A Possible Solution to the PvP/PvE Clash

[thebax]

Some may well get angry over my starting a new thread on this same topic. There may well be calls for it to be closed. This is, however, the single most important topic in Ryzom at the moment.

I did not post in the "Do we really need PvP?" thread for several days, as I was thinking long and hard about the problem, and the various points of view expressed in that thread. I respectfully request that any readers do the same before responding to this post, or others in this thread, should it grow.

During this analysis, I realized that both sides, including myself, were so entrenched in our beliefs (whether for or against) about PvP, that we were not listening to each-other's points, merely arguing against them. We seemed to be at loggerheads, no viable solution to be had. I believe this is not the case, there is a solution (or rather, a group of them) which would please everyone.

Understand, I am not a novice when it comes to RPGs or MMOs. I have been playing pen and paper games since "Chainmail" and online games since two people playing at the same time was a big deal. I have played pure PvP, pure PvE, mixes of each, and what may be best described as intellectual challenge games, where one is not pitted against either player or beast, but a problem set instead. I have played these variations both on paper and on-line for around 30 years (admittedly and obviously, though, the paper was at the begginning of those three decades ). This is not a boast, just my bona fides in regard to gaming.

First, a brief recap, merely for context, of the contents of the aforementioned thread. No bias is intended, and I will do my best to leave it behind.

PvP statement: "PvP is fun for me. I enjoy the challenge of going up against a thinking opponent. Mobs are too easy to outsmart, and the thrill of defeating another mind in combat is incomparable, and undeniable. I have a right, as a paying customer, to play a game I enjoy."
PvE statement: "PvP is not fun for me. I feel frustrated when I lose, and guilty when I win. I am therefore unprepared for it much of the time, so that an attack by another player is certain to result in my character's death, which I also feel is less than fun. I have a right, as a paying customer, to play a game I enjoy."

PvP statement: "Some areas are PvP. Period. If you enter them, you have consented to PvP."
PvE statment: "Because of the strength of the mobs, a cost/benefit analysis of the PvE areas which offer nearly the same materials/content of the PvP zones, makes them non-desirable. I do not consider that I have any choice in the matter, comparing the amount of reward available in those areas to what may be gained by harvesting/hunting in any other land or the PvP areas."

PvP statement: "Outposts require PvP to function properly, in a non-exploitable form."
PvE statement: "Outposts have various control-mechanisms possible, such as land-grants (one per guild, maybe more for high fame), taxes, attacks by Mobs/NPCs etc."

PvP statement: "PvP provides a means for players to settle disputes in-game, without involving the CSRs."
PvE statment: "PvP provides a means for players to settle disputes in-game, without involving the CSRs, providing both sides behave in a mature fashion."

PvP statement: "Wide-spread PvP will bring back some who have quit, and will draw in new players as well."
PvE statement: "Wide-spread PvP will keep away some who have quit, cause some who are currently playing to quit, and draw in new players who will be poor citizens as well."


These seem to be the main arguments on both sides, both sides have valid points. There may be a compromise which will allow both groups to play the game they have grown to love, warts and all, without destroying it for the other side.

The concept of PvP/non-PvP flags has been mentioned, and I think (athough I am not sure) that it is part of Neverax's intention. This is a big step towards resolving the problem, but it falls short in a number of areas.

1) Healing in PvP/FvF/GvG areas. It galls many people that their fame is controlling their actions, rather than the other way around, and that it is often impossible to heal or resurect your own guild-mates. It is true that being able to heal anyone at any time will, in some cases, create problems and be exploitable.
Possible solution: Those flagged non-PvP may be healed by anyone at any time, although they are still attackable in "consentual" PvP zones, and they may not attack, even in PvP enabled zones. Those flagged PvP are only healable under the current rule-set, ie. by members of their faction/guild/team depending on the nature of the area. This way, if a PvP enabled character comes across a digger in PR that they do not want there, they may remove them. The digger may only fight back if he or she is PvP enabled. If they are not, they will, of course, be killed, but they have the option to ask for a rez. However, in fights over things like super nodes, or bosses, this would also eliminate the possibility of someone standing safe from the conflict, and healing their side without risk.

2) Ganking. If this term offends, replace with "Killing another player without risk to yourself". The developers have gone to a great deal of trouble to prevent this sort of behavior against mobs, both in the CoC, and in-game mechanics. Often when one kills a mob that can not reach them for some reason (cliffing, an interposing barrier or body of water), they recieve no xp, and may not quarter. This is because we are required to pay three prices for victory:
A)Wear and tear on equipment
B)Time spent
C)Possibility of catastrophic failure (ie. death, failure to succede in a craft, death of a source node or it's exploding/gas relese)
Of those three, the third is the most important, and the reason for such exploits against mobs being dis-allowed. The same can not always be said for player vs. player conflicts, however. When one geared for battle attacks one geared for digging, often, the result is the diggers death, the initiator of the conflict risks little. If those flagged neutral in some areas, or non-PvP in others may not attack, but may be attacked, the risk to the initiator drops to nil.
Possible solution: Add a risk to any conflict. In cases where both may attack, the risk is death on the part of one (or sometimes both) as it is now. For cases where one person or side may not attack, their risk for being in such an area is still death, but the attacker must face a risk as well, to avoid it being an exploit. As a modification to an idea from another thread, attacking and killing those flagged as non-PvP will result in a .2 gain in fame for any faction or civilization the target has -30 or less fame with, and a -1 loss in fame with any faction or civilization the target has +30 or more fame with. Both gain and loss are repeatable, but only once per hour per target. This is non-exploitable, as one may aquire far more fame faster by doing missions for the various welcomers. These fame gains/losses would also reflect a realistic change in a populations view of the attacker.

3)Non-PvP Oriented Outposts. This is, as I understand it, already planned. While many of us would have preffered they were introduced first, once both play-styles are accommodated, it becomes a non-issue.

I believe that by instituting the solutions under both points one and two, neither side of this great debate need be left out. The checks and balances will prevent abuse, while still allowing freedom within fairness.

Again, I expect some to object, either to the ideas presented, to the subject itself, or to any subsequent posts which may follow. All I ask, should you decide to post such objection, is that you think it through for a few hours, to let emotion bleed away, and frame the most well-reasoned objection possible.

[vutescu]

Bax, I would've send you a PM but you deactivated it.

PvP statement: "PvP provides a means for players to settle disputes in-game, without involving the CSRs."
PvE statment: "PvP provides a means for players to settle disputes in-game, without involving the CSRs, providing both sides behave in a mature fashion."

Sorry, I don't belive in solving disputes via combat.
Level and class diferences, also the known unbalanced game mechanics, etc. Only barefisted combat - maybe - can be used on this. But as long as a dispute is caused by some ideeas, bad behaviour or something like this, no matter who wins, it not solves the conflict.
Example: (PvE example) I'm harvesting some excelent mats, and you come and start prospecting. On purpose you start harvesting without using cp and the result -> all area is depleted (happened to me in FF). We start arguing, etc, etc. Well, let's say we start dueling. I don't care I win or lose here. I wanted the mats not to see you down.

Possible solution: Those flagged non-PvP may be healed by anyone at any time, although they are still attackable in "consentual" PvP zones, and they may not attack, even in PvP enabled zones. Those flagged PvP are only healable under the current rule-set, ie. by members of their faction/guild/team depending on the nature of the area. This way, if a PvP enabled character comes across a digger in PR that they do not want there, they may remove them. The digger may only fight back if he or she is PvP enabled. If they are not, they will, of course, be killed, but they have the option to ask for a rez. However, in fights over things like super nodes, or bosses, this would also eliminate the possibility of someone standing safe from the conflict, and healing their side without risk.

That will only increase ganking over PvE players in PvP areas. They can't even fight back.

Possible solution: Add a risk to any conflict. In cases where both may attack, the risk is death on the part of one (or sometimes both) as it is now. For cases where one person or side may not attack, their risk for being in such an area is still death, but the attacker must face a risk as well, to avoid it being an exploit. As a modification to an idea from another thread, attacking and killing those flagged as non-PvP will result in a .2 gain in fame for any faction or civilization the target has -30 or less fame with, and a -1 loss in fame with any faction or civilization the target has +30 or more fame with. Both gain and loss are repeatable, but only once per hour per target. This is non-exploitable, as one may aquire far more fame faster by doing missions for the various welcomers. These fame gains/losses would also reflect a realistic change in a populations view of the attacker.

Someone who gank on purpose and likes to do that, don't care about fame. Think at a small guild who have no outposts because of low fame. They did not care about fame til now, and now is way too late to recover it. They are resentfull and wants to take revenge. They will start killing. If the fame would have more implications than outposts, will be great. Like guards attacking on sight when fame drops at -30. Or merchants not selling wares.


I did not posted in a hurry, I've been thinking at this matter for a long time too. Unfortunatelly I see no solutions. Well, at least no viable solutions to satisfy both parts. :(

[thebax]

Addendum:
Whether I agree with any of the arguments or not is immaterial. I was simply trying to save people the trouble of sifting through 400+posts in the previous thread, although, as the statments are presented in a more in-depth fashion there, and there is the possibility of a mistake in statement on my part, it is worthwhile to do so.

Solution 1 will indeed continue the problem of non-consentual PvP, that is one of the reasons for solution 2. The two are not independant, they require each-other to function.

Even if a person or group cares little for fame, it is an effective and fair sanction, commeasurate with their acts, no more, no less. It merely means that one who kills up-standing citizens of a particular group because they wish to play "Evil", are treated as such by that group. Conversely, they will be feted as heroes by the opposing group. It proffers a sanction/reward system that is fair both in and out of character.

[khopesh]

These seem to be the main arguments on both sides, both sides have valid points. There may be a compromise which will allow both groups to play the game they have grown to love, warts and all, without destroying it for the other side.

The concept of PvP/non-PvP flags has been mentioned, and I think (athough I am not sure) that it is part of Neverax's intention. This is a big step towards resolving the problem, but it falls short in a number of areas.

1) Healing in PvP/FvF/GvG areas. It galls many people that their fame is controlling their actions, rather than the other way around, and that it is often impossible to heal or resurect your own guild-mates. It is true that being able to heal anyone at any time will, in some cases, create problems and be exploitable.
Possible solution: Those flagged non-PvP may be healed by anyone at any time, although they are still attackable in "consentual" PvP zones, and they may not attack, even in PvP enabled zones. Those flagged PvP are only healable under the current rule-set, ie. by members of their faction/guild/team depending on the nature of the area. This way, if a PvP enabled character comes across a digger in PR that they do not want there, they may remove them. The digger may only fight back if he or she is PvP enabled. If they are not, they will, of course, be killed, but they have the option to ask for a rez. However, in fights over things like super nodes, or bosses, this would also eliminate the possibility of someone standing safe from the conflict, and healing their side without risk.

2) Ganking. If this term offends, replace with "Killing another player without risk to yourself". The developers have gone to a great deal of trouble to prevent this sort of behavior against mobs, both in the CoC, and in-game mechanics. Often when one kills a mob that can not reach them for some reason (cliffing, an interposing barrier or body of water), they recieve no xp, and may not quarter. This is because we are required to pay three prices for victory:
A)Wear and tear on equipment
B)Time spent
C)Possibility of catastrophic failure (ie. death, failure to succede in a craft, death of a source node or it's exploding/gas relese)
Of those three, the third is the most important, and the reason for such exploits against mobs being dis-allowed. The same can not always be said for player vs. player conflicts, however. When one geared for battle attacks one geared for digging, often, the result is the diggers death, the initiator of the conflict risks little. If those flagged neutral in some areas, or non-PvP in others may not attack, but may be attacked, the risk to the initiator drops to nil.
Possible solution: Add a risk to any conflict. In cases where both may attack, the risk is death on the part of one (or sometimes both) as it is now. For cases where one person or side may not attack, their risk for being in such an area is still death, but the attacker must face a risk as well, to avoid it being an exploit. As a modification to an idea from another thread, attacking and killing those flagged as non-PvP will result in a .2 gain in fame for any faction or civilization the target has -30 or less fame with, and a -1 loss in fame with any faction or civilization the target has +30 or more fame with. Both gain and loss are repeatable, but only once per hour per target. This is non-exploitable, as one may aquire far more fame faster by doing missions for the various welcomers. These fame gains/losses would also reflect a realistic change in a populations view of the attacker.

3)Non-PvP Oriented Outposts. This is, as I understand it, already planned. While many of us would have preffered they were introduced first, once both play-styles are accommodated, it becomes a non-issue.

I believe that by instituting the solutions under both points one and two, neither side of this great debate need be left out. The checks and balances will prevent abuse, while still allowing freedom within fairness.

My post will be written from a Pro-PvP point of view. I enjoy PvP interaction in other games, and I will couch my reply in those terms.

In my opinion, PvP in SoR is not well defined. It seems in the Lore, that they had factional setups for racial tensions, as well as Kami/Karavan. I think if they had implemented a PvP system closer to launch, that the racial tensions would be more impacting than they would be today. This leaves us with Kami/Karavan based PvP. The problem with that being, you cannot tell faction bias anywhere in the interface. This makes quick judgments of friend/foe impossible, and that seems, at least to me, to be necessary for valuable PvP.

Healing in PvP/FvF/GvG areas suffers from this deficiency. With ill-defined faction scenarios, truly productive (ie. fun) conflict is impossible. This leaves the only viable option for PvP Guild vs. Guild. It should be easy enough to determine whether a person is teamed or guilded with you, and only allow heals in that scenario. I understand that this will be inconvenient for those who perish in regions where such conflict is possible. However, for PvP to engender any sort of fun at all, there must always be the "danger" element, just as with PvE. Danger always includes penalties.

"Ganking" will be something that happens in any PvP scenario. No system that could be codified by the developers could ever prevent it. However, in a guild vs. guild PvP allowable scenario (and alliances can and should be included), the players would have to self-police. This means that any "gankers" can and should be quickly identified, and eliminated. This would solve PvP ganking, as most fighting would be based on outposts or scheduled guild events. PvE oriented players would be able to have PvP oriented players protect them, by virtue of guild or alliance membership.

Non-PvP oriented outposts sounds to me like a good idea. However, if there is less risk, be it PvE or PvP based, there should also be less reward.

I am highly pro-PvP in my stance and approach to most games. However, in this game, the proper tensions or systems have not yet been conceptualized or implemented to make it an enjoyable experience for the entire playerbase. Until such time as the "tension" elements are properly addressed, it will not add anything except the abilty to grief players who would not otherwise engage in it. I enjoy "danger" in my gaming. I enjoy "political tension". I do not enjoy the ability to randomly slay everything and anything. That is what FPS play is for.

----

Valnyori of the Atys Paladins
Swordbearer
Captain of the Order of Templar Knights, 3rd Regiment.
Veneratio etiam Sanctimonia

[uhuhu]

***URL removed: Please do not post inappropriate, off-topic links on these message boards.***

[xenofur]

bax, mind activating your PMs?

[michielb]

Possible solution: Add a risk to any conflict. In cases where both may attack, the risk is death on the part of one (or sometimes both) as it is now. For cases where one person or side may not attack, their risk for being in such an area is still death, but the attacker must face a risk as well, to avoid it being an exploit. As a modification to an idea from another thread, attacking and killing those flagged as non-PvP will result in a .2 gain in fame for any faction or civilization the target has -30 or less fame with, and a -1 loss in fame with any faction or civilization the target has +30 or more fame with. Both gain and loss are repeatable, but only once per hour per target. This is non-exploitable, as one may aquire far more fame faster by doing missions for the various welcomers. These fame gains/losses would also reflect a realistic change in a populations view of the attacker.

I like the idea but I would like to take it one step further...

Sollution: If anyone attacks a person not flagged for PvP the attacker will be flagged murderer by the side the victim belongs to. This would mean that all NPC's aligned with the side of the victim, including town guards, will kill on sigh if the murderer comes within range.....

seems only fair to me....

[lawrence]

Some may well get angry over my starting a new thread on this same topic. There may well be calls for it to be closed.

Absolutely no issues from my side, Thebax. PvP combat in all its complexity could not possibly fit into a single discussion thread. Besides, with the outposts and the various PvP-related changes currently in concept and in development, we are always looking to provide the development team with more thorough, constructive feedback regarding this topic.

[mrshad]

My post will be written from a Pro-PvP point of view. I enjoy PvP interaction in other games, and I will couch my reply in those terms.

In my opinion, PvP in SoR is not well defined. It seems in the Lore, that they had factional setups for racial tensions, as well as Kami/Karavan. I think if they had implemented a PvP system closer to launch, that the racial tensions would be more impacting than they would be today. This leaves us with Kami/Karavan based PvP. The problem with that being, you cannot tell faction bias anywhere in the interface. This makes quick judgments of friend/foe impossible, and that seems, at least to me, to be necessary for valuable PvP.

Faction alignment can be defined. The FvF zones asign sides based on fame levels. Enemies are identified with a different color. We can argue the value of using fame as an indicator, but the the mechanics of FvF conflict are more or less in place.

"Ganking" will be something that happens in any PvP scenario. No system that could be codified by the developers could ever prevent it. However, in a guild vs. guild PvP allowable scenario (and alliances can and should be included), the players would have to self-police. This means that any "gankers" can and should be quickly identified, and eliminated. This would solve PvP ganking, as most fighting would be based on outposts or scheduled guild events. PvE oriented players would be able to have PvP oriented players protect them, by virtue of guild or alliance membership.

GvG conflict usually results in the largest guild dominating the server. I think you are overly optimistic in your thinking that fighting would be limited to scheduled events. Anywhere PvP is possible, there will be gankers to abuse it.

Self policing systems do not stop gankers. They reward gankers by giving them more of what they want, attention. It only works if there is a penalty that the players can bestow on the gankers that is worse than what the gankers can give to thier targets.

We all have other things we would rather do than stand guard over harvesters aganst gankers. The idea that guilds could be defending thier harvesters is not really workable. It breeds the thinking that the way to get ahead is to attack another guild's harvesters, while defending your own. Obviously, attacking harvesters is exactly the kind of behavior we want to see less of.

We have coverd this before, but self policing simply does not work.

The only effective counter-ganking measures are ones implemented by the system, that trigger everytime ganking occures. Something along the lines of "If you attack and kill a character with a neutral flag, your character will carry a permanent death flag for one week. If your character is killed by anything during that week, it will be erased from the server."

Non-PvP oriented outposts sounds to me like a good idea. However, if there is less risk, be it PvE or PvP based, there should also be less reward.

How would you assess risk?
Is it the possibility of failure?
Is it measured by what is lost if you fail?

I think a very easy argument could be made that the crafters risk more than the fighters most of the time, as the fighters choose the most productive battles they can saftly win, but the crafter always risk loosing thier mats if they botch a job.

Risk is a tricky thing to project. I would suggest there is less risked by the uber-ganker-guild taking a smaller guild's outpost than their is a smaller guild trying to reclaim on outpost from the frontier. If you have supieriority in both numbers and levels, how much are you really risking?

I am highly pro-PvP in my stance and approach to most games. However, in this game, the proper tensions or systems have not yet been conceptualized or implemented to make it an enjoyable experience for the entire playerbase. Until such time as the "tension" elements are properly addressed, it will not add anything except the abilty to grief players who would not otherwise engage in it. I enjoy "danger" in my gaming. I enjoy "political tension". I do not enjoy the ability to randomly slay everything and anything. That is what FPS play is for.

It will never be an enjoyable experience for the entire playerbase. Very few griefers can ruin the game for very many people. Unless sytem level controlls are put in place to stop ganking before it happens, or punish it severly when it does, ganking will flourish. It has happened in every other game that has implemented open PvP or PvP zones, and it will happen here.

I used to think that faction driven, story based PvP might have a place in SoR. But thinking upon it further, how often is it that advanced cultures really go to war over racial or religious differences? It just doesn't happen. Now, I can see an argument that says despite our technilogical advances, homins are not all that emotionally or culturally advanced, and we are still given to the level of intolerance neccisary to start racial and religious wars.

Perhaps that is the case.

And if it is the case, FvF conflicts, properly administered, might be enjoyable.
But so far on Atys, they have left very much to be desired.

There are many other games that feature well balanced, open PvP, SoR is
what it is because it is not one of them.

[vguerin]

This is, however, the single most important topic in Ryzom at the moment.

Many good points here man, and we are at total different ends of this as you well know.

This really isn't the single most important topic, lack of anything to do if your not into RP or using SoR as a chat probably rates much higher. PvP/Outposts/R2 are all high on the list of things we want to succeed in their implimentation because there is not much to do for those of here for a year now.

I am glad ya didn't use yer pirate/cajun speak tho

I am highly pro-PvP in my stance and approach to most games. However, in this game, the proper tensions or systems have not yet been conceptualized or implemented to make it an enjoyable experience for the entire playerbase. Until such time as the "tension" elements are properly addressed, it will not add anything except the abilty to grief players who would not otherwise engage in it. I enjoy "danger" in my gaming. I enjoy "political tension". I do not enjoy the ability to randomly slay everything and anything. That is what FPS play is for.

I am pretty much the same way, unlike many of the non-PvPers... I choose not to make alot of noise about something that is barely working now. The game has always had a war element to it and this has only been implementing long overdue gameplay mechanics.

GvG conflict usually results in the largest guild dominating the server. I think you are overly optimistic in your thinking that fighting would be limited to scheduled events. Anywhere PvP is possible, there will be gankers to abuse it.

It will never be an enjoyable experience for the entire playerbase. Very few griefers can ruin the game for very many people. Unless sytem level controlls are put in place to stop ganking before it happens, or punish it severly when it does, ganking will flourish. It has happened in every other game that has implemented open PvP or PvP zones, and it will happen here.

I am sorry my friend... this old old anti-PvP adage is why Bax thinks that the issue of PvP is so important. You and few others non-PvPers have taken it upon yourselves to rehash all the same stuff I have seen in other games forums before SoR was even released. You all cannot bow and kneel to the CSR and profess their greatness then make statements like this. One of the things about SoR is that a response comes when you take the appropriate action. Going back to some other things said already about flags etc... you cannot get ganked with the proper flags/alignment etc. Other than that, unless it happens repeatedly there is no real PKing going on here anywhere but in the proper zones.

I think a very easy argument could be made that the crafters risk more than the fighters most of the time, as the fighters choose the most productive battles they can saftly win, but the crafter always risk loosing thier mats if they botch a job.

Say what ? Is there a chance for ADD, bad repops or some turd dragging aggro on you while you sit in town crafting mats prolly supplied at least in part by others that took a life risk to provide them ? Jeez...

I used to think that faction driven, story based PvP might have a place in SoR. But thinking upon it further, how often is it that advanced cultures really go to war over racial or religious differences? It just doesn't happen. Now, I can see an argument that says despite our technilogical advances, homins are not all that emotionally or culturally advanced, and we are still given to the level of intolerance neccisary to start racial and religious wars.

Perhaps that is the case.

Define advanced Shad ? Are any of our RL countries advanced ? I only ask because there are none of us that are not doing those very things... either now or recent enough to be in many of our lifetimes.

And if it is the case, FvF conflicts, properly administered, might be enjoyable. But so far on Atys, they have left very much to be desired.

There are many other games that feature well balanced, open PvP, SoR is what it is because it is not one of them.

Lastly... I totally respect your right to play your own style, tho I will be a fighter I only fight for a purpose and have never killed except in competition. SoR has always intended PvP, Outposts and factions were always the driving force... Let us play our game, I will let you play yours... Just be sure that your aware of the zone you are in and your guilds status with mine and we will continue to have the good relations we do now