A board divided

Day in and day out you see it. People crying for consensual PvP only! show us the world without the risk!

The more I read these threads, the more I fear our differences may be irreconcilable. That those in fear of a persistent world with a risk vs reward paradigm and interaction with other people who very well may be after what you hold dear will never yield on their position and will end up not playing what everyone is hoping will be an awesome game.

I know I envisioned Pathfinder Online as a persistent shared world, where everybody is in a single instance of the same world (perhaps using similar server technology to Eve, according to what I've heard of that game on the boards.) But if PvP can be turned off, that suddenly makes the game unfair to those who aren't hiding from everyone else (or worse, griefers who hide behind the inability to attack them to harass you in other ways.)

So does anybody (particularly Goblinworks Staff) have an idea of how to deal with this huge divide? Ignoring this segment of the market is frequently touted as a bad idea, though I can see reasons it might not be. Alternatively, perhaps alternate servers that are entirely isolated from eachother, such that they are independent worlds that develop apart from eachother (basically alternate universes of the River Kingdoms that starts from a common point in history before diverging.) Or something else entirely?

Safezones and consequences have thus far in discussions proven in-effective in garnering so much as a 'lets wait and see' from many people on that side of the fence, and I'm quite curious what can be done concerning them without breaking the game for the rest of us.

Most mmos use multiple servers and determine what style of play is had on the server. Different universes as you say.

PvP, PvE, pure role-play servers are all used in these games, why would Pathfinder be any different?

RIFT uses war fronts as well to allow pure PvP at times on PvE servers (as does WoW)

What types of griefing are you worried about that you really need to kill players to resolve it? I see more grief on PvP servers than any other type, mostly from high levels ganking low levels for kicks.

Good programming on kill tagging and resource drops for crafting puts paid to most things that cause grief in these games. Ignore function and spam filtering puts paid to the rest. I think that covers most of what you were asking.

Cheers

I think it will be the trend until we have been shown something that explains otherwise.

It's all perception; I don't see non-consensual PvP as a problem because I think the world will be large, and there will be a lot of space to roam. I feel like someone that doesn't care about PvP will have the opportunity to explore many areas away from the danger of PvP. There will be haunted ruins, monster lairs, evil cults in the forest, and other NPC baddies that can be tackled far from the front lines. The risk is still there, but the chances of an enemy getting that far and then simply blowing their cover because they want to ruin your day by ganking you is minimal.

That's how I see it. I think there's a lot of overreaction by most of us here, though.

The more I read these threads, the more I fear our differences may be irreconcilable. That those in fear of a persistent world with a risk vs reward paradigm and interaction with other people who very well may be after what you hold dear will never yield on their position and will end up not playing what everyone is hoping will be an awesome game.

I know I envisioned Pathfinder Online as a persistent shared world, where everybody is in a single instance of the same world (perhaps using similar server technology to Eve, according to what I've heard of that game on the boards.) But if PvP can be turned off, that suddenly makes the game unfair to those who aren't hiding from everyone else (or worse, griefers who hide behind the inability to attack them to harass you in other ways.)

I'm not terribly fond of spending a lot of time in a thread when the divide is presented like you have.

In the first quoted paragraph you seem to describe the anti-Open PvP posters as being stubborn and losing out on an (hopefully) incredibly fun game.

In the second, you don't attempt to portray anything possibly good about
a consensual-only PvP limitation, instead, you describe the bad elements that you believe would result.

So, I think the first step in removing the divide would be to stop trying demonize the other side's premise as you asking how to remove the divide.

I think two separate instances of the same world would be best, personally. I certainly take your point that, although I'm not interested in playing in a game where you might kill me and take my stuff, I can nonetheless sympathise that you want a world full of people you can kill and take their stuff with no jarring moments of "Oh this person is a 'special' kind of person who is impervious to attack".

I think an irrevocable choice at character creation would work fine - you then play in whichever of two initially identical worlds you wish - I dont really see who loses then. Admittedly there's a good chance there are fewer players in each than there otherwise would be, but at least the people who arent there are people who likely wouldnt have enjoyed it anyhow. Of course, I have no idea on the feasibility of this, nor whether it's worthwhile or possible to just port over a world and implement (or disable) a 'cannot attack' flag.

Everything they've said so far to me points to player conflict as being the point of this game. That doesn't mean you personally need to be ganked anywhere as their current thinking is going, but it does mean that some competition has to go on somewhere to determine who gets the most prized resources (rare nodes, territory, rulership, etc.). There isn't an elite PvE "endgame" to aspire to as in many MMOs, PvP IS the endgame. A true PvE server is a non starter, therefore putting these types of players on different servers is not a solution.

Everything they've said so far to me points to player conflict as being the point of this game. That doesn't mean you personally need to be ganked anywhere as their current thinking is going, but it does mean that some competition has to go on somewhere to determine who gets the most prized resources (rare nodes, territory, rulership, etc.). There isn't an elite PvE "endgame" to aspire to as in many MMOs, PvP IS the endgame. A true PvE server is a non starter, therefore putting these types of players on different servers is not a solution.

Well, sure. If PvP is a necessary part of the game, there shouldn't be any servers where it is forbidden.

That didn't seem the assumption in the OP though.

There has to be a balance for the casual gamer as well. You know, those of us who have families, jobs and other hobbies we have to squeeze our gaming into as well. PvP as an endpoint heavily favours hardcore gamers as they can invest time to create or harvest the best gear for the edge they're after.

Guilds are fine, but many of the big guilds are also unfriendly to casual gamers, since they expect certain inputs weekly or you get booted. In a game of kingdom builing and fighting against other kingdoms, if you're not in an epicly large guild then your kingdom is going to be toast (assuming it works the way I'm envisioning at the moment).

My friends and I play MMO's as much to link up online and catch up, since we live so far apart nowadays. We get to do so while gaming, something which is a shared passion. We tend not to bring in strangers to whatever guild we can manage to create, mostly because we've been stung a few times before by having banks emptied etc. While we do PvP, it is not the focus of the majority of our game. We tend to do this through warfronts rather than as run around ganking. I spent two years on a PvP server in WoW and just found much of it overtly frustrating when all I was trying to do was level in whatever time slot I could squeeze in. In fact, it reinforced much of my opinion of PvP and player behaviour.

A game where PvE isn't a strong option for all levels will certainly limit those who are interested in playing the game. My friends and I most likely won't buy into a game like this. While I'm sure that's not going to rock the company at all, when you start adding all the folk just like me, and there would be a sizeable amount of folk like that on Paizo's boards I believe, then things start looking a little interesting for your game design philosophy.

I don't really know how big this game is going to be, but most servers are built to cater for a few thousand players at most. This means that almost certainly there will be multiple servers on launch, and I believe that launching some of them as PvP by consent only would not be difficult (after all, nearly all of the successful MMO's out there now do just this).

Of course, these are only thoughts based on my current experiences in MMO's. The guys designing this may have some amazing new ways to make this all work . I currently play RIFT, which seemed to take the best options from multiple games and merge them into something I really enjoy at the moment and can seemingly succeed in despite my casual gaming style. These game designers are making in roads all the time.

Cheers

Day in and day out you see it. People crying for consensual PvP only! show us the world without the risk!

It's amazing to me that you cannot or refuse to understand that non-consensual PvP isn't the only way to have risk or be challenged in an MMO.

It feels as if you think people are somehow cowards for wanting to play a game that's enjoyable for them to play.

You also speak of "ways to grief people other than PvP".

Tell me how, please. And tell me how it would be as unavoidable as non-consensual PvP.

But to address your original post I've got a great idea to solve this and I've said it more than once — Different Servers with different rule sets.

Check it out, now we both have what we want.

It's all perception; I don't see non-consensual PvP as a problem because I think the world will be large, and there will be a lot of space to roam. I feel like someone that doesn't care about PvP will have the opportunity to explore many areas away from the danger of PvP. There will be haunted ruins, monster lairs, evil cults in the forest, and other NPC baddies that can be tackled far from the front lines. The risk is still there, but the chances of an enemy getting that far and then simply blowing their cover because they want to ruin your day by ganking you is minimal.

These are the places where people will hang out to kill you. I mean come on your leaving that dungeon with loot and your worn down best time to gank you.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Day in and day out you see it. People crying for consensual PvP only! show us the world without the risk!

It's amazing to me that you cannot or refuse to understand that non-consensual PvP isn't the only way to have risk or be challenged in an MMO.

It feels as if you think people are somehow cowards for wanting to play a game that's enjoyable for them to play.

You also speak of "ways to grief people other than PvP".

Tell me how, please. And tell me how it would be as unavoidable as non-consensual PvP.

But to address your original post I've got a great idea to solve this and I've said it more than once — Different Servers with different rule sets.

Check it out, now we both have what we want.

^^ This.

It's almost as if those who want nonconsensual PvP are elitists who consider PvP to be the only true way of playing PFO...wait, that sounds like the same kind of griefers who corpse-camped a friend of mine in World of Warcraft once!! To all you supporting non-consensual PvP: Have you ever actually thought that there might be good reasons why consensual PvP is a norm instead of an exception with most of the successful and FUN (mileage might vary though) MMORPGs lately?

Chuck Wright wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Day in and day out you see it. People crying for consensual PvP only! show us the world without the risk!

It's amazing to me that you cannot or refuse to understand that non-consensual PvP isn't the only way to have risk or be challenged in an MMO.

It feels as if you think people are somehow cowards for wanting to play a game that's enjoyable for them to play.

You also speak of "ways to grief people other than PvP".

Tell me how, please. And tell me how it would be as unavoidable as non-consensual PvP.

But to address your original post I've got a great idea to solve this and I've said it more than once — Different Servers with different rule sets.

Check it out, now we both have what we want.

^^ This.

It's almost as if those who want nonconsensual PvP are elitists who consider PvP to be the only true way of playing PFO...wait, that sounds like the same kind of griefers who corpse-camped a friend of mine in World of Warcraft once!! To all you supporting non-consensual PvP: Have you ever actually thought that there might be good reasons why consensual PvP is a norm instead of an exception with most of the successful and FUN (mileage might vary though) MMORPGs lately?

It was your pal's choice to play on a PvP WoW server.

She only joined that server because all her IRL friends (minus me, of course) were there.

Also, my question is still there and needs a good answer.

I don't yet have an answer to your question Icyshadow. I can tell you that part of the reason I'm really looking forward to PFO along with several friends is BECAUSE of the potential for something different from what's so common out there among MMO's.

To the people I've offended with appearances of elitism, I apologize. Please believe me when I say that I hold nothing against any of you and don't view you any less for your position with which I disagree.

I will link this Onishi Post which provides an interesting treatise regarding his thoughts on the 'problem' of having servers without PvP.

It's almost as if those who want nonconsensual PvP are elitists who consider PvP to be the only true way of playing PFO...wait, that sounds like the same kind of griefers who corpse-camped a friend of mine in World of Warcraft once!!

Please reconsider putting labels on people that want something different than you. Your first sentence implies all people who want PvP a certain way are all elitist griefers.

To all you supporting non-consensual PvP: Have you ever actually thought that there might be good reasons why consensual PvP is a norm instead of an exception with most of the successful and FUN (mileage might vary though) MMORPGs lately?

Because the entire framework of the game is built around PvE play. I have played WoW since launch and it's clear the game was not designed with PvP in mind, it was something that was secondary to the rest of the game. There were too many CC's, so they added diminishing returns. Then the damage outdid the hit points of players, so they added resilience. They promised not to change abilities based on their PvP performance (see: Colossus Smash), but they did anyway, affecting its PvE performance.

The only possible solution(which they haven't tried yet and probably still refuse to do so), is making abilities different for PvE and PvP.

So to summarize and answer your question: I think the reason why consensual PvP is a norm instead of an exception with the most successful MMO's lately is because those MMO's were built with PvE as a primary concern, and PvP as an optional supplement.

A game built up around PvP as one of the primary activities is going to be different, and I don't think it's fair to look at it from the perspective of WoW/Rift/TOR, etc.

It's been looked at from the perspective of games like EVE as well, and my stance only comes because it seems like a large majority of people like you ARE like that. Not saying you are, but I just have bad experiences with PvP folk, though they have been decidedly less friendly than you people here on these boards so far. Also, ever wondered WHY so many MMORPGs focus on PvE rather than on PvP?

Also, ever wondered WHY so many MMORPGs focus on PvE rather than on PvP?

That's simple. They all want a piece of Blizzards Cake.

Farmville has over 80 million players yet it doesn't feature any combat whatsoever. Should Goblinworks copy Farmville?

Leave all the combat and nation building to the NPC's, lets all grow some cabbage!

As much as I find humor in that, hyperboles do not make your argument any stronger.

Icyshadow wrote:

Chuck Wright wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Day in and day out you see it. People crying for consensual PvP only! show us the world without the risk!

It's amazing to me that you cannot or refuse to understand that non-consensual PvP isn't the only way to have risk or be challenged in an MMO.

It feels as if you think people are somehow cowards for wanting to play a game that's enjoyable for them to play.

You also speak of "ways to grief people other than PvP".

Tell me how, please. And tell me how it would be as unavoidable as non-consensual PvP.

But to address your original post I've got a great idea to solve this and I've said it more than once — Different Servers with different rule sets.

Check it out, now we both have what we want.

^^ This.

It's almost as if those who want nonconsensual PvP are elitists who consider PvP to be the only true way of playing PFO...wait, that sounds like the same kind of griefers who corpse-camped a friend of mine in World of Warcraft once!! To all you supporting non-consensual PvP: Have you ever actually thought that there might be good reasons why consensual PvP is a norm instead of an exception with most of the successful and FUN (mileage might vary though) MMORPGs lately?

It was your pal's choice to play on a PvP WoW server.

Sorry Gorbacz, but that is BS and you know it. I have never played WOW, but I have played MMOs before. That kind of thinking is both cowardly and wrong. That kind of thinking is why I so despise PVP so much. If I play, it is because I am wanting to enjoy my time. Non-Concentual PVP is not what I want. Especially since that kind of play encourages the few bad apples thinking.

Making quotes with more than quadriple quotes inside it is a bad idea...

Anyway, when did PvP become something important to discuss regarding roleplaying games like this?

I think this game should be somewhat derived from the original rules and PnP style of playing (at least a little)...and the game really isn't about chop your team-mates into bits and pieces...or members of other parties for that matter...

Its more something that could happen from some roleplaying going bad when two characters clash...there might be ways to execute something like that in a game like this but I think it should be periferal...and of periferal importance...

The only PvP other than that I feel might be somewhat interestion is like faction vs faction wars or something...

Having calmed down a bit, let me (slightly) revise my thinking. PVP is ok and perhaps even non-concentual PVP, provided that there are plenty of warning about the Non-concentual PVP area and a place to keep people from slaughtering you as you come in or revive. My issues are with the Jerk syndrome of PVP, be it concentual or non-concentual. If there are too many "Jerks", then I will either go elsewhere or leave the game completely. I know that I will not be the only one to do so if the "Jerk Factor" is too high.

Sorry superfly2000. You are right on the quote part.

Day in and day out you see it. People crying for consensual PvP only! show us the world without the risk!

Day in day out I see it. Trolls insulting the other side and portraying their arguments in the most hyperbolic, ridiculous way possible. And then they act surprised when the board is divided.

You are part of the problem, dude.

Eeh, PvE and PvP are simply two different sides to the same coin. To me, PvP has always felt a bit more like work and a bit less like play. But there's a certain satisfaction in whacking a player character.

If someone is "griefing" you, then you can complain to the GMs, assuming that the griefer is doing something against the rules of the game.

Why do people assume that if you are able to kill a person's character that this will end the griefing?

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Day in and day out you see it. People crying for consensual PvP only! show us the world without the risk!

Day in day out I see it. Trolls insulting the other side and portraying their arguments in the most hyperbolic, ridiculous way possible. And then they act surprised when the board is divided.

You are part of the problem, dude.

+1. Wow. The world IS coming to an end. I agree with the mad clown.

I think we should leave those things to Goblinworks totally. Fighting and discussing PvP vs. Non-PvP, Sandbox vs. themepark or whatever else in that matter is boring and old already, and we still can't get any compromise(And I'm quite sure we wont get any).
Truth is that going into extremes might end bad. Another WoW clone which has basicly nothing more to offer is pretty much doomed, looking at today MMO trends. True full-loot sandbox will become Counter Strike gang fest, so it's also doomed. Coming with something new, maybe ultimate mix of those two? This might actually work. We need to hear a word from design team - how they want to handle game systems to not make it too hardcore or too casual(IMO both are bad for a mmo game)
Someone was talking about PvP and corpse camping - there are many ways to discourage things like that (BTW: In WoW you don't have to resurrect at your body, but for some reason many kids thought it's the only "viable" option so they cried at the boards that someone keeps ganking 'em on PvP server. Silly) so it's not really a problem in PvP. Problem is when you can't really leave your city 'cause it means you will get owned by bunch of reds who just kill for fun. It hurts even more when all your stuff goes instantly to the ground.
People working at goblinworks have to come up with a solution to don't make that happen. To give some "space" for casuals as well as for those who liked pvp(But no mindless PK'ing)

Making servers highly customizable(more than just PvE/PvP/RP) might be the way to go. "You'd like to pvp, but don't want to get looted dry every time you die? Here you go, we got something for ya"
Problem is that I can't really see that happen. That would require dozens of work, balancing and other stuff. Just imagine a game with two differently working economies (Full loot economy and bond, easily rapairable items) crafting mechanics et cetera.

These are the places where people will hang out to kill you. I mean come on your leaving that dungeon with loot and your worn down best time to gank you.

Well, if we're using WoW as the basis: Separate instance dungeon, wander through with group, kill end boss... warp back to town without ever leaving the dungeon. Leaving the griefers on the doorstep: priceless.

I have no real issue with PvE. I have verry little issue with PvP, if done right. My main issue with Non-Concentual PvP is that there is a real temptation for there to be jerks making other players lives a pain. I can tolerate some jerks, provided they do not cause too many troubles. But, OTOH, I am paying my hard earned money to play a game. Thus, I have less tolerance for jerks when my money and time is on the line. Prove to me that the "Jerk Factor" can be reduced or eliminated and I will agree. But if you can't prove it, then move the non-concentual PVP play to a location that can be avoided.

I have no real issue with PvE. I have verry little issue with PvP, if done right. My main issue with Non-Concentual PvP is that there is a real temptation for there to be jerks making other players lives a pain. I can tolerate some jerks, provided they do not cause too many troubles. But, OTOH, I am paying my hard earned money to play a game. Thus, I have less tolerance for jerks when my money and time is on the line. Prove to me that the "Jerk Factor" can be reduced or eliminated and I will agree. But if you can't prove it, then move the non-concentual PVP play to a location that can be avoided.

And everyone else isn't paying their hard earned money to play?

I cannot prove that the jerk factor can be reduced or eliminated. Nor can I prove that the jerk factor will be increased.

Sharoth wrote:

I have no real issue with PvE. I have verry little issue with PvP, if done right. My main issue with Non-Concentual PvP is that there is a real temptation for there to be jerks making other players lives a pain. I can tolerate some jerks, provided they do not cause too many troubles. But, OTOH, I am paying my hard earned money to play a game. Thus, I have less tolerance for jerks when my money and time is on the line. Prove to me that the "Jerk Factor" can be reduced or eliminated and I will agree. But if you can't prove it, then move the non-concentual PVP play to a location that can be avoided.

And everyone else isn't paying their hard earned money to play?

I cannot prove that the jerk factor can be reduced or eliminated. Nor can I prove that the jerk factor will be increased.

~sighs~ I know. All I was trying to say is that I do not want a few bad apples to spoil the game. That is all.

Also, ever wondered WHY so many MMORPGs focus on PvE rather than on PvP?

One reason might be that in PvE, you can all be winners and heroes. In PvP, you will have winners and losers, people who are victorious and people who lost the match/got killed/lost their precious spaceship/etc.

A longer-term PvP game will need some careful designs to make certain it's still fun to play, even if you're not a star PvP player. And saying "then you need to join a guild/corporation/mercenary unit" might be a solution, but might very well not fit with what some people want out of a game. How do you keep the not-winning people motivated to play?

The game also needs to figure out how to handle gameplay while you're either learning the game or getting up to speed so you can become a competitive PvP player.

An example:
I play Warhammer Online, which is designated a "RvR" (Realm vs. Realm, their name for PvP) game. As the player numbers dwindled, their "public quests" (main PvE leveling mechanism) failed because you need at least a smallish group to make them fun. And the separate PvP level you have there (separate from your "character level") means you can have two characters of, say, lvl 30, one with PvP level 15, one with lvl 60, and guess who has the advantage.

Unfortunately, the main way of gaining PvP levels is not to do PvP, but to run around in the PvP "lakes" (designated areas) and capture strongholds, run from point to point sending off resource carriers, and finally grabbing a battering ram and battering down the (usually undefended) enemy keep. Then go to the next zone (of 3) and do the same. It's not fun, it feels very grindy, and it's about the only way to play from lvl 20-ish to lvl 39 (out of 40). Unless you're with a full group of friends.

~sighs~ I know. All I was trying to say is that I do not want a few bad apples to spoil the game. That is all.

It's a part of playing, nay, doing anything online. The more people playing, the more you will see bad apples. If it's only a couple of jerks, you should have a thick enough skin to ignore them. If the game turns out to be Jerkfest 2012, well, then something is fundamentally wrong. :P

Let's wait and see how they've decided to set things up before we split up into left or right, up or down, pve or pvp divides. :P

Unless you're with a full group of friends.

This last point you make has always been my pet peeve. I can stand getting ganked, and indeed I have repaid the favor umpteen times. I can stand losing a fight to a big end boss. I can take people being silly or inexperienced.

I can't stand being forced to group with people though. I should be able to solo anything and everything. :P 'Cause inevitably I end up grouped with someone who'll "need" all the treasure, even though they said they didn't want it. Or a raid leader who kicks you at the last moment to hog all the glory. Sure, guilds are nice, and if you've a lot of friends who play the same game, a big raid group can be lots of fun.

But get stuck with a group of glory hogs, or treasure hogs, or people who don't understand that they shouldn't run around and aggro all the adds... oy vey.

Gorbacz wrote:

Icyshadow wrote:

Chuck Wright wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Day in and day out you see it. People crying for consensual PvP only! show us the world without the risk!

It's amazing to me that you cannot or refuse to understand that non-consensual PvP isn't the only way to have risk or be challenged in an MMO.

It feels as if you think people are somehow cowards for wanting to play a game that's enjoyable for them to play.

You also speak of "ways to grief people other than PvP".

Tell me how, please. And tell me how it would be as unavoidable as non-consensual PvP.

But to address your original post I've got a great idea to solve this and I've said it more than once — Different Servers with different rule sets.

Check it out, now we both have what we want.

^^ This.

It's almost as if those who want nonconsensual PvP are elitists who consider PvP to be the only true way of playing PFO...wait, that sounds like the same kind of griefers who corpse-camped a friend of mine in World of Warcraft once!! To all you supporting non-consensual PvP: Have you ever actually thought that there might be good reasons why consensual PvP is a norm instead of an exception with most of the successful and FUN (mileage might vary though) MMORPGs lately?

It was your pal's choice to play on a PvP WoW server.

Sorry Gorbacz, but that is BS and you know it. I have never played WOW, but I have played MMOs before. That kind of thinking is both cowardly and wrong. That kind of thinking is why I so despise PVP so much. If I play, it is because I am wanting to enjoy my time. Non-Concentual PVP is not what I want. Especially since that kind of play encourages the few bad apples thinking.

WoW has PVP, PVE, RP and RP-PVP servers. It's entirely your choice where you play. Please, don't call people out as BS if you have no idea what are you going on about.

Sharoth wrote:

Sorry Gorbacz, but that is BS and you know it. I have never played WOW, but I have played MMOs before. That kind of thinking is both cowardly and wrong. That kind of thinking is why I so despise PVP so much. If I play, it is because I am wanting to enjoy my time. Non-Concentual PVP is not what I want. Especially since that kind of play encourages the few bad apples thinking.

WoW has PVP, PVE, RP and RP-PVP servers. It's entirely your choice where you play. Please, don't call people out as BS if you have no idea what are you going on about.

Gorbacz is entirely correct, WoW has those different server types. Thus, his comment about it being your friend's fault for joining a PvP server is entirely in the right also.

Sharoth still has a point. My friend went to that server NOT for the PvP, but because all her friends had their characters there. She never asked to be ganked and griefed, she just wanted to have a good time with her friends. Hell, she wanted to go raiding and primarily PvE, but the local populace of the server on the Horde side decided not to give her a chance.

Sharoth still has a point. My friend went to that server NOT for the PvP, but because all her friends had their characters there. She never asked to be ganked and griefed, she just wanted to have a good time with her friends. Hell, she wanted to go raiding and primarily PvE, but the local populace of the server on the Horde side decided not to give her a chance.

But that's a social problem of your pal and her friends having different tastes, not a game design problem. The game gives you a specturm of possibilities for every taste.

It would be akin to having a beef against WotC about my all friends playing 4E when I don't like 4E.

The problem could have been solved with a few paid character transfers, but who am I to complain now when neither she nor her friend is playing WoW anymore? Either way, if this kind of crap will be pulled off in PFO, then count me out. Also, I still think blaming her for being griefed is wrong, not only because she's a friend, but also because that's more or less giving ALL PvP players a rather negative image.

@KaeYoss: I would give your post +9001 if I could.

I believe both sides can be reconciled. You can have a WoW-style setup with different rulesets for servers, or EVE-style setup with one server where you have "safe" and "hot" zones.

What I also believe is that we can have us not dissing each other as "sociopath murderer PVP kids" and "carebear PVE wussies".

The problem could have been solved with a few paid character transfers, but who am I to complain now when neither she nor her friend is playing WoW anymore? Either way, if this kind of crap will be pulled off in PFO, then count me out. Also, I still think blaming her for being griefed is wrong, not only because she's a friend, but also because that's more or less giving ALL PvP players a rather negative image.

We're not blaming her for being griefed.

But I won't accept that she was surprised that she was attacked and ganked.

Do folks really need a sign? "PvP means player versus player, you can and will be attacked. Yes, this includes you."

If PFO has servers or in-game regions where PvP is not only permissible but also non-consensual, you shouldn't be under any illusion that folks won't be trying to kill your character. By going there, you've agreed to it.

I believe both sides can be reconciled. You can have a WoW-style setup with different rulesets for servers, or EVE-style setup with one server where you have "safe" and "hot" zones.

What I also believe is that we can have us not dissing each other as "sociopath murderer PVP kids" and "carebear PVE wussies".

Agreed. This thread is doing well, by the way, it's still civil.

Sorry Gorbacz. I was upset and spoke as what I am wanting to avoid. I will do my best to speak clearer and with a more level head next time.

Sorry Gorbacz. I was upset and spoke as what I am wanting to avoid. I will do my best to speak clearer and with a more level head next time.

No problem mate, been there done that. :)

Sharoth wrote:

~sighs~ I know. All I was trying to say is that I do not want a few bad apples to spoil the game. That is all.

It's a part of playing, nay, doing anything online. The more people playing, the more you will see bad apples. If it's only a couple of jerks, you should have a thick enough skin to ignore them. If the game turns out to be Jerkfest 2012, well, then something is fundamentally wrong. :P

Let's wait and see how they've decided to set things up before we split up into left or right, up or down, pve or pvp divides. :P

~grins~ Well, I plan on giving the game at least 3 months before I even think about giving up on it. And that is with or without jerks. I want the game to succeed, so I must support it then. I will do my best to be a constructive player and try to respect my other players. ~stabs Gorbacz in the back~ See? I just respected him! ~grins and runs~

Gorbacz wrote:

I believe both sides can be reconciled. You can have a WoW-style setup with different rulesets for servers, or EVE-style setup with one server where you have "safe" and "hot" zones.

What I also believe is that we can have us not dissing each other as "sociopath murderer PVP kids" and "carebear PVE wussies".

Agreed. This thread is doing well, by the way, it's still civil.

Civil? CIVIL?!? To Hell with that! I want BLOOD!!!

~grins~

Icyshadow wrote:

The problem could have been solved with a few paid character transfers, but who am I to complain now when neither she nor her friend is playing WoW anymore? Either way, if this kind of crap will be pulled off in PFO, then count me out. Also, I still think blaming her for being griefed is wrong, not only because she's a friend, but also because that's more or less giving ALL PvP players a rather negative image.

We're not blaming her for being griefed.

But I won't accept that she was surprised that she was attacked and ganked.

Do folks really need a sign? "PvP means player versus player, you can and will be attacked. Yes, this includes you."

If PFO has servers or in-game regions where PvP is not only permissible but also non-consensual, you shouldn't be under any illusion that folks won't be trying to kill your character. By going there, you've agreed to it.

She wasn't surprised, per se, if only in the situations where they were waiting outside a raid instance only for a bunch of cowards to storm in and kill them only because the instant teleporting to the dungeon that came with Cataclysm wasn't implemented yet...

I think the biggest issue that I am seeing is that we are all worried that there will be no respect in the game. If we respect each other and have some ground rules, then the game will work. And that is PvE, PvP, and / or Non-Concentual PvP. If we do NOT respect each other, then nothing will work.

I believe that is the inherent nature of separate PVP servers in games however. WoW PVP servers are directly set to see half of the world as your sworn enemy. The fact that it is a PVP server is used to justify random killing of anyone who isn't on your side. Heck in WoW they intentionally added a bogus language barrier to prevent any chance at communication or making peace or having a hope of humanizing your opponent.

Bottom line, WoW's PVP servers were designed from the ground up, to encourage griefing, to have no consequences for doing it, and to give people as many ways to justify it as possible (they are a sworn enemy, they chose a PVP server specifically when PVE servers were around, I can't talk to him, he is on a different side, and thus cannot ever be a potential ally under any circumstance).

That is also part of why WoW has a significantly worse griefing problem on PVP servers then games like Liniage or eve, but there are multiple factors.

1. Will the game permit it
2. Will the community tolerate it.
3. Will it bite them in the ass later (this partly goes under 2).

In a game with large amounts of diplomacy etc... players cannot always hide behind their own side. In a more complicated environment where all sides in some way need larger assistance, treaties get formed between most of an area, murder gets frowned upon, and the players can police the area. Second you factor in that with a setup like this, people will need to be registered to some nation/alliance etc... Then you still have a secondary resort, you contact the leader of the other nation, and inform them that they need to deal with a criminal they are harboring. If a nation gets a reputation for harboring criminals, then it will likely be under fire often, and as a result, weakened with less to offer it's members.

and as 3 says, sometimes you need the assistance of those who were formally enemies, and how you behaved, will effect how likely they are to assist you.

I'm not saying there won't be problems, risks etc... I'm saying it will be a combination of what sort of community becomes the norm, what most nations decide they will or won't put up with, that can effect the shape of the game. Which can be both a blessing and a curse.

I think an interesting way to sort of bridge the PvP issue is to use a +1/-1 system. It could enhance roleplaying as well.

Each character could have a player-set group of guidelines. If your character hates thieves, for instance, for whatever reason, then you would give thieves a -1. Now, you wouldn't know if a person is a thief, mind you, unless they've told you, or you find out information somehow that the specific character is part of the Thieves Guild.

If a character has enough negatives, this could allow your character to take certain actions with a certain amount of impunity, but only if your character has enough knowledge. Actions could range from being able to yell for the guards to arrest the character, or hire an assassin to go after the character, or even go after the character yourself.

A player could also rate other characters with a +1/-1, but with a limit. The limit can be whatever arbitrary limit the game devs decide upon.

I believe that is the inherent nature of separate PVP servers in games however. WoW PVP servers are directly set to see half of the world as your sworn enemy. The fact that it is a PVP server is used to justify random killing of anyone who isn't on your side. Heck in WoW they intentionally added a bogus language barrier to prevent any chance at communication or making peace or having a hope of humanizing your opponent.

Bottom line, WoW's PVP servers were designed from the ground up, to encourage griefing, to have no consequences for doing it, and to give people as many ways to justify it as possible (they are a sworn enemy, they chose a PVP server specifically when PVE servers were around, I can't talk to him, he is on a different side, and thus cannot ever be a potential ally under any circumstance).

And yet despite these barriers, I have on numerous occasions "grouped" with an Alliance character and successfully completed quests with them. As players, we both knew what the quest was, how tough the mobs were and how to beat them. We took turns killing and picking up the items, and in almost all cases, neither of us backstabbed the other at the end.

Also, all of the barriers are instantly destroyed by Skype, Ventrillo, TeamSpeak, etc. :P