Do we really need PvP?

[vutescu]

It seems that someone missed the point.

Nope. I did not missed any point. In other words: you can't use roleplay or Lore as an escuse for hostile actions. Well, you can, but you should not.
RL have countless examples of how to put aside mistakes from the past and build something together regardless or race or religion. That's why I set those examples. If you can forgot and forgive IRL you sure can do it in a game.

[thebax]

Heh, anti-PvP=anti-RP?

Are you slow?

The fact that both I and my character are anti-PvP does not mean that we are so for the same reasons.

Baxter is a Tryker. Trykers are A) Egalitarian and B) Hedonistic

An egalitarian stance means that you do not believe that anyone should have power over you, or your actions, as well as that you should not have the same control over another.
It is one thing to voice your desires, "I do not like you, I would prefer it if you left the area", the person being spoken to has the option to comply, or not. If the speaker REALLY can't stand the presence of the other, THEY may leave instead.
It is quite another for one to exert the ultimate control over another, ie. taking away all their oportunities for actions by killing them. From an egalitarian stand-point (and therefore RP for me, at least) PvP is wrong.

A hedonistic disposition means that you believe the point of existence is to enjoy yourself as much as possible. In this, my views do spill over into Baxter's, as I do not enjoy killing another players avatar, it makes me feel guilty. I believe Baxter feels the same way, and the poor little fellow doesn't even have the buffer of knowing that it is "just a game".

My own OOC feelings in the matter are that, as there is a plethera of other, VERY well designed games offering PvP of every stripe, but the options for non-PvP, or at least only consensual PvP, are so very, very limitted, increasing the amount of PvP on Ryzom will decrease the over-all player numbers, while increasing the percentage of griefers, which will further lower population, ending the game.

In short, your post ****, while well worded, was foolish.

OOC:

[lankin]

I, myself, do no want PvP pushed on us. But if we can flag for PvP and only those flagged so be enabled PvP then I see no issue. That said do we have enough of the history and story to understand why we would be fighting other homins and not the kitins that nearly wiped us off of Atys? I do not see PvP having any befenfit to the game as it is now. I have played in games with PvP and I did enjoy it. Ryzom is different and that is why I like it. Should we be forced into PvP, I will find myself forced from the game.

[defalgar]

My own OOC feelings in the matter are that, as there is a plethera of other, VERY well designed games offering PvP of every stripe, but the options for non-PvP, or at least only consensual PvP, are so very, very limitted, increasing the amount of PvP on Ryzom will decrease the over-all player numbers, while increasing the percentage of griefers, which will further lower population, ending the game.

well this can only be proven by actually bringing it in the game as nevrax invisioned it if they did a good job in my opinion it will be good for the game. if they did a sucky job then well you will be proven right.
im not against pvp nor am i absolutly for it. it is a risk they are taking none the less but you can only advance by taking a risk.

in other words i want to see it first before i condemn it.

[ashitaka]

You can't seperate the Lore and the Storyline. Because otherwise your vision stop at a date when all the leaders of Atys have signed a peace treaty. But as time flows, that date has passed and now Karavan and Kamis aren't happy at all with this kind of peace. So they will force homins to make their faction win. It can be through threatens or through brain washing, nonetheless no homin can be "neutral". Why?
Kamis and Karavan aren't just "factions". They are a religion, a philosophy, a meaning of life. They provide eternal life. Resurection is not provided without something in return. If you openly deny both Kami and Karavan, you'll stay dead. It's easy to say "if you follow them you're a sheep". But the homins don't give a damn if they are sheep or not, one gives them eternal life, how strong must they be to answer "no I don't believe it". IMHO it comes from the fact you know parts of the Lore that your character shouldn't, and mix the information.

That said, Trykers will defend their Lakes before anything. Trykers are the only democratic race, and I must say it is very funny to critisize democraty as a character belonging to another race, because you are the devil's advocate. Well Trykers really hate slavery, but Still Wyler is tied by Powers in presence.
Also Matis aren't bad, nor evil. They just are expansionnists and want to be the most talented. That means that if they fight stubborn and irresponsible Fyros that burn everything without thinking, what they want is a luxuriant civilisation where arts and sciences are the pillar. They don't eat Fyros babies.
And forgetting Zoraïs in the rank of bad guys is rather *erm* disturbing.
For each race, you can have different approches, and no race is black or white. And that's the strenght of the universe.



A MMORPG is a play where we player take a role that we design by ourselves with the help of the producer. There's a stage, but they are no fixed text for every role. So if everybody wants to be under the spotlight, nobody will hear each other and nobody will have fun. In SoR, in addition with the stage, we have a plotline to help us.
In this play, if everybody takes the role of the good guy and mix IRL and IG feelings, you will indeed have a world of carebears that want peace and love. But it will be very boring. In any movie or book, there's an obstacle. If not, there's no story you can shut the book and take your bicycle. So a world with everybody happy wouldn't work. The kitins ? Yes, that is one that depends entirely on Nevrax. That's why they decided to add an obstacle between players in order that they resolves the conflict by themselves. But Elias Tryton is not an easy way I tell you.

To go further with this idea of play, the character you play must have conflicts in order to be interresting. In order to identify to him/her, your character will need obstacles too. I don't invent it, mental obstacles work better than physical obstacles. That means that playing a mentally disoriented character that act like a sheep will be more interresting for everyone that a character that want to be the hero. There are too many heroes in MMORPGs, one more is just dull. I don't know if you have example of RP stories like that in your RP boards, but we have some stories really heart-lifting on French boards. These stories are not about how someone got his 250 in melee, nor how he pwned everyone around, nor how he chatted nicely with his friends. There are about deep conflicts of the character.


However there's always a problem that comes after months pass. We are tied to our characters. That's the main problem that lead players to refuse to play a bad guy or a feeble. Then if someone is aggressive IC towards them, they take it personally. And that's a wrong attitude, because the goal wasn't to harass the player. If you have distance with your character, you will have a lots of fun seeing him/her slaughtered, laughed at, or any misery that can happen on Atys. If you are too tied, you will say "hey stop that, I'm paying to play, not to be insulted. Don't touch my character!". And that's a reason to refuse PvP.




To come back to the topic, PvP is more interaction between players. So it's better for RP. That's said, I repeat that PvP isn't only for RPers, so there should be a choice IMO to enter it or not. But when people refuse PvP, it is often because of ignorance of or problems to disern risks. Another player isn't a clear obstacle like a mob. You must know what you can win/loose. Some players don't accept other players as an obstacle because of unfairness. I think in a RP game it's a wrong problem. My character don't have the skills to PvP. Then when someone from another faction tell my character to leave the area, my character shut her mouth if alone. Even if omg it's unfair he's a no-life, he's 250 all, and by the way I can refuse the duel.
That's far better than endless discussion where no one will agree ever. Someone said here that conflicts could be reslved through diplomacy. Well, not if there isn't the possibility to fight. You have weight in a discussion only if the other gives you weight. That may be by trust or fear. Forget trust in a K/K conflict, that's OOC. (Don't mix with trust between players, that still exists even if the character are insulting and backstabbing each other)


I agree that the game is what the player do with it. And that's why some games smell so much. I tell you all that because it's a call for responsability. And for SoR, don't forget it's different : there's a storyline. Maybe tomorrow there'll be only Fyros on Atys, all the others dead, but I would have been proud to be a looser because it would have been more exciting than a game where "nothing can happen to me because I'm a player". (which is still true even in SoR alas).

Well I post that or I'll add hundreds of pages.

[troll16]

I, myself, do no want PvP pushed on us. But if we can flag for PvP and only those flagged so be enabled PvP then I see no issue. That said do we have enough of the history and story to understand why we would be fighting other homins and not the kitins that nearly wiped us off of Atys? I do not see PvP having any befenfit to the game as it is now. I have played in games with PvP and I did enjoy it. Ryzom is different and that is why I like it. Should we be forced into PvP, I will find myself forced from the game.

If PvP is forced into the game then like yourself i would have to consider another game. I would have to seriously look at going back to an effective PvP game like WoW or see what Dark and Light has to offer. Having said that it does depend on how it effects this game, flagging to me is a waste of time and leads to an unrealistic game. I feel you should either have full PvP or full PvE not a hybrid.

[rushin]

some interesting arguments in this thread, from both sides of the fence. My thoughts on the matter is that a life where we all live happily together and fight off the kitin now and again is extremely dull. For those dont want to get involved in the community, in living a life on Atys but just want to level this is very apparent - they run out of things to do.

Yes we need PvP, i welcome strife, struggle, faction war, homins standing up and fighting for the kami or the karavan, warzones, outposts, fyros and zorai teams shunning matis, etc, etc. It's not going to ruin anything. We are provided with the tools and story to role play our characters. We're not playing counterstrike or gunz and we're not playing the sims. The only thing that will ultimately ruin or make SoR is the players, not the introduction of feature x or nerf y =)

[grimjim]

You can't seperate the Lore and the Storyline. Because otherwise your vision stop at a date when all the leaders of Atys have signed a peace treaty. But as time flows, that date has passed and now Karavan and Kamis aren't happy at all with this kind of peace. So they will force homins to make their faction win. It can be through threatens or through brain washing, nonetheless no homin can be "neutral". Why?

Yes you can. Lore is what has happened in the past. The storyline is what is happening now.

Imposing a storyline, or 'railroading' is a common early mistake in TTRPGs where you do not allow room for your players to act in unpredictable ways. An interactive game, whether online or around a table with your mates isn't a matter of _telling_ a story, it is a matter of crafting one together.

From the lore and from experiences since the start of play a good number of us, even a majority I would say, place homin friendships and alliances above alliegence to a faction. Apart from a little good-natured joshing around and a few fanatics on either side most long term players have taken their cue from the lore and from occurances like the Kitin and Marauder invasions and grown even closer than when we started.

The Karavan and Kami might be at loggerheads and the leaders might be largely ignoring their people and picking sides to fight upon but the homin themselves? Not so much.

Homin can easily choose to be neutral and many have. If they want to be _actively_ neutral there's always Tryton.

Kamis and Karavan aren't just "factions". They are a religion, a philosophy, a meaning of life. They provide eternal life. Resurection is not provided without something in return. If you openly deny both Kami and Karavan, you'll stay dead. It's easy to say "if you follow them you're a sheep". But the homins don't give a damn if they are sheep or not, one gives them eternal life, how strong must they be to answer "no I don't believe it". IMHO it comes from the fact you know parts of the Lore that your character shouldn't, and mix the information.

And yet they do provide resurrection, without any return, to everyone whether they side with them or not. A compromise for gameplay of course, but still, one must rationalise it into RP when you take a reasonably neutral stance.

Indeed, the lore stances of both the Tryker and the Fyros to both religions is pretty much "Yeah, whatever..." - both are inclined far more towards the neutral and only pay lip service to their faction in each case.

Eternal life is ubiquitous on Atys, it is not wonderful or amazing. You're looking at it from a human perspective there. To a homin on Atys the provision of resurrection happens regardless of faction or devotion, it is a service that is provided to us. We don't worship the water board for providing running water IRL, nor do we pray to the power company for making all these magic lights and computers work. It's just a fact of life.

That said, Trykers will defend their Lakes before anything. Trykers are the only democratic race, and I must say it is very funny to critisize democraty as a character belonging to another race, because you are the devil's advocate. Well Trykers really hate slavery, but Still Wyler is tied by Powers in presence.

Fyros appear to be modelled after a Greek or Roman republic, meaning that they too have democracy of a type, albeit a representative one rather than the seeming scrum that makes up Tryker society

Also Matis aren't bad, nor evil. They just are expansionnists and want to be the most talented. That means that if they fight stubborn and irresponsible Fyros that burn everything without thinking, what they want is a luxuriant civilisation where arts and sciences are the pillar. They don't eat Fyros babies.

Matis are the aggressors, the imperialists. They enslaved the Tryker and have fought every other race. King Yrkanis owes his life to the Zorai and the Fyros and yet has made expansionist speeches. They are also the most devout to the Karavan and it is Jena who it has been said is coming to Atys with her 'Celestial Army'. None of this makes them, or their religion, sound particularly 'nice' does it?

And forgetting Zoraïs in the rank of bad guys is rather *erm* disturbing.

It would be if the Zorai had done anything like as much as the Matis have. The Zorai's struggle was internal, before coming to the new lands they were largely insular. They helped Yrkanis, they selflessly fight the goo and devote themselves to spiritualism. They have no imperial ambitions. I don't see much evil there! That's from a neutral OOC standpoint BTW, not an IC standpoint.

In this play, if everybody takes the role of the good guy and mix IRL and IG feelings, you will indeed have a world of carebears that want peace and love. But it will be very boring. In any movie or book, there's an obstacle. If not, there's no story you can shut the book and take your bicycle. So a world with everybody happy wouldn't work. The kitins ? Yes, that is one that depends entirely on Nevrax. That's why they decided to add an obstacle between players in order that they resolves the conflict by themselves. But Elias Tryton is not an easy way I tell you.

That's what the enemies are for.

PvP causes far more problems than it creates solutions. It is NOT an RP aid, it leads to ganking, cheating, increased power levelling, reciminations and people playing the game to find the best 'build' and most effective options, playing with statistics and odds, the 'game' rather than the 'roleplay'.

Games of this type operate better on the strength of a good community, PvP breaks up that community spirit and really, trust me on this, doesn't help roleplay. It just creates a whole pile of OOC mess and you get people using the rather crummy excuse...

"I am playing t3h 3vil!"

...to get away with anything.

You don't need PvP to have conflict.

We have the Kitin, we have the Kami, we have the Karavan, they can duke it out and homin should be able to choose to fight, or not, or to place their banner where they will regardless. Both sides might decide to try and use people but those people don't have to follow.

There are too many heroes in MMORPGs, one more is just dull. I don't know if you have example of RP stories like that in your RP boards, but we have some stories really heart-lifting on French boards. These stories are not about how someone got his 250 in melee, nor how he pwned everyone around, nor how he chatted nicely with his friends. There are about deep conflicts of the character.

At one time I would have agreed with you, however, people play to get away. Everyone is the hero of their personal story and any game - not to mention other players - have to respect that or you're messing up other people's enjoyment. The characters ARE the heroes. The everyday folk are the ones that wander around at random in the wilderness or in the towns. If someone does want to play 'Joe Schmoe, crafter of boots' then more power to them, but everyone wants to be a hero, to make a difference, even if they're more Jack Burton than Peter Parker.

To come back to the topic, PvP is more interaction between players. So it's better for RP.

You'd think so, but really, it isn't.

* Traditional RP is based upon the cooperative 'party' model. Working together against outside threats, complementing each other's skills and so on. Player Vs Player is antiethical to 30+ years of roleplaying tradition and tendency - and there's a good reason for that.
* PvP play increases the OOC stresses on the games in terms of hostility between players, gankers, griefers and so on.
* PvP allows one type of player to impose their style of play upon another. One annoying player can spoil the play experience for dozens, if not hundreds of other players.
* PvP provides impetus to 'decode' the nature of the game for the most effective character build for combat, not the best choices for roleplay.

And so on...

Another player isn't a clear obstacle like a mob. You must know what you can win/loose. Some players don't accept other players as an obstacle because of unfairness. I think in a RP game it's a wrong problem. My character don't have the skills to PvP. Then when someone from another faction tell my character to leave the area, my character shut her mouth if alone. Even if omg it's unfair he's a no-life, he's 250 all, and by the way I can refuse the duel.

But you CAN'T win or lose. That's the other problem. You kill someone, they're right back, maybe this time with friends turning everything into an endless cycle of recrimination and hatred stoking up the OOC problems even more. Level based systems are also, largely, unsuited for PvP style play, especially over such a large scale (250 levels). The lower levels have absolutely no chance whatsoever against the higher levels to even so much as scratch them.

It _isn't_ fair and until a game seriously moves away from levels towards a more modern skill based system (Ryzom is only about 25% of the way to a more 'true' RPG) that'll just continue.

OK, so someone might be an awesome warrior in face to face conflict so IG you've no choice really other than to back down or get killed. In a real RPG you might wait until he's asleep and slit his throat, you might get in a lucky shot that cripples him or something else. Level systems allow the a**hats to dominate largely unopposed.

[grimjim]

Yes we need PvP, i welcome strife, struggle, faction war, homins standing up and fighting for the kami or the karavan, warzones, outposts, fyros and zorai teams shunning matis, etc, etc. It's not going to ruin anything. We are provided with the tools and story to role play our characters. We're not playing counterstrike or gunz and we're not playing the sims. The only thing that will ultimately ruin or make SoR is the players, not the introduction of feature x or nerf y =)

You don't need PvP for strife or struggle.

As to players making or breaking it, yes, that's why PvP should be fired out of a cannon into the sun.

Consensual PvP, duels, arenas or as part of specific events that people can attend or avoid? Kushty. Non consensual PvP, bad.

And really, REALLY, _LISTEN_TO_ME_FOR_I_KNOW_OF_WHAT_I_SPEAK_! PvP does NOT help roleplay. I know its counterintuitive, but it really, really, really doesn't.

[uhuhu]

YES for PvP!