Would PvP be ruined if...

[shiznitz]

the attacker never got the first shot?

Cowboy Bob wants to kill Miner Joe. Bob "attacks" Joe. The system sends Joe the message "Cowboy Bob is attacking you! Do you fight back? Y/N" If Joe chooses Yes, he can get the first strike in if he is fast. If Joe chooses No, then Bob cannot target him again for X minutes. If Joe is grouped, Bob won't know it and Bob will become targetable by everyone in Joe's group. If Bob has is grouped, that would be reflected in the message to Joe. All of Bob's group members would be alerted that Bob is attacking Joe, but they won't be able to target Joe unless Joe accepts. Neither Bob nor Joe can move or act in any way until Joe chooses.

The basic question is how much of the thrill of PvP comes from the gank?

[HaemishM]

Depends on how much of the thrill of PVP comes from the successful PWNING of the gankers.

Personally, I'd have no problem with this, except that it ruins stealthers. But I'm of the opinion that stealth = invisibility is the same as stealth = invulnerability, so no big deal there.

You could do it this way in a game that also allowed instanced battlefield type of group PVP encounters, and just have this option be like a duel option out in the rest of the world.

[Alluvian]

Your scenario is actually pretty close to what SWG does.  If one person attacks a person in a group, the whole group gets to gang up on that person giving the defenders more power in the attack.  It does not work that way 1 vs 1 though.

[Dren]

Interesting concept, but it could turn into a problem if not done right.

In SB they had problems with people using the pop up trade screen to hassle people.  It worked very well during combat because their screen would be blocked by the pop up.  Kind of like the UO days of spamming the screen so you couldn't target people. (Wow, I just felt a rush of anger just thinking of that one.)

Anyway, if the popup was small enough to keep from being a pain I can see it as no problem.  Maybe just make it come up in the text chat screen.  If you ignore it, it times out on its own.  The only way a fight is initiated is if the defender accepts through obvious means like typing "/acceptduel" or something.

[daveNYC]

I think it'd suck.  If you're going to go with some artificial PvP control mechanism, you might as well go with the PvP+ zone bit.

The whole thing where some miner/crafter character can avoid fights just by saying no seems too fake even for a computer game.

[shiznitz]

I think it'd suck.  If you're going to go with some artificial PvP control mechanism, you might as well go with the PvP+ zone bit.

The whole thing where some miner/crafter character can avoid fights just by saying no seems too fake even for a computer game.

That, to me, sounds like someone who likes to kill helpless miners. It might be fun for the aggressor, but that gameplay style is dead forever.

[Der Helm]

That, to me, sounds like someone who likes to kill helpless miners. It might be fun for the aggressor, but that gameplay style is dead forever.

Miners are helpless because the choose to be so ...

[Mesozoic]

That, to me, sounds like someone who likes to kill helpless miners. It might be fun for the aggressor, but that gameplay style is dead forever.

Miners are helpless because the choose to be so ...

Miners are helpless because they choose to mine.  

I've got an idea.  You be a PKer.  I'll be a miner.  But if I find you, I can initiate an immediate "dig-off."  Loser dies.   You might not like it, but thats because you're not a h4rdc0re m1n3r like myself.

[daveNYC]

I think it'd suck.  If you're going to go with some artificial PvP control mechanism, you might as well go with the PvP+ zone bit.

The whole thing where some miner/crafter character can avoid fights just by saying no seems too fake even for a computer game.

That, to me, sounds like someone who likes to kill helpless miners. It might be fun for the aggressor, but that gameplay style is dead forever.

Not at all, I'm more likely to the miner or someone so hapless that they manage to be killed by a miner.  I just think that if you're going to give the player the ability to control when they go PvP+ or PvP- it is best done with PvP+/- zones.

The system being proposed just seems too fake.
"Mind if I kill you?"
"Yes I do, go away."

Seems almost Pythonesque.

[Der Helm]

Miners are helpless because they choose to mine.  

I've got an idea.  You be a PKer.  I'll be a miner.  But if I find you, I can initiate an immediate "dig-off."  Loser dies.   You might not like it, but thats because you're not a h4rdc0re m1n3r like myself.

I would  pwn you, because of my lewt Pickaxe of Digging + 15

[Arnold]

UO offered something similar to this in the RECALL SPELL.  If you didn't want to fight, you recalled and it worked nearly 100% of the time.

[personman]

Recall was a great tool used by gankers to escape consequences.  It also was a tool used to escape ganking, though there was a brief period when OSI decided to make it interruptible, supposedly to nerf gankers though no one seemed to think interruptibility might just become another ganking tool.

Anyway.  It's the wrong approach.

[Lakov_Sanite]

You are TOTALLY ignoring the entire principle of roleplaying here.  If you want to play a miner or farmer you SHOULD have you ass handed to you by every random knight looking for fethers.  that's when you go to a local militia, sign treaties and have them protect your farm or you move your farm elsewhere.  miners and farmers, mine and farm, they don't fight.

There are two things that could be done in this situation. either A)make the game pvp- so everyone could have their fun mining or out killing monsters(maybe with a pvp+ zone)  or B) make the whole world pvp+ but make the loss of one miner have a real impact on the economy such that there are consequences for killing them.

the situatuation you pose of a YES/NO question in the midst of a battle breaks immersion on so many levels as to make things not worth it in a roleplaying game.  better to just have a pvp- world where simply trying to attack someone would be "against the law" or somesuch it would feel more natural and not break the fiction too much.

You people seem to think that making everyone happy all the time is the magic key to making online games great and i think partially that's why they are becoming less and less innovative these days.  Sure people voted with their dollars that EQ was better and that people generally dont like pvp but a true roleplaying game allows for any situation to occur and a truly great game will try to put as few arbitrary rules (to make everyone happy) in their game as possible

[CassandraR]

I personally don't enjoy PvP much if its just like a sport like football. It seems to need to be abit more personal. A predator and prey relationship. Two predators rarely hunt each other. To make PvP fun for me there has to be prey. Sure its unlikely your prey can fight back but thats why they are prey. If they want protection they have to run to other predators to get them to chase you off. The problem is the prey don't seem to like to be prey.

I tryed arena PvP and it was rather boring really. I never got the rush of emotion I did when hunting down someone and killing them. Just sheer animal pleasure from destroying a prey animal pretty much. Except you need to be able to eat the prey also to get the full experience (Loot, etc.)

[daveNYC]

Your definition of prey seems to be "defenseless victim".  Sorry if I can't give a shit that you're unhappy with the games that are out there.

[CassandraR]

Well yes of course prey is defenseless victim. If they weren't defenseless then they wouldn't be prey now would they? You don't hunt things which can hurt you. You pick the weak and sickly out of the pack and kill them. Thats just smart tactics. You don't fight people which have a good chance of killing you inless its for a specific goal.

[Tebonas]

Indeed, and PvP should be about the challenging fight where you can die as well as kill. Or the kill for specific goals that fit into the context.

If you get off from killing defenseless victims, you need a good therapist or the right medicaments, but not a PvP-game.

Usually those are the people that try to evade resonsibility for their actions as well. Because a fair fight would be unfair to them and would ruin their gaming experience. I'm all for a fixed time people can't log out of the game after they started PvP. Thusly they can be hunted down by alerted Antis and brought to justice. Of couse "losing connection" during that period would instantly kill them and make their corpse lootable. Would suck to be a PvP with bad connection I guess, but since PvPers with bad connection are dead anyway I would take that risk. And if he can evade all Antis for one or two hours he has earned his joy of killing for a day by experiencing fear as well.

[shiznitz]

Well yes of course prey is defenseless victim. If they weren't defenseless then they wouldn't be prey now would they? You don't hunt things which can hurt you. You pick the weak and sickly out of the pack and kill them. Thats just smart tactics. You don't fight people which have a good chance of killing you inless its for a specific goal.

In real life, maybe. In a game, no. I am glad your attitude is in the minority. Have fun kicking puppies.

[DarkDryad]

Cause god knows for any game to be fun everyone should be equal right?

[daveNYC]

Cause god knows for any game to be fun everyone should be equal right?

Because in MMOGs far too often your only choices are cookie cutter template clone, or cannon fodder speed bump.

[Mesozoic]

Well yes of course prey is defenseless victim. If they weren't defenseless then they wouldn't be prey now would they? You don't hunt things which can hurt you. You pick the weak and sickly out of the pack and kill them. Thats just smart tactics. You don't fight people which have a good chance of killing you inless its for a specific goal.

The problem there is that the sheep cancel.  In large numbers.  You lose your victims and possibly your game.

[CassandraR]

Well my ideal PvP enviroment was Eve in beta before all the big corps got started and hundres of people would hunt you down if you killed someone. Me and a friend claimed a mineral rich system, and setup shop there. We basically warned everyone that entered then attacked them if they didn't leave right then. We held the system all through beta, even though once we were assaulted by 5 combat frigates but we destoryed two and routed the other three. Now in Eve its annoying to kill people because you get on big corps hit lists and small time pirates can't claim any resources.

[El Gallo]

If you want a predator v prey game, you can find everything you want in UO's Felucca facets.  Join the millions*
of gamers who love playing defenseless victims for your aZZr4pInG pleasure**

*two or three
** who go there to farm in an area of the game that is a vast, uninhabited wasteland because mixing PvE and PvP in the same MMOG is the most foolish gaming concept Serek Dmart never thought of.


The victims are gone, and they are never, ever coming back.  If you want a PvP game, you need to accept the idea that everyone is going to be a wolf.

[Arnold]

The victims are gone, and they are never, ever coming back.  If you want a PvP game, you need to accept the idea that everyone is going to be a wolf.

That's cool.  For every 10 people who fancy themselves wolves, 9 are sheep.

[Alluvian]

Have not read the full thread, but the idea you are proposing here is in almost every mmog out there.  It is called /duel.  And it is rarely used.  Your 'attack' here is someone initiating a duel and the other has the option to decline or accept and get in the first blow.  Nothing new really.

[personman]

Now in Eve its annoying to kill people because you get on big corps hit lists and small time pirates can't claim any resources.

I don't understand.  This should please you.  This outcome perfectly matches your requirements that there be a very strong hunter and weak defenseless prey.

Which aspect of all this annoys you?  I could guess, but I hate to appear pre-judgemental...

[HaemishM]

The victims are gone, and they are never, ever coming back.  If you want a PvP game, you need to accept the idea that everyone is going to be a wolf.

That's cool.  For every 10 people who fancy themselves wolves, 9 are sheep.

Damn right. But at least they are sheep who want to engage in PVP and won't whine about being ganked on the boards until the game is split into Trammel and Fellucca.

Of course, those are the ones who WILL whine when their class isn't the pwning variety, but then they just follow the template of the week.

[CassandraR]

Well im kinda hypocritcal in that Personman. I don't like to join groups at all so I can't be big and strong. So it isn't the game for me now. So I don't play the pvp anymore. If I wanted to I could join one of the big pirate groups and do that but I just don't like groups. I liked it better when no one was organized and there was no big groups so everyone had to fend for themselves.

[El Gallo]

More likely, they'll think that they are going to be wolves, find out that they are sheep, and quit while blaming the game mechanics or catassers or whatever.  Leaving just the wolves.  Which is a good thing.  When I PvP, I want a challenge.  Wanting to pay a monthly fee massacre sheep is an utterly foreign concept to me.

[Toonces the Driving Cat]

Its best to offer both a PvP world and a non PvP world. I personally find PvP much more interesting but there's enough wussies out there you should do something for them.

Now in the PvP environment I believe the solution to the "who wants to be a sheep / all the sheep quit playing" problem is to have a proper economy. In a proper economy being the only sheep in the world would have IMMENSE financial benefit. IE if you're the only miner in the world, iron ore is fetching one million per pound at the market. If you're the only shipper in the world, taking a ton of iron from point A to point B earns you a million bucks. And you make it so the wolves cannot mine or ship. The idea is this leads to a balance, as more sheep get killed off the profit and therefore temptation of playing as a sheep grows. As more wealthy sheep abound, it becomes more sensible to be a warrior and pray on sheep.

In my game, StarportGE, the main way this is addressed is by type of space ship you cruise around in. The ships with great carrying capacity have limited weapons capability, and the ships with good fighting capability have limited carrying capacity. Since you need carrying capacity to make money the balance is hopefully achieved. I don't know if its all working out that well in practice though :-)

Toonces

[personman]

In my game, StarportGE, the main way this is addressed is by type of space ship you cruise around in.

So can I assume the fatter the target the more time invested building up to that ship and stocking it with resource? That evaporates away to nothing when the horde of PKrs show up? But there will probably be "insurance" whose per capita outlay will be dramatically weighed in favor of the attackers?

Sounds just like a January 1998 UO miner and his packhorse waiting for his three months of effort to be stripped in 90 seconds of gankage 4zzr4p1ng.  In UO I had the option to invest 300 points in GM Poison/Fencing.  Ah, I do miss my char Vir 'The Miner' sometimes - he sucked on crafting but he was the best brownbag Anti I ever played.

Good luck with your product.  I'm sure the community will rouse itself for many exciting sessions of Protect the Trade Route.  None of your players will have lives or other forms of RL obligations so this approach will work just fine.  Of course it hasn't yet in any other product.  But this time will be different?

[Toonces the Driving Cat]

Nah, you can put money in the bank and other things that won't be taken away merely for losing combat.

[ajax34i]

I'd go for playing sheep in a game that supports wolf-sheep PvP, on one condition:

Free play for the sheep (who are theoretically able to defend themselves - yeah right), and $50 to go PvP+ and be able to attack anyone, followed by $25/mo, for the PvP'ers.  If it's economically viable.

It probably isn't, though.  Numbers out of my ass:  If 10% of your player base is PvP'ers, you're getting paid by 10,000 people and have to provide support and bandwidth to 100,000.

Not sure what the actual percentages are, and I'll let someone who actually knows comment.

[nach0king]

The thrill is in the gank. This pseudo /duel command is pointless.

[daveNYC]

In my game, StarportGE, the main way this is addressed is by type of space ship you cruise around in. The ships with great carrying capacity have limited weapons capability, and the ships with good fighting capability have limited carrying capacity. Since you need carrying capacity to make money the balance is hopefully achieved. I don't know if its all working out that well in practice though :-)

Toonces

So if you're flying the space galleon, not only are you a rich defenseless target, but everyone knows that you're a rich defenseless target?  Plan!