In next patch commits: "Force pvp in x sector"

I'm not surprised with the voting results. I very often find players who are wholeheartedly anti-PvPers by nature, and the smallest forced PvP implementation causes a pandemonium.

A player-hungry player who's willing to obliterate you is not much different than encountering an angry mob, except with better AI and gear. Not to mention that the fact you're on Sector X means you have higher-end tiers, and the chances of encountering someone even on a populated server is minimal.

Seriously, think of this feature as an upgraded NPC AI willing to kill players who are on their reach, IF you ever do find them. Oh right, some folks whine over a little challenge.

Then don't join/create a party where you can't trust the members completely if losing a couple of pixels is that much of a problem, assuming you lose anything on death during PvP.

 

Thank you. Why would you party up with strangers anyway? I'm sure there's always a way around every features in sandbox game. even glitches could turn to advantages if you know how to exploit it. (until they fix them that is) heheh

 

I am a co-op player. I enjoy playing with others, helping them, and meeting new people. However I despise PVP and being shot in the face. Or anywhere else for that matter. Or being stabbed, or lit on fire. Just not my idea of fun, strangely enough.

Difficult to make new friends though if I need to worry about them murdering me.

 

I don't play games for the challenge. I have a job for that.

 

That's great! It's safe to say everybody have their own opinion about pvp. I believe the only way around this is either make a duel system where both parties will have to agree for a duel or the option to toggle you're available for pvp or not. However that kind of features are not available to us. That's why we all are working together to find a way around it. I'm not against those who disagreed with force pvp features but merely to giving you suggestion to find a solution how to wrap around this feature.

what kind of game that doesn't have obstacles and goals? I'm not sure you understand what you're talking about, Ibraxis Meritworthy

 

I want to argue with you guys, but I'm so damn tired of it at this point. It gets so tedious repeating yourself, and the nonsense never stops coming.

Someone back in 1998 explained why their arguments are bad. Since then, we've all been repeating the same thing over and over and over on multiplayer game forums ad infinitum and making no headway, ever.

I will say this: I often do play games for challenge, and even I think making that part of every game is one of the most stupid and boneheaded things you can do. If I want a hard game against AI, I'll go play a game like Devil May Cry or Metal Gear Rising. If I want a hard game against players, I have Dota 2, half a dozen first person shooters and more. If I'm feeling masochistic I'll play a fighting game, either against the AI or real players, because while I love them, I'm horrible at them. Sandbox building games, standard RPGs, etc, are traditionally about a different sort of experience than Nintendo hard or cutthroat competition, game developers stab themselves in the foot every single time they try to shoehorn such things into a game where they do not belong.

 

Being able to always kill someone (and be killed) is an odd thing to complain about in a game with near-infinite space. The odds of you being unintentionally found are bogglingly low.

 

Do you get griefed a lot?

 

... Wow. Could you be any more condescending?
There is a huge difference between the "challenge" of working alone on a painting and the "challenge" of trying to paint while a 7' bodybuilder punches you in the face at random intervals. If we are on a forum for a video game, then logic would dictate that we use the colloquial and descriptive definitions of words appropriate to that medium, as opposed to their more general or prescriptive definitions. In other words, "challenges," in this context, means "obstacles designed to test a player's reflexes and game mechanic knowledge as related to damage and movement physics."

That may have been a bit too highbrow for you, so let's try it in a simpler form: I DON'T LIKE BEING PUNCHED IN THE FACE!

EDIT: Having reread my post, I realized I didn't really clarify what sorts of challenges I am seeking: I play Starbound for the story (such as there is right now), the exploration and discovery of new content, and the chance to build cool things. I do not play it for the challenges of overcoming monsters, bosses, environmental hazards, or other players. The first thing I've done with all the previous patches was nerf the bosses and eliminate the death penalty, so I could get on with enjoying the parts I did like.

 

I understand that. However the problem is, even if you won this argument, the fact remains, it's in the game, and it doesn't go through one person to undo this feature.
My suggestion is to write an email to one of the developers and explain to them why adding the pvp feature is a bad idea and the list of other user names that are supporting said email,

 

The best way to gather said supporting names would be to have a poll (like the one we have right here for this thread, which already supports my point), or to have a thread discussing the dangers of forcing features on players or the worries of some of said players. Which is exactly what some of us are trying to do.
However, the rabid, illiterate, ill-tempered posts by both pro-PvPers and anti-PvPers creates an environment where it is nearly impossible to have a clear, calm discussion and, more related to your suggestion, gather the names of those who would prefer this feature be an option rather than a requirement.

If you, or anyone else, would be wiling to gather the names of those who reject this feature, then I would be quite willing to draft a coherent response to the developers. However, I do not have the temperament, nor patience, to gather it through this already-sullied thread.

... I blame Calvin & Hobbes for my vocabulary and verbosity.

EDIT: By no means do I claim innocence in the flames that engulf this discussion.

 

What most people seem to be forgetting is the unspeakably vast amount of planets there are.

The actual chances of you encountering someone?

Certainly does not warrant the kind of dramatic outbursts seen in this thread.

 

Hang in there Ibraxis Meritworthy. Perhaps you could return to the thread after you calmed down a little. Any way, I considered myself as Pro-PvPers, I support for it to be an option instead of totally rejecting it. This way both parties will be happy. What do you think?

 

In its current form, the PvP doesn't matter. After all, you can't hit party members, and non-party members won't be able to find you unless you tell everyone your coords. As such, the main issue is being careful about inviting people to your party while in X, since they may just warp to you and leave party to get a jump on you.

In fact, for the immediate time being, its a good idea as it will force players into the situation sometimes (and make it easier for PvP enthusiasts to have themselves a duel), thereby getting feedback that may help them improve PvP.

However, in the future, there may be other ways to find each other, and forcing PvP in a sector by default will be a bad idea.

Instead of forcing it, it should be a server option. As in, the person running the server gets to decide whether PvP is forced or not. So there will be servers with it forced, and servers with it not enforced.

Additionally, having servers able to choose to dedicate themselves entirely to it will allow for a dedicated PvP colleseum type server, where you bring a pre-made and already geared up character and duke it out on some backed up homeworld with some arenas and such built on it beforehand (for which the server has of course force enabled PvP). Which will provide MUCH higher quality feedback then you would get from simply forcing it in sector X by default, as you will get feedback from people who actually want to PvP with each other, and not just from the whiners who accidentally invited a player-killer into their party and went to their ship (parked in sector X), beamed down, and got slaughtered by their endgame weapons.

Because balancing a game based on that kind of feedback is difficult at best.
.

 

Actually, in the interests of hearing both sides completely, I pose a question to the pro-PvPers:
Why do you think that forced PvP is a good feature to have?

To clarify: I understand that permadeath in roguelikes should not be optional, as even the option of save-scumming detracts from the point of the game. The Binding of Isaac would not be nearly as fun if you had infinite lives or could reload a save from before you went into the boss room.
However, having never engaged in PvP (aside from Unreal Tournament at LAN parties), and only very rarely engaging in online multiplayer, I do not understand why forced PvP would be a good thing. If you can, please explain it to me (and the others who read your posts). Thank you.

EDIT: KuramaFox makes a good point regarding this. If, for the first round of betas only, they force PvP, then they can more quickly gain feedback on PvP. My only issue with that is that then they will be getting feedback from people who don't like PvP and thus will dilute the good opinions with irrelevant ones.

 

I actually feel quite calm. Playing some Xenoblade in between posts really helps.

I would be quite happy with the feature being changed to an option! That would certainly allay some of my fears regarding the direction of this game. I would never suggest that PvP be completely removed, as I am quite aware there are people who enjoy it. I think the best thing to do would be, as some have suggested, change PvP to be a per-server, per-player, or per-case (duels) basis.

EDIT: You don't need to use my full (completely made-up) name. "Ibraxis" or "Ibby" is fine.

 

I'm not pro-pvp. I'm pro-"it makes no difference as it is and it's likely just the start of something more meaningful."

 

I fail to see how PVPers ambushing non-PVPers will be a good test of anything. The victim will die and likely not come back since they don't want to fight. Hell, I see someone coming for me, I'd just log out. I'm not here for their entertainment, I'm here to have fun.

If PVPers want to have duels they can get together and beat on each other. Lots of fun and everyone there wants it. Test all the scenarios you want.

 

I support PvP, however I don't believe shoving a feature down fellow player's throat is not a good thing either. So I'm supporting the earlier suggestion in turning the PvP feature into a toggle-able option.

 

exaggerating