Do we really need PvP?

[xenofur]

just a sidenote: what i described was completely inside the CoC and is an example of one group forcing their will on many players, due to missing pvp, direct or indirect.

[thebax]

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.

I hope you are correct, but Neverax's financial reason for introducing more PvP seems to be to draw in new players. By doing so, they will not draw in the same type of players that were drawn to this game when PvP was a matter of accepting a challenge to duel.
These new players will fundamentally change the nature of the community you seem to be counting on to handle PvP in a mature matter, both because of their behavior, and the lack of the behavior of those they cause to leave.
Many of us have seen this before, and do not wish to see it happen again in Ryzom. We are simply asking Neverax and the pro-PvP lobby to learn from the mistakes of the past.

[iphdrunk]

eh? what's wrong? all this time without a new post? no one B@W? come on, think about the other players that need to read the forums from time to time... you can do better! do you need me to say something polemical?. I checked three times now and no new posts, poor me.... let's go on with the 'recursive approach': do we really need a thread about if we really need PvP? do we really need another thread to discuss if we need a thread to discuss if we really need PvP?
come on posters, our daily rate of posts depends on you!


Just Kidding,

[grimjim]

From Audrey's 'leaving' thread'

Glad you're staying on Aud, it's more fun with you around

And jyudas, imo in someone's leaving thread, if you don't have anything nice to say....

In the context of the arguments about mature community and consequences elsewhere it seems to introduce a relatively positive note and element of support to those who suggested the community could be more self regulating.

Then again, I guess not.

"You're paying for it, act how you want!" Wasn't especially useful either.

It does give me another useful metaphore to illustrate the problems with PvP though.

Me and the chavs down a couple of rows both paid the same amount for our cinema tickets, but if they start laughing, shouting and making calls on their cellphones, its not good for the 'film experience' for ANYONE in the cinema, is it?

[drizzeth]

Me and the chavs down a couple of rows both paid the same amount for our cinema tickets, but if they start laughing, shouting and making calls on their cellphones, its not good for the 'film experience' for ANYONE in the cinema, is it?

Just the methaphor, for fun's sake lol

The difference is that there isnt a sense of community in a cinema, nobody knows anyone and they most likely will never meet again.

Now if you take your example to your home and you have friends over that bring friends of them and they in turn bring their friends including a couple of "dodgy subjects" i think youll maybe see a different look at how a community can regulate itself.

[mrshad]

Wow...This thread has contained some of the most enlightened gun control debate I have ever read!

I suppose you are all sick of my RL != IG rants. And they appear to do little good anyway, so *shrug* may as will give in to it....

If guns were not around, people would still kill people! Can everyone wrap thier head around that? Saying othewise is like saying "If there were no cars, people would not travel." It is the difference between a tool and the activity.

So the analogy would not be PvP = guns.
It should be PvP = killing other people....which, oddly, is what it is ment to simulate.

Everyone follow so far?
(I know, the temptation is there to say RL != IG, and killing people IRL makes them dead forever, but it won't do any good, so let's just move on)

So, the more approrpiate fantastasy world vision would be "imagine a world where people couldn't kill other people" Now, I am sure that subject would be filled with all sorts of ill-informed, wild speculation, and hopefully it would be quickly apparant the RL != IG! D'oh, I did it again, sorry.

Back to innaccurate real life examples:

PvP is a form of doing violence against another person.

Granted, and very small form, and it tends to be less dammaging, and more like annoying. Jy had a good example with talking in the theater. Everyone pays the same price for the same content, yet a few idiots can ruin the whole experience for everyone. But good analogies are no fun.

Consentual PvP could roughty be compared to climbing in a boxing ring on amature night. You are there expressly for the purpose of trying to hit some other guy in the nose, while trying to avoid being hit yourself.

Nonconsentual PvP could be said to be like being hit in the face by some guy you pass on the street. You had no interest in violence, and some sociopath inflicted it on you. Now, it doesn't matter why you are on the street, or which street you are on, you have a right to be there, and you shouldn't have to worry about being hit in the face.

So, let's change the topic of this thread a bit:

Should we allow people to punch other people in the face as they are walking down the street?

Should we only allow certain people to hit certain other people, and only on certian streets?

Should we allow people to punch other people if the second group has a house that the first group wants?

Remember, saying RL examples don't track well in game doesn't work here!

[mrshad]

Just the methaphor, for fun's sake lol

The difference is that there isnt a sense of community in a cinema, nobody knows anyone and they most likely will never meet again.

Now if you take your example to your home and you have friends over that bring friends of them and they in turn bring their friends including a couple of "dodgy subjects" i think youll maybe see a different look at how a community can regulate itself.

You see a good gaming community here, and you have a lot of faith in it.

I don't blame you. I thought PvP could work here too.

But, read the the threads that deal with the results of actual PvP in the PR that are in this forum. You will see how quickly it degenerates into the same sort of ganking/whinning/lying/l337n3zz you find in any other PvP game.

It does nothing to make the game better.
We simply should not have it.

[grimjim]

Wow...This thread has contained some of the most enlightened gun control debate I have ever read!

I suppose you are all sick of my RL != IG rants. And they appear to do little good anyway, so *shrug* may as will give in to it....

If guns were not around, people would still kill people! Can everyone wrap thier head around that? Saying othewise is like saying "If there were no cars, people would not travel." It is the difference between a tool and the activity.

So the analogy would not be PvP = guns.
It should be PvP = killing other people....which, oddly, is what it is ment to simulate.

True... to an _extent_ but not all the way.

The gun analogy still works pretty well.

People are people, they will try and kill each other on occasion (killing equating with 'annoying the living p*ss out them' in game terms). They'll find a way. IRL that could be fists, clubs, knives whatever. However, they're not the most efficient tool for it and most of them are designed with a different purpose in mind. (Game equivalent mobs, exploding sources, dancing naked, shouting abuse in chat windows).

However, give them a tool explicitly designed FOR killing and it suddenly gets a lot more likely and viable. It makes it EASIER. Just pull the little trigger, rather than walking up to someone, looking them in the eye and then cracking their skull. Its also more likely to kill. (Game equivalent - introduce PvP).

PvP is a tool, specifically designed to 'annoy the living p*ss' out of people. Its the gun, the killing tool, it facilitates and encourages such behaviour.

[grimjim]

Just the methaphor, for fun's sake lol

The difference is that there isnt a sense of community in a cinema, nobody knows anyone and they most likely will never meet again.

Now if you take your example to your home and you have friends over that bring friends of them and they in turn bring their friends including a couple of "dodgy subjects" i think youll maybe see a different look at how a community can regulate itself.

I still think the cinema's a better fit.

Just like the internet you don't have to meet any of these people again and anonymity + audience = git. As per Gabriel's Greater Internet ****wad Theory.

Friends is a controlled environment, as is your house. We won't get that kind of control until R2.

[mrshad]

The gun analogy still works pretty well.

No, it doesn't. For reasons far to many to list here, and way off topic.

PvP is a tool, specifically designed to 'annoy the living p*ss' out of people. Its the gun, the killing tool, it facilitates and encourages such behaviour.

1. Do guns talk to you Jyudas? Do they say "Hey, you there..with the beard and the hair..yeah you...hey...pick me up, and shoot someone with me. com'on, it will be fun...just do it. I will be your best friend"

Just wondering how it is they seem to encourage you to kill.

2. Now, I am not in the Pro-PvP camp, but I don't think PvP was designed simply to annoy other people. (this is why IG/RL comparisons don't work. sorry...I couldn't help it.) I think it is ment to give depth, freedom and another layer of compitition to a game.

In MMOs, it hardly ever works.

In other types of games, it works great! But in any game where you spend significant time building up a character or a city, or just trying to get somewhere; if that can be ruined or set back by the acitons of another player, it is going to cause problems. Or, as you rightly put it, "annoy the living p*ss' out of people."

As we have already seen.