Ryzom

mtsmith wrote:You claim to be some sort of roleplay guru. Every popular roleplaying game I have ever seen, to include those made by TSR, includes some sort of player versus player option.

Not quite.
While the rules allow for players to fight each other it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the default mode of play. The players do not engage each other in combat the vast and overwhelming majority of the time and should they ever it is generally as an actual part of a plot, not for their jollies.

RPGs with inbuilt player Vs player content I can count at least on one hand and probably on one finger. Paranoia. Paranoia is a comedy game and the Player against player nature of it is explicit, the characters are more throwaway than in a standard RPG and long running campaigns are all but impossible. The only other one I can think of other than that would be Vampire the Masquerade and then only in a live-action set up, so I'm not counting it. (PS. TSR went bankrupt quite some time ago and their IP was bought up by Wizards of the Coast).

The model for an RPG is cooperative play to overcome challenges placed in your path by the GM. Not to fight each other.

mtsmith wrote:Every great fantasy novel in history includes conflict. The elves never like it when they are massacred by a troop of orcs, but we humans sure like to read about it.

Novels are not interactive experiences. The majority of characters involved in the battles on both sides are mere ciphers, instruments of storytellling. They do not have their own personalities, histories or anything else. They have no 'animus', no 'spirit'. The protaganists of the story however, those you do care about and the story loses cohesion and point with their meaningless deaths.

mtsmith wrote:Just think of in-game PVP as a good addition to the storyline and you'll understand my way of thinking.

I have zero objection to PvP as part of a good storyline but in order for it to be used as part of a storyline it actually needs to tie into the story. On a couple of occasions the guides have used the PvP areas in a story mode and on those occasions I have participated and had fun. Those are explicit instances where PvP is appropriate, well advertised and tied into the story well. The latest developments however are decreasing ease of choice on how to play and giving more tools to the griefers, gankers and problem children that have already plagued the trouble spots of the roots, the bandits and even the arena (though generally, if you go to the arena there's no reason other than PvP).

This doesn't add to the storyline, it just increases grief and the oppotunity for someone to act like a plum.

mtsmith wrote:However, conflict is everything in regards to roleplay,

It isn't everything in regard to RP, but it is the basis of just about all forms of story.

mtsmith wrote:otherwise there would be no reason to play the role in the first place. Everybody from the lowliest stable hand to the most illustrious warrior in history has some opinion on war, aggression, and the opposition. The Kitin threat just isn't enough and I'm a man of action, not one to sit about talking my enemies to death. I'm done here and I would hope that holds true for the rest of you. Go play and have fun!

The Kitin thread is enough if it is played up.

Look, if you're a PvP fan, find other PvP fans and play with them. Leave everyone else the hell alone. Your pleasure and fun is not more important than their pleasure or fun. Find people that share your playstyle, play with them and your fun will be multiplied and won't come at the expense of someone else.

Nevrax - STOP linking cool 'stuff' with PvP, it just causes grief. Provide multiple options for involvement.

Conflict doesn't require that players have to kill each other, this isn't Unreal Tournament its an RPG, people invest time and thought and emotion into their characters and don't want the hassle all the time. Event based PvP and _fully_ consensual PvP, disengaged from other content can give the PvPers plenty to keep themselves happy.

As suggested elsewhere outposts could be consensual PvP everywhere but the existing PvP areas could be non-consensual - providing for both styles of play. Non PvP area ones could come under attack and be lost during Kitin raids or irregular random raids from tribes.

There doesn't have to be a conflict of playstyles if the PvPers are responsible and mature and a little bit of thought goes into how the PvP is set up.

alibasil wrote:i have to agree here!

the anti-pvpers have had their say on the matter, as have the pro-pvpers.

can we all agree to disagree on this and just accept that in a pvp zone you can be killed with no warning? and whilst it might not be morally acceptable it is something that can still happen

you'd think wouldn't you.

As usual, the high and mighty Grimjim keeps talking...

You do your thing and I'll do mine, but if we happen to cross paths you'd better put on yer fighting gloves, because you'll find me imposing the hell out of my style of gameplay on yer tree huggin' butt.

mtsmith wrote:As usual, the high and mighty Grimjim keeps talking...

You do your thing and I'll do mine, but if we happen to cross paths you'd better put on yer fighting gloves, because you'll find me imposing the hell out of my style of gameplay on yer tree huggin' butt.

I say, . . . I say, . . . !! Them there's fighten words young man. *looks for more gasoline to throw on the flame*

Let me spell something out for you mtsmith . . . Ryzom is a g-a-m-e. Calm down there laddy.

mtsmith wrote:because you'll find me imposing the hell out of my style of gameplay on yer tree huggin' butt.

I believe that just proved most of the points he had to make about PvPers and PvP in Ryzom.

People simply don't want to have their gameplay imposed upon and ruined by others.

I like to PvP often myself, but not imposed upon me by others or disruptive of my playing the game in a non-competitive way most of the time. Plus I can embrace my Kami role without one bit of PvP... so why not?

and why is that? because grim makes very extremely long posts that say the same over and over again about the subject? and mt is more short in his words (a bit of a hothead indeed)

no offense grimjim but i think you made your point by now and lets just get along or...kill each other for that matter

(that was a joke by the way )

defalgar wrote:and why is that? because grim makes very extremely long posts that say the same over and over again about the subject? and mt is more short in his words (a bit of a hothead indeed)

no offense grimjim but i think you made your point by now and lets just get along or...kill each other for that matter

(that was a joke by the way )

If my point had been made that response would never have been said.

I keep trying to approach the point from different angles with better explanations in the hope of getting through.
.<---------------------------------The point
Him ---------------------------------->.

I think the point of this thread has already been made and anything else is pretty much redundant.

regardless of if you like it or despise it, PvP is part of SoR, and will only becoming a larger part of it with Outposts. We can moan and groan, or rejoice and revel in it, but its not going to chage the fact that PvP is here and it was done on purpose. The role that it plays now is minor, however, late October it will take a much greater role. For those of you who do not want it, thats fine, simply stay away from it. If you walk into the dragons lair, you can't complain about being attacked by a dragon. Best to leave them sleeping.

So, for those who wish not to PvP, power to you. Simply stay away from PvP zones, and when outposts arrive, I suppose you'll have to skip out on that area of the game. As for me, I'm looking forward to some new content!

Question for PvP players, what is more important to You?

1. Ability attack anyone, even if the target does not wanna PvP.
2. Have PvP with people who wanna PvP?



Question for PvE players, what is more important to You?

1. Deny all PvP on same game You play.
2. Not allow PvP player attack You, without You consent.




I ask this because both answers as 1, will lead only one playing style server. As answer 2, allows both playing styles to be on same server.

mtsmith wrote:As usual, the high and mighty Grimjim keeps talking...

You do your thing and I'll do mine, but if we happen to cross paths you'd better put on yer fighting gloves, because you'll find me imposing the hell out of my style of gameplay on yer tree huggin' butt.

*chuckle*