't talking about the END, I was talking about the people living DURING that period.  Those people had to have enough of a sense of security that they could keep going.  If the nobility didn't provide enough of a sense of stability, the peasants didn't plant because they were hiding.  If the peasants didn't plant- everybody starved.  This is a logical system which players can easily internalize.

 

Given that we now know that Crowfall has hunger-related stats...  It looks like keeping your peasants feeling safe is going to be vitally important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We really need a better system for nesting quotes...

 

You may disagree with a fundamental law of game design, but that law still applies regardless of your opinion.  Games in which the majority of players do not understand why they "lost" fail- either immediately or as soon as something more logical comes along in the same niche.  Part of the reason that hardcore PVP is such a rarity is that very few games make it intuitive for players to understand why they lost.

 

At this point, I'd like to remind you that I support a heavy PVP focus.  What I'm striking at is how to achieve that in a sustainable game.

 

Your argument about "getting in the ring" is not exactly relevant to the question.  The question is the aftermath- can the player understand what just happened and how to potentially do better in the future?  If they can't understand it (or at least think they do) or if the answer is seemingly unobtainable ("quit your job and grind for 600 hours"), they are going to leave the game and rightly tell people to avoid it.

 

You are welcome to disagree about the available numbers of gamers who enjoy losing for no logical reason.  You might even be right.  However, I suspect that the vast majority of hardcore PVP players still want to play a game that makes intuitive, internal sense.

 

Again, you may disagree with a fundamental law of game design- there are occasionally illogical games that due to a lack of competition or just sheer luck manage to be successful for awhile (EVE, for instance).  However, the battlefield of game design is littered with the corpses of games whose designers stuck to their vision in spite of a well-established set of principles of good game design.

 

You completely missed my point about the Dark Ages.  I wasn't talking about the END, I was talking about the people living DURING that period.  Those people had to have enough of a sense of security that they could keep going.  If the nobility didn't provide enough of a sense of stability, the peasants didn't plant because they were hiding.  If the peasants didn't plant- everybody starved.  This is a logical system which players can easily internalize.

 

Given that we now know that Crowfall has hunger-related stats...  It looks like keeping your peasants feeling safe is going to be vitally important.

 

Fundamental law?  I must have missed this in school.

 

Reasons why you lost outside of examples you gave:

 

"I'm in a dumb place to be alone at this level."

"My situational awareness was awful and I got jumped."

"I was travelling alone in an area that I shouldn't be."

 

Dumbing it down to mechanical reasons a person lost isn't fair to the situation or how a game should be designed.  If I walked into a lvl 50 dungeon on another MMO at lvl 15 no matter how many times I pressed "e" or "jumped" isn't going to save me.  Do I quit that game or realize I made an awful decision and decide to pay attention to my surroundings better.


nAd1VPD.png

"Agelmar is King of the Hypocrites and Ruler of the Kingdom of Hypocrytia"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So long as PvP is not forced on people I don't care if it is consensual or not. Forcing a certain gameplay style onto people is never ok.

 

What does "forced" mean?  If a design pillar of the game is player vs player combat is that forcing it on the player? When the game is designed for it, is it forcing it on the player?  Is the game forcing you to play it?  Maybe it isn't a good fit for what you want to play.

 

I don't understand the argument.  If you don't want to PvP, don't come to an obvioius PvP game and complain about PvP.  There WILL be other things to do, that doesn't protect you from PvP, but it can distract you from it.


nAd1VPD.png

"Agelmar is King of the Hypocrites and Ruler of the Kingdom of Hypocrytia"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So long as PvP is not forced on people I don't care if it is consensual or not. Forcing a certain gameplay style onto people is never ok.

 

This has been said over and over, despite the fact that it makes no sense. How are you "forcing" it on anyone? They don't have to play.


I'm in this for the Experience, not the XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been said over and over, despite the fact that it makes no sense. How are you "forcing" it on anyone? They don't have to play.

 

Serioulsy.  There are plenty of games that have absolutely nothing I want to do in them.  I'm not on those development forums making demands.  I know the game isn't for me and I won't play it.


nAd1VPD.png

"Agelmar is King of the Hypocrites and Ruler of the Kingdom of Hypocrytia"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been said over and over, despite the fact that it makes no sense. How are you "forcing" it on anyone? They don't have to play.

 

You could see it from a marketing standpoint: If you want to reach many players in order to make good money then you have to include options in your game. So if you just cater to players who want open PvP with full loot you are severly limiting your audience. Would this audience be enough to keep this game running? I don't know. But if you want to have a broader audience, people who are not in it for open PvP and full loot then you need to include the option to unflag for PvP.

 

It's all about options. Why not give people the option to not flag for PvP? Why not let them play the game the way they want to play it? If they just want to follow a story without having to worry to reach the next questgiver alive then they will surely not have a good time in the game.

Maybe on some days I don't have much time to play and just want to harvest something or do a quest but by being forced into open PvP I may not be able to do what I want which can be frustrating.

I doubt that a game wants to frustrate its players.

 

Sure, Crowfall could be a game that has open PvP and maybe full loot enabled by default and maybe it is a game about PvP but then the devs have to accept that they might miss a big audience with their game. If they want to reach a broader audience then they have to include the option to not flag for PvP so that players are not forced to do PvP.

Edited by bumblebee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...