Ryzom

I think...Nevrax stays quiet for one of two reasons.
1. They really don't give a damn. If they cater to either side on this, then they have to cater to people all the time. It's their game and they'll do what they will.

2. There is also strong support for pvp. anti-pvp posts didn't pop up until pvp was implemented. It was planned from the beginning and very little information was released about it. There were lots of us who expected pvp and lots who asked where it was. Now that there is the anti-pvp faction, the pro-pvp are fighting.

I don't see how either side threatening to leave is helping Nevrax make a decision. Quite frankly I'm going with the first one. They see it as your fault for having expectations and believing that the game wouldn't evolve where they dictated.

that has nothing to do with your ideas btw, just why nevrax seems so quiet.

As to your actual post...could you please explain to me how you dictating rules for when and where I can pk don't ruin my fun in the parallel fashion that me being allowed to free for all in what has already been dictated a specific area as ruining your fun?

I also don't want once a month free for all. I want no rules unabashed hedonism. Not to trash you, but please explain to me why your fun is more important than mine, because that's what these argument always come down to. 'My fun is more important than your fun', from both sides.

josephm wrote:As to your actual post...could you please explain to me how you dictating rules for when and where I can pk you don't ruin my fun in the parallel fashion that me being allowed to free for all kill you in what has already been dictated a specific area as ruining your fun?

I also don't want once a month free for all. I want no rules unabashed hedonism to kill folks that don't want to be killed. Not to trash you, but please explain to me why your fun is more important than my fun gained at the expense of yours, because that's what these argument always come down to. 'My passive don't mess up my night fun is more important than your fun gained by active interference in your passive enjoyment of the game', from both sides.

Fixed that for you... The reason why rules being set for how, when, and at what concequence you can kill someone else is more important than your ability to kill them, is because you killing them is actively forcing them to participate in your enjoyment at their expense. You being penalized for harming their enjoyment or being forced to consider not harming their enjoyment as much, is simply saying that if you wan't to gain enjoyment of the game through actions that actively interfere with someone else's game time, then you will need to consider the concequences... You will need to accept and consider the concequences for your actions that harm their enjoyment of the game, which previously had no concequences, before you act on those impulses.

It's similar to swinging your fist, shooting a gun, or playing paintball. You are welcome to swing your fist, just not at me... unless I want to let you for some reason such as a competition. You are welcome to go to a shooting range and shoot your gun, you just are not allowed to go there and shoot it at me. You are however welcome to go to the shooting range and shoot your gun at the guy who wants to demonstrate his new prototype bulletproof vest by having people shoot at him. You are welcome to play paintball, just not in a subway station. You are welcome to shoot your paintball gun, just not at everyone getting out of a car at the paintball field. You must behave yourself because the right that folks have to not be punched, shot with guns, or splattered by paintball guns overrides your right to swing your fist, shoot your gun, or play paintball.

To put it in simple childrens terms for you.... well Johnny, you can physically throw sticks at Jill while she is in the sandbox... but Jill is probably going to tell on you unless you get her permission or give her a very good reason why you should be able to throw sticks at her. When she tells, you will be punished and have to deal with the concequences of your decision to take action against her enjoyment of the sandbox. Since we have already grounded you, have already sent somoene to drag you back home to be paddled, have already taken away your allowance, and done several other things in an attempt to keep you from throwing sticks at Jill with virtually zero success in other games.... you are going to have to deal with walking around with bells on now along with a cast on both arms just to be safe. Jack wanted you to throw sticks at him while he threw them back at you, why didn't you throw sticks at Jack?

What's wrong though... I thought the forum battle cry of the RPK/Griefer was how the carebears need to consider the concequences of their actions and go into areas where they can be PK'd prepared for the concequences of their decision to go there and do whatever it is they wanted to do there.... why the sudden fear of possibly having to deal with the concequences of your own actions when those actions [killing someone who doesn't want to be killed]are far far more harmful when compared to killing mobs/rocks/passing through an area? Could it really be that "living with the concequences of one's decisions" really is not anywhere within the interests of the folks who have been shouting about it for ages now?

If you can't see the difference between forcing someone to be your victim, and someone wanting to passively enjoy the game without allowing you to force them to be your victim, then there is little hope that you will ever understand why one is more important than the other.

Just read the box... says something about PvP and GvG.... read it... you did buy the game...

xcomvic wrote:Just read the box... says something about PvP and GvG.... read it... you did buy the game...

What's wrong? Are you afraid of a system that makes you have to worry about the concequences of something that you do to someone else? You've always been so in favor of the everyone else should be prepared to be harassed by you method of supporting PvP...

source...
People who do not like PvP ARE CAREBEARS. That is the standard these days. And anyways, Ryzom does not have any 12 year olds playing, unless you are one? If someone could please confirm the youngest player in Ryzom, that would be nice.

And if you are too dumb to travel in a group and not be strong enough and wander around in PvP areas and die...well then...easy loot... but I forget, you wont lose loot...so what would be the point of PvPing?

So what's wrong?... are you really that afraid that you might have to suffer concequences of your actions after you have so loudly cheered for a system where harvesters and the like are forced to suffer the concequences of daring to go into the prime roots without a bunch of guards or the proper equipment & skills to deal with the likes of you?... my my, you were so sure of that whole be prepared for daring to choose to go out there into the PR style stuff you have lately been swinging around so loudly that Cerest came through and toned it down by force... long arguments... long posts... strong words about why it's good that everyone else should have to be prepared for the concequences of visiting the PR... But suddenly can't manage more than a patheticly whimpered Many word confuse Ug, PvP good! when someone proposes a system that forces you to consider and live with the concequences of your actions?



You are right about one thing though... there is a line placed a marketing droid on the box that says there is PvP... and this system being vomited out onto the playerbase is so far from what that playerbase was told by Nevrax that they wanted to implement, that there is hardly any supprise that there is such a backlash against the idea... it's also downright pathetic that you keep regurgitating that single line some PHB stuck on the box.

Q:
What is being done to overcome the killing/leveling treadmill, and keep players interested (unlike other mmorpg's)?

A:
ok, I understand by this:
what are we doing to keep the interest of fighting

so:
Different things of course. One is to provide you with purposes. It is one thing to kill mobs to progress, but what you are going to do with your great figher and how fun was it while you were progressing? I think, Well we thought that the story and the world should both support your actions. Giving you purposes, reasons, ideas to defend, convoys to protect, important characters to escort, factions to fight, territories to explore in order to expand your territories (civilizations' territories), secret missions, and of course PvP. Both 'sport Pvp' and 'in-scenario PvP.'

Sport PvP:
This is about the fun of it. About your fame. About showing how good you are. This is important so other players, or guilds, can actually 'choose' you to be in their next protection. We also propose non-violent PvP, so crafters can compete. PvP doesn't necessarily mean violence, it means competition among players.

In-Scenario PvP:
This is when you get it through a mission, or a personal challenge, and where the outcome of the fight is about an oupost, items, or something that blongs either to the story or the world. There are fame implications too. Looting in PvP is being discussed, but in sports PvP you will also be able to agree on a prize. IT's like a kind of trade, where each participant has to put something on the table and the winner wins the pot.

Later, but as soon as humanly possible, we would like to take PvP to another level. There can be a different set of rules, with timers, with flag, but we will have sport PvP in instantiated territories so there can be many arenas at the same time, and leagues too. But you know, one thing at a time and first things first. You will need to gain access to the different levels of arenas and progress into the leagues. This is like a game within a game. And believe me, it will deploy its importance when the time for version 2 comes. (version 2 is far away guys, it's the second movement of the saga).

Q:
<Kashrak> Sometimes players from all around the globe had problems with world spanning events and the times. I have experienced, for example, problems with the EMT GMT GMT +1 time zones, summer times etc in Europe. Has Nevrax ever thought of a internet time like Swatch Beat? It divides one day into 1000 beats – worldwide?

A:
Well it's interesting you should say so; we were thinking of having Ryzom time so it's easier for players to get organized. But to begin with, remember that each server of Ryzom is independant and there will be several versions of the saga at the players' level. We will release, every month, a medium size content. While GMs will be able to create events, after some time (depending on your actions; the missions you do or don't, the way your guilds evolve on different territories, towrads factions' allegiance, etc) your server will be your saga version and it's the time of this server that will matter to you.

But in between these two topics, PvP and time, there will be at some point a new aspect. The best guild of each server (sport PvP I mean) will be able to go in special arenas for inter-server challenges. But that won't have any impact on the saga development of each server.

Don't take my word for it... just look back through what's been said by Nevrax folks in the past and you too will find lots more

Tetra please just stop already ok? You're taking all of this far too personally. If Nevrax do implement pvp, it is not intended as a personal attack upon yourself nor anyone else.

Real life comparisons, although extremely humourous, also have nothing to do with any of this.

We are all well aware of how very much opposed you are to pvp by now. We have read, re-read, and read once again all of your arguments on these forums in regards to such issues, which, as yet, do not even exist.

When someone disagrees with you, you take it as an attack upon your person, retorting by putting words in their mouth and truly blowing these things far out of proportion.

I understand you may have had some unhappy experiences in regards to pvp in other games. I also understand you are passionate about your gaming here in Ryzom and do not wish to have your candy taken away. But please stop taking it all so personally, trying to make others who do not share your views appear inherently evil and out to grief the entire world.

uhh... I support PvP, GvG 100%... so I really do not get what you are trying to flame me for... I guess being a jarhead has that consequence... Now, what exactly are you trying to say against me? please use lamens terms, break it to me barney style...

The unfortunate result of discussions like this is that they tend to gravitate to restatements of the extreme positions of both sides. Good constructive reasoning to resolve the apparent dilemma gets buried in the midst of your derisions of each other. Putting down people and new concepts is detrimental to resolving the issue.

What is needed is an atmosphere of open minded attention to ALL the alternatives - good, bad, and in between. From all the ideas, inspiration may occur that enables someone to reach a new concept in game design that allows encompassing the dilemma, and resolving it.

Hopefully, the reason Nevrax is staying silent on this issue, is that they could be reaching for this new game design concept. To do this means their staying out of the petty bickering and trash talk of both sides.

Though the game is not yet fully implemented, I have seen enough of it, so far, to recognize good design and creativity.

I suggest that those people with ideas to input continue to submit them, and ignore the derisions and trash talk of the extremes. I will have faith that Nevrax will sort through these ideas to pick out the best and build further to reach for the new concept. Hopefully, they will succeed in this effort. Their choice will determine the degree of success of this fine game.

An opinion
Skylt

All 'anti-pvp' and 'pro-pvp' aside, the original posting did bring up some good points for 'consequences' of grief style pvp. The nuisance idea definately would add an interesting twist on it, and would set in place a downside to just randomly killing people in the prime roots.

All current arguements aside going on in this thread, the idea of consequences in a pvp situation(which is what this thread is about, not anti-pvp nor pro-pvp) is something to consider. And it would be something that would be implimented in a free-for-all pvp setting, like the planned implimentation of the prime roots.

Why someone would have a problem with consequences for killing people does raise a few questions. Since this is an MMORPG that isn't completely going pvp (aka Shadowbane), and does have many other aspects to it, consequences to cold-blooded murder (in an rp aspect, it is what it is) should be in place imo.

On that note, the duration or severity of the consequence could be weighed against the personal fame of whom you kill as well. The higher the fame is the worse your punishment would be.

I also think that in order to have the option of putting on this punishment should be tied into whether you fought back. If you don't fight back, then the consequences can be put in, if you fight back, then no consequences. This way, if you go attack someone, and they do not fight back, you do have the option to stop, and move on to someone who wants to fight back without having to face the penalty. And if someone does decide to fight back, then you can enjoy your pvp.

If you want a game that you can kill other people all day long with no consequences, there is shadowbane, counterstrike, unreal, etc to fill your fancy.

I posted most of my PvP experiences in another thread awhile back. In general, PvP has many flaws, and in a rpg, it's very difficult to address them all to make a truly enjoyable experience for all.

To me PvP should be about warriors who want to fight each other, engaging in battle. The board threads always seem to point out that there is a group of people who think the true fun of PvP is killing unskilled people who have no desire to fight.

I certainly think Tetra's post about the consequences of this sort of behavior is interesting. I have no idea what will get published concerning pvp, but Nev certainly needs to be careful. Patch 1 really thinned the ranks of this game. 95% of my prepatch friends quit the game. Depending on how PvP is implimented, it could have a severe impact.

guyzi wrote:My pvp ideas are this:

1) Guilds can declair "war" with eachother. This war status would extend anywhere. City guards could "frown upon" fighting in the cities and react by killing both fighting players, or you could make things realy complex by having the guards kill the person with less guild fame in the city you are fighting in (these of course asume you are gonna fight in a city; fighting could be done by any player at any time in any place) Guild halls could be guarded by moderat lvl guards and raided with precise timing and avoidance of city guards and other players. This of course applys only to guilds who declair war on eachother. the beauty of this system is this: If you dont want to be involved just quit the guild you are in and if your guild dont want to be involved dont go to war with another guild

2) Make a place you can go or a person you can talk to to become a pvp player so in essence you have to go to a certan place (say a village) and join the pvp asociation, member ship would have a one time fee to join and another fee to cancel (you would be able to join or cancel any time as long as you had the money) once you have paid then you are allowed to kill other players that have joined any where in the game once again you could have guards agro players fighting in a city. You could throw some twists in to this to allow some looting and a pker fame system giving you a villan or a hero status

IMO these are good ways to incorporate pvp in game because i know alot of people dont want to be involved. The beauty of this system is that if you are in a guild that is at war with another guild and you dont want to be involved you can quit. this also gives guilds more life and more reasons for membership / quiting and more stuff for a guild to do.
Aso fame could determine weather you are at war because any guld that is at 100 kami fame would surely be at war with someone that was at -50 or they might to to war with someone that is +100 karavan fame


Imagine member of guld x is in pyr minding his own busness when he sees 10 members of guild y (who he is at war with) in town. Now guild y knows that they cant take guild member x inside the city without being wiped by the guards so they wait for him to leave. what guild y doesnt know is guld member x is calling his guldmates and prepairing for an ambush.

Imagine guild x marching to destroy guld y because they had words over stratagies on how to defeat the kitin or who was better kami or karavan

Imagine guld x and y are at war and a kitin invasion hapens........Beautiful chaos.....

feal free to add flame or detract from anything said above and devs feel free to contact me for any further details.....lol

hehehe I like these ideas. Not sure on everything about rule one, but it's a good start I think. I think giving the option to sign up or quit a PVP membership would solve the whole PVP problem. They could even come up with a symbol over ones head or a color of their name that clearly indicated whether someone is signed up for PVP.