PvP, the devil: or (to P or not to P?)

[amitst]

While this is all true.
Not allowing player combat takes a way a certain level of personal power.

Making only a very select few zones PKable means that you cannot get back at the people who do it.

If it were enabled people still wouldnt randomly kill you, because you cant get loot, you cant get experience, there is no reason, and because the community would lynch whoever did it by repeatedly killing them.

Enabling it everywhere except towns would make this game better because it would allow the players to police themselves, and would not cause havoc because noone has any reason to do it.

I'm so pissed, I can't be evil if they dont even let me attack people.


and a sidepoint

what is wrong with having competition in an RPG? isnt that what the online setting is for? to have competition and a social settting??????? isnt that what the merchants and crafters keep talking about in the market? that competition sets the price? if powerful people competed for aen then they could fight over her actually instead of whining to a GM. If they are that much more powerful than you, morgaine, then who deserves it??? My guild of diggers(haha...) are far from weak, digging does not make you weak... and I resent that you said that, for whatever reason you did.

[quasar11]

wish ya would stop quoting masive speaches then adding just 3 worrds

Nuff said... kudos to you


There that's 5

[oldmess]

I can see a limited place for PvP in resolving sections of the story arcs, so long as there can be clear winners and losers. Otherwise PvP is just a way for 1337 kiddies to get their kicks because they haven't discovered girls yet.

First, I want to say I agree with your entire post. I'm quoting the above because it dovetails nicely with something I said in another thread:

ATM, there is no point to PvP because there is no winner/loser. It's really nothing more than ganking with a veneer of roleplaying to make the attacker feel better. Even if both parties line up in the arena and it's an agreed-upon fight (as opposed to a blasting someone in the roots before they know what's going on), what's the point? What have you won/lost? Have you really proven that you're the better player or just the one with more free time on his hands for power-leveling?

Hopefully Outposts will gives us enough purpose to PvP (and enough complexity) that it will be good for the story and the community. But I must agree that there is really no point to it today.

Raynes, I want to say I respect you for attempting to give it meaning back on the Windemeer server. But since Nevrax gave us no real way to define victory (except for a single battle), no amount of roleplaying veneer was going to make it work out. It always felt like they didn't intend to have PvP in the first few chapters but added it due to demands from a small segment of the population.

The key question with outposts to me is do they provide:

A. Purpose. A story based reason for this conflict. This I can't tell from the notes. I don't know why we're doing this except to gain some advantage. That may be enough to make this fun, but having it more story oriented would be nice.

B. Scorekeeping. A method to determine success/failure in our conflicts. My guess is 'yes' since it's success to capture an outpost and to maintain one. Failure then is defined as failing to capture an outpost or losing one to another group.

[vinnyq]

ooo grim, we gonna rassel?

You're wrong.

And I shall now explain why

Context.

Roleplaying games are non-competetive games.

Their very genesis comes from cooperative play, a shift in paradigm from the wargames that gave them birth.

In a conventional RPG the Game Master is there to provide an interesting series of challenges and a good cooperative story. Not to wipe out the players. (Though some never understand this...).

What fun would it be to pit your first level adventurers against a great dragon right off the bat because the GM is in a vindictive mood?

None.

Roleplaying games, even your most basic dungeon crawl, rely on cooperation. The wizard to discern the magic, the fighter to hold the creatures at bay, the cleric to heal and the thief to open locks and disarm traps.

That, primitive, mode of D&D play is _still_ the basis for just about every MMORPG in existence.
...

Ok, I agree that co-operative plays are also pretty awesome in its own right.
And even thought traditional table top rpg games start out as competitive play, they don't need to be. There're room for both in the genre.

Any sort of multi-players that have players interaction, be it co-operative or competitive, enhances a game. I will admit that if I imply PvP will trump co-op play any day, then I am wrong. I do not, however, agree that rpg can only be about co-operative play and players working together to experience a story together. It can also be about players conflict. No this or that is better, just different style of players interaction, whatever you're in the mood for. You can and should roleplay enemies against other players, and also as friends. Don't know why you would limit it to players against the GMs/Game.

And speaking of context, yes, it'll be the highest form of PvP when it's in context, where you are or pretending you are fighting for something. But doesn't this still gives the argument that PvP isn't the devil? And that if you just dislike PvP because of its competive nature and doesn't have context to go with it, then you're being a tad unreasonable?

You mention pitting your wits against a human opponent being more satisfying, I agree, but that's only really true in 'twitch' games like FPS. In an MMO its more like a trial of endurance, who has spent the most time levelling their character. Unless they're almost exactly on par in levels there is LITTLE to no unpredictability or skill in who wins. Even luck plays a very minor role.

Until we get an MMORPG that moves away from levels and hit point bloat as a mechanism of advancement that's always going to be the way. There's no involvement there, not even who can click attack the fastest.

This is true only if you have 2 guys holding sticks and standing there whacking each other. But if you introduce only a tad more variety in skills and number of moving parts (e.g. team vs team, invuln and auras, healing, affliction, etc), then strategy will come into play. It won't just be about number crunching. I bet you a team of lvl 50 can beat a team of lvl 100 if the lvl 50 team is well balanced and work well together as oppose to a lvl 100 team just trying to nuke the enemies to piece.

PvP _IS_ the devil. It makes enemies of friends, spoils people's enjoyment, interrupts their fantasies and takes a large and unwelcome bowel movement in their fun.

Hehe, you're going to hate me for saying this. But,

PvP don't makes enemies of friends, *people* make enemies of friends. TYVM HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!

[sehracii]

This is true only if you have 2 guys holding sticks and standing there whacking each other. But if you introduce only a tad more variety in skills and number of moving parts (e.g. team vs team, invuln and auras, healing, affliction, etc), then strategy will come into play. It won't just be about number crunching. I bet you a team of lvl 50 can beat a team of lvl 100 if the lvl 50 team is well balanced and work well together as oppose to a lvl 100 team just trying to nuke the enemies to piece.

This is true only if the 100 team is fighting very stupidly. If they have their act together at all the lvl 50 team won't have a chance.

I'd say currently it takes a whole lot of strategy to overcome even a moderate difference in levels. And you're not going to find a team that won't use any strategy back, so it's going to come down to levels 90% of the time.

[borguk]

Outposts mean PvP, without the PvP element Ryzom wont attract the players and more importantly wont keep the players.

I played this game for 6 months, I felt in March that apart from grinding up some more I had been everywhere and pretty done all that I could.
Ive been on WoW now for 4 months and reached lvl 60 several weeks ago, without PvP I probably would have quit as it meant that I have played in this genre of game for 10 months.
But I havent and if outposts were live now I wouldnt be quittting Ryzom either.

The ultimate of object of any good mmorg is to give the player the levelling without the grind, this is something that I learned from both wow and planetside.

Also this isnt an RP unless you choose it to be, Im sure they will introduce PvP in the same manner.

[vinnyq]

This is true only if the 100 team is fighting very stupidly. If they have their act together at all the lvl 50 team won't have a chance.

I'd say currently it takes a whole lot of strategy to overcome even a moderate difference in levels. And you're not going to find a team that won't use any strategy back, so it's going to come down to levels 90% of the time.

All right, I'll concede this point.

But what if you have a team of mix lvl of players?

And what if you have at least some sort of balancing mechanism (like boxing classes with lightweight, heavy weight, etc).

Then would PvP be fun?

Or would you say that PvP is never fun because it involves the idea of one player hurting another player?

[rakeesh]

Making only a very select few zones PKable means that you cannot get back at the people who do it.

I don't quite understand this statement. If you can't get back at a person, how did they get you in the first place?

Enabling it everywhere except towns would make this game better because it would allow the players to police themselves, and would not cause havoc because noone has any reason to do it.

I think you've seen a better side of people then I have, then.

In my experience, there's absolutely no shortage of people who will indulge in 'thuggery' whenever and whenever it's available. And for the most part others won't do anything about it, even when they're capable of doing something about it because the PK-er hasn't fled to some safe zone to avoid the fight.

I also play EVE Online, which is a severely PvP-oriented game. And I have to say that except for some very notable exceptions, almost all the PvP I've dealt with has been people ganking me when I was helpless, running away when I wasn't (and telling me how much I suck while they did so), and only very rarely did they have any reason to attack me other than because they could.

In EVE, you'll have a group of people shut down entire areas, killing anyone who enters (because they can), and they'll be completely unopposed for a very long time because getting a group together to deal with them is like herding cats.

Like it or not, unrestricted PvP very much changes the tone of the game, and the kind of people who play it.

When I started playing Ryzom, I was under the impression that it was the "homins" trying to reclaim their homelands from the kitin that had devastated them. Is that no longer the case?

[vinnyq]

When I started playing Ryzom, I was under the impression that it was the "homins" trying to reclaim their homelands from the kitin that had devastated them. Is that no longer the case?

I think what Nevrax is going for is a balance of both. It is still the case, plus! here's a little PvP for the competitive gamers! wink wink nudge nudge.

They'll be missing a chunk of the gamers population if they don't at least have *some* form of PvP in the game, and face it, they want the subs from anywhere they can (and not just them, any mmorpg developers out there).

[sehracii]

All right, I'll concede this point.

But what if you have a team of mix lvl of players?

And what if you have at least some sort of balancing mechanism (like boxing classes with lightweight, heavy weight, etc).

Then would PvP be fun?

Or would you say that PvP is never fun because it involves the idea of one player hurting another player?

I'm very interested in PvP that isn't about levels. And I'm excited for outposts for that reason, I hope they can pull it off. Death by PvP doesn't concern me even now, even if it had DP it's a minor inconvenience. I just have no interest in participating in something that comes down to levels, especially when there's not even an incentive to do so other then "I can kill you so I will." There also needs to be some sort of end to conflicts, so it doesn't turn to back and forth killing that gets increasingly personal.

I wasn't posting to necessarily advocate PvP=Evil, just to point out why many people have absolutely no interest in it and even fear more entering Ryzom, as the only exposure so far is the level-based pointless killing.

But like I said, I hope outposts seriously mix things up!