Do we really need PvP?

[drizzeth]

It is a sad thing indeed as I have little faith in mankind and think it better to keep guns under lock and key rather than tempt people into using them by putting them in in plain sight.

I think communities such as this, having a world to commune in have a great chance to set an example, to make a statement compared to how things turned out in Real Life.

Chosing to be a Zorai and fighting against destrcutive industrial behaviour is one of the ways for me to make such a statement.

My request to learn from pvp is maybe asking to prove that humans do learn and do have ways to rise above problems that at fist where seamingly unsolveable.

Then again im still idealistic enough to think that one day, no matter how far in the future(by force of having no resources left or anything else) we on earth are able to all (every single nation, race and religion) live as a united planet, or plantary(colony) systems.

Maybe im too idealistic thinking this community can make a statement.Even tho its a very little one.

[grimjim]

It is a sad thing indeed as I have little faith in mankind and think it better to keep guns under lock and key rather than tempt people into using them by putting them in in plain sight.

Yeah, this isn't like 'responsible gun ownership' (if such a thing exists). This is more like 'The Magic Gun Fairy appears overnight and gives EVERYONE guns, regardless of mental state, age, criminal background or anything else - with hilarious consequences'.

[drizzeth]

'The Magic Gun Fairy appears overnight and gives EVERYONE guns, regardless of mental state, age, criminal background or anything else - with hilarious consequences'.

you mean like buying guns and life amo at wal-mart or quicky-mart without any form of ID like currently in the US? lol nah just couldnt stop myself from taking a joke with it. I see your point, but i think its not entirely how i meant it.

[defalgar]

okok so 31 pages of discussion and i think the solution lies between these two statements

Most people wanna more content, so no point to undo work what's allready done.

I think the message here is more like make outposts consent PvP. This means that some guild or alliance can declare the war to anyone else with the outpost, but target outpost guild or alliance don't have to accept it. This allows PvPers to choose with who to play and how they play. If some guild does not behave wanted ways, others can just say no to wars they declare. This is consent PvP. Also if outposts are consent it allows peasefull guild to have other purposes for outposts in the future, even PvE only outposts

This could be easyly done with same kind features what we have allready, the friend list. Just make new one, the guild list. Where You can put those guild what PvP chalange You accept automaticly as long they are You guild friend list. We need also ignore area on that guild list, what means any war declaration done by guild on that list is automaticly denied. Other would be asked, cause they aren't on the guild list at all.

Yep, and outposts could still come under event or mob based attack so that the prospect of 'outpost hogging' by refusing PvP doesn't occur so much.

Outposts within existing PvP zones (that ground is already lost) could be open for PvP takeover as could the faction war area outposts.

Personally, I'd shift the faction zones to the borderlands between each hostile nation rather than where they are now, but that's just me... Then you'd have a 'shifting border zone'.

Compromise - something for both sides.

compromise is the key word here not just plain no or yes

[xenofur]

Is an option I already mentioned a few pages ago, yes. The problem is, if we say 'no' to outposts as they are proposed now, we are saying 'yes' to no content changes for about a year while Nevrax tries to come up with something better.

I don't think we need PvP in any form. But we do need something new or too many people will lose interest and leave.

thanks, exactly my point. grimjim, it's like you said (kinda): beware what you wish for.

@outposts without pvp, take this possibility: uberguild A, intent on griefing players takes as many outposts as they can, for example every outpost in fyros and just sits on them, completely denying them to every other player. add on restrictions of x OP per guild or rising upkeep with more OPs in one guild? np, just use the alts. and i know at least two guilds on leanon who would have the possibility and the mindset to do that.
so, i don't think there is a possibility to implement outposts with not at least indirect pvp, which is what they're already doing.

[drizzeth]

Theres a saying, if you want to hit a dog, theres always a stick to find..

But i said that before, mobtrains, blown up meks and what Xenofur is saying is a good point aswell.

If people wantto truin your day, they dont need pvp, theyll find anyway in any system to ruin your day.

I do think we are talking consentual pvp, most indications seem to point towards that.
Also for every materials found in pvp areas, they are also to be found in non-pvp areas, so no forceing you into pvp areas. The best quality q250 supreme lays in non-pvp ground.

For faction versus faction and other forms of planned pvp im sure there is an option to opt out, it has been pointed out that there is even.

As for outposts forcing you into pvp, you cant have the rewards of something you do not participate in, you cant dig q250 supreme if you dont feel like foraging until you are at that level, same goes fro craft and any combat skill.
Also for social aspects, you cant expect to have friends if you dont feel like socializing.

The mechanics seem to have changed that its pvp only now, outposts and not having alternative ways of obtaining one, thats a shame because i hoped for outposts to be what they originaly intended it to be, but things are as they are and outposts currently are a reward for pvp.

EDIT: Maybe after the Kami/Karavan war (when they had time to do more outposts mechanics development) they can add dimplomacy and guildfame and other mechaics for optaining one that would be very very nice, the sooner the better, but there is limited time and a lot of work behind all that.

[grimjim]

you mean like buying guns and life amo at wal-mart or quicky-mart without any form of ID like currently in the US? lol nah just couldnt stop myself from taking a joke with it. I see your point, but i think its not entirely how i meant it.

Shush, you're making it hard enough for me not to rant at the state of certain nations and their bizarre gun laws as it is

[oauitam]

Theres a saying, if you want to hit a dog, theres always a stick to find..

But i said that before, mobtrains, blown up meks and what Xenofur is saying is a good point aswell.

If people wantto truin your day, they dont need pvp, theyll find anyway in any system to ruin your day.

That's right, if I want to spoil your fun, I can find a way in the current system. You can complain to the CSRs about it, and they'll stop me because of the Code of Conduct.

I could also ruin your day in a PvP zone. This isn't against the CoC.
I think there needs to be an overwhelming reason in order to add more of these opportunities.

As for outposts forcing you into pvp, you cant have the rewards of something you do not participate in, you cant dig q250 supreme if you dont feel like foraging until you are at that level

I have seen this point made very often (and is why I seriously suggested in the 'Outposts Outlined' thread that there be no reward for controlling an outpost).

It's the sort of argument that I could understand coming from my boss ("I'm not paying you unless you work"). It's a contract where I sell her my time and let her choose how to use it. But this is a game and we aren't forced to implement real world systems that are no fun. (In fact, in a MMORPG the dev is selling his time to the player - the exact reverse situation.)

"We're not forcing you into PvP but you can't join in the new Outposts content unless you first go through one of these experiences you really dislike."

This is a valid argument but not one we are forced to implement. Personally I would say that it is bad to add things with that premise. Each change to the game ought to be thought through with the attitude, "...and how can I let as many players as possible enjoy this?"

...snip...
but things are as they are
...snip...

Indeed they are but 'how things are' will soon be different. Now is precisely the time to discuss things. Once a fundamental change is implemented it is usually too late or too painful to go back.

"Things will be as they will be" is an equally coherent tautology. We don't have to do decide how things will be for thoughtless reasons, for example;
That's how other people do it
I said I'd do it in a design doc 2 years ago so despite everything I will
I have to do something and it seems like the quickest fix

With "things as they are" there isn't a gun on everyone's table. You get handed one when you tp to certain regions, but we don't have the worldwide situation, yet. I'm hoping (and for the sake of argument, talking as if) we still have the choice of putting a gun on everyone's table. I just can't understand why anyone would want to.


[The examples of guns and gun owners was picked because of the ridiculous situation in the USA. For this brief period of time, before 'things become how things will be', we are in a uniquely priviledged position. We can do something no president could even dream of - we can make it so that guns simply don't exist.
There can be no question of;
whether anyone has the right to bear arms or
if a particular individual can buy a gun or
whether every parent will be responsible enough to not leave a gun on the table.
Unless we invent guns.]

[drizzeth]

That's right, if I want to spoil your fun, I can find a way in the current system. You can complain to the CSRs about it, and they'll stop me because of the Code of Conduct.

I could also ruin your day in a PvP zone. This isn't against the CoC.
I think there needs to be an overwhelming reason in order to add more of these opportunities.

I have seen this point made very often (and is why I seriously suggested in the 'Outposts Outlined' thread that there be no reward for controlling an outpost).

It's the sort of argument that I could understand coming from my boss ("I'm not paying you unless you work"). It's a contract where I sell her my time and let her choose how to use it. But this is a game and we aren't forced to implement real world systems that are no fun. (In fact, in a MMORPG the dev is selling his time to the player - the exact reverse situation.)

"We're not forcing you into PvP but you can't join in the new Outposts content unless you first go through one of these experiences you really dislike."

This is a valid argument but not one we are forced to implement. Personally I would say that it is bad to add things with that premise. Each change to the game ought to be thought through with the attitude, "...and how can I let as many players as possible enjoy this?"

Indeed they are but 'how things are' will soon be different. Now is precisely the time to discuss things. Once a fundamental change is implemented it is usually too late or too painful to go back.

"Things will be as they will be" is an equally coherent tautology. We don't have to do decide how things will be for thoughtless reasons, for example;
That's how other people do it
I said I'd do it in a design doc 2 years ago so despite everything I will
I have to do something and it seems like the quickest fix

With "things as they are" there isn't a gun on everyone's table. You get handed one when you tp to certain regions, but we don't have the worldwide situation, yet. I'm hoping (and for the sake of argument, talking as if) we still have the choice of putting a gun on everyone's table. I just can't understand why anyone would want to.

There is also a part about how i think it will be implemented in a consentual spirit. Also the hope for diplomatic and guild fame and other ways to obtain/manage an outposts.

the ridiculous situation in the USA.

Only thing id like to ad about that topic is that it doesnt have anything to do or isnt priviliged at all to the USA in specific.

It has everything to do with a mentality and responsibilities.

The UK, Germany and the Netherlands have had simular events as kids killing eachother and high-school killings after the pioneering events.

They all have different ways of laws and enforcing them.
And as usual, like with television and other things, they tend to be a little ahead in things that we all have to deal with.

[oauitam]

Only thing id like to ad about that topic is that it doesnt have anything to do or isnt priviliged at all to the USA in specific.

It has everything to do with a mentality and responsibilities.

The UK, Germany and the Netherlands have had simular events as kids killing eachother and high-school killings after the pioneering events.

They all have different ways of laws and enforcing them.
And as usual, like with television and other things, they tend to be a little ahead in things that we all have to deal with.

I wasn't trying to be racist about it or start a political debate, just explaining why we've chosen an example that is common knowledge (and why the president of the USA doesn't have some ready solutions to his gun crimes that are available to the chancellor in Germany for instance).

The thing to note is, that in whatever country of the world, no shooting could have happened if guns didn't exist.