My opinions on PvP (forced and otherwise)

It's already alienated me. I notice most of the people responding are PvPs or of PvP mindsets, so allow me to put forth the builders perspective.

I'm a builder/crafter/PvE guy. I absolutely abhor PvP in any and all forms, as I believe it brings out the absolute worst in people, and it turns me personally into a raging monster.

My current issue with forced PvP (besides the forced part) is that it's in a zone where I need to go.
People keep saying "sextor X is just a stand in", and that's true. But can anyone give me a guarantee that when it's replaced, the "new" sexctor X won't have exclusive items in it? No? I thought so.
When you make items any PvE player would want exclusive to a forced PvP zone, you're making a gigantic mistake, and alienating a very large portion of people. If I wanted to run around in constant fear of being murdered for my stuff by a group of griefers while I peacefully collect materials, I'd play a different game.

Also, well thought out post, kudos.

 

And now I am obligated to check out that game because it has such a stupidly awesome 90s name. Seriously, if we're going to revive anything from the 90s for the sake of "irony" (with no respect for what the word actually means), it should be the names.
Bloodfist
Darkdeath
Agent P.A.I.N.

EDIT: I'm thinking I should stop posting until I've had something to eat and can think coherently again. Really? Diverting the topic towards 90s culture? What was I thinking?

 

M.U.S.C.L.E. came out in 85.

 

That doesn't mean it doesn't have a 90s-style name. Because it does. And it's hilarious.
I think it's time to look up a Let's Play and a TAS video.

EDIT: Woohoo! I'm no longer "Master Chief"! "Astral Cartographer" sounds much more appropriate.

 

It was themed after muscle men which were little plastic figures kids collected.

If you collected garbage pail kids during those days you likely also collected muscle men.

 

As long as we're talking about having PVP in "traditionally-non-PVP" settings, and 90's things, I think we should find a way to revive Crash 'N The Boys.

The gameplay is meant to be track and field, but in any non-independent event you had the option of winning by crushing the opponent. Like, hurdles. You can jump them or slide under them. Or, break them with your shoulder, pick up the pieces, and throw them at your opponent. In the Swimming, you can peacefully collect medals and try to win the race, or you can just jump lanes and drown your opponent.

 

Anyway, back to PvP. I think it bulks up this game's resume to people who haven't tried playing it yet and all the while it doesn't really add much substantial value to the game IMHO or in some cases detracts from it.

I like the idea of people I'm not partied with being flagged for me to kill them at the remote chance that they win the lottery and find the planet I make my home planet but that's about the biggest purpose I see it serving.

The only 2d games I can think of with good PvP is because the entire purpose of the game was PvP.

 

This is exactly why PVP "additions" to previously-PVE games doesn't really add a lot to the table. PVP is generally something reserved for endgame, to keep people playing the game by giving them something to do. OR, it needs to be something that's a major part of gameplay from Day 1. (not DayZ)

I also think that the PVP audience is really, really, really, ridiculously small compared to the PVE audience. Adding PVP to a game is something that needs to be deliberate and planned out , with the understanding that balance is an ongoing, difficult task. It's also a huge risk, and, as we've seen, a huge turnoff to a sizable portion of the gaming crowd.

 

I don't like how you grouped "there are nigh infinite planets" with "don't party with strangers" in Argument I, namely because you didn't address the "there are nigh infinite planets" part that kinda renders that whole bit about Argument III pointless. The fact that there are nigh infinite planets means that venturing into Sector X isn't really a problem at all unless you party up -- so the problem is that people can drop the party and then promptly kill you.

Otherwise, I agree with you; forced PvP is pointless when it's practically impossible to find another player randomly anyway. The current system enables "soldiers" as you call them, sure, but it also enables griefers when it'd be pretty easy to come up with another solution that doesn't enable said greifers.

 

(A III) is more of a (Counter-Counter-Argument I), which makes (CA III) into (Counter-Counter-Counter-Argument I). I think you're reading into the numbering too much. It may be easier to think of all the arguments being lumped together and having the counter-arguments be directed at parts of this lump.

Maybe, and this is just randomly spitballing, we could have the party system work by preventing party-drops unless the party leader agrees to it. And the server would save all party formations regardless of online/offline status. And then we could have unicorns come down and kick the crap out of any players who attack non-combatants.
The system is broken and the devs need to fix it. I just wish they'd communicate their intentions instead of just "we added new hats!!!"

 

Alternatively, instead of forcing PvP, I think it'd be logical for parties to be able to consent to duels against each other. Or something like that. For FFA, there could be something like a literal flag that players interact with that flags them for FFA PvP. I dunno. Anything but a general blanket forced PvP that enables griefers.

 

Even the punishment levels they added. Like what % of players do you think are playing permadeath atm? I'd rather they focus on what the game does well rather than bringing what seems like gimmicks to the table.

 

Well, I personally have been playing exclusively permadeath characters since Furious Koala went live -- and I'm sure it didn't take them too long to write the bits of code that facilitate permadeath and that other mode I forgot the name of. Sure, I could have just kept deleting my characters whenever they died, but honestly, whatever thirty minutes a developer spent programming and implementing the difficulty flags was probably worth it.

 

As much as we disagree, I agree with you here on the subject of PVP (I think other gimmicks would be fun or funny).

Attempting to balance PVE and PVP is really difficult. Especially since enemies have different hp/damage amounts than players. If healing is balanced for PVE (to heal up after large burst received from a fight, but not instantly), it's almost impossible to balance it for PVP (which would focus on burst, to prevent the sustained healing). Etc.

However, I hope that the current iteration of Sector X is the devs asking the playerbase a question: "Will PVP ever work in Starbound?" If people try the PVP and find that it's very close to being great fun, the devs can work to make it a reality. If it's an absolute disaster like teenage canadians, and their driving skills and their limo drivers, then the devs can turn it off and never look back.

I hope, anyway.

 

I just don't think the mechanics of this game are conducive to entertaining PvP. Its like playing a platforming Zelda game 1v1., a far cry from something like mortal kombat.

I also think we probably disagree a lot less than you'd imagine in the overall.

 

Alright, I'm still not reading the thread, because quite frankly I don't care if pvp is forced or not, I'm just trying to show OP the other side of things. First of all, when I cited WoW, I wasn't saying it was at all like this or anything, in fact it was quite different, but the OP said something along the lines that successful games don't force pvp (or I think it did maybe I'm wrong), and I was responding to that saying WoW was an example of a successful game with forced PvP. Now let me get into why force PvP, if PvP isn't forced on then many many people never turn it on and then people who want pvp can't. Half the fun people have in PvP is ganking those much weaker, but those much weaker would never agree to duel. The issues the "builders" are having is understanding that the majority of people who are fighting for PvP enforced are NOT honorable fighters. I'm not an honorable fighter at all, if you're some random and I pass you by with weak armor and pvp on, I will kill you for the heck of it and then probably camp your corpse assuming I have nothing better to do. But this is if I'm playing an RPG. I agree in Starbound forced PvP doesn't matter, but here's the catch, *it doesn't matter either way*. In order for this system to effect you, first of all you have to be on a server in which there are multiple people playing, and then those people have to find a way to the planet you happen to be on without being in your party. And if they can do that, and they are the type that would kill you dishonorably, then they're are probably the same type that would greif your stuff, so you're gonna be raging anyway.

 

a few notes: the downfall took place loooooong before the advent of WoW. at the time, the main competitor was everquest. not really ever having played this, i cannot tell you how PVP compares. i do not recall many people complaining about the PVP, before the change. there were many game mechanics and player tactics for dealing with PVP you did not want. this seemed to change, however, once players were granted access to a magical land where no negative actions could be performed on you at all. overnight the pvp population became mainly griefers and gankers, with a very small minority of the honorable types.

though i be PVP, i am also big into crafting (it was indeed UO's excellent crafting, and economy that gave this to me). after the split, i was able to resource gather near the main hub of the game with impunity. for comparison, doing so was next to impossible before the split because many people stayed near this hub, either looking for a fight or resource gathering near a safe zone. i cannot recall anyone trying to kill my gatherer post-split, and that still makes me sad.

i have no clue about the mix of WoW's content today, i did stop playing before the first expansion. at the time, contested zones had roughly the content of any zone. but, there are non-PVP servers where contested status means nothing.

also, of note: unreasonable killing. such as, say, spawncamping. a killing for some sort of gain is not that unreasonable. that gain could also be territory. speaking oh which, i wonder, perhaps forcing pvp in sector x is a prelude to testing settlement mechanics? you'd need pvp enabled to have guards and defenses aggro a player that breaks the law/attacks a member of the settlement.

i think in america it was called "monster in my pocket" edit: oh, no it wasent, that was just really similar.

 

This is twice now that you have admitted to blind-posting without even the courtesy of reading the original post, let alone all the follow-ups. In most other threads this disrespect would be considered annoying or insulting. In this thread, which explicitly asks you to read all previous posts, your actions are tantamount to violation of forum rules. Begone, lest I bring the wrath of the moderators down upon you!

I had originally planned to refute every statement you made as every single one is clearly counter-argued by either my posts or the posts of others. Y'know, the ones I told you to read in the first place! But you really aren't even worth the effort of copy-pasting. You are rude, ignorant, and spew nothing but pointless bile.

 

Maaaaaybe a little unnecessary.

Just a little.

 

So... correct me if I'm wrong, but the change to PvP was from forced PvP to character-wide or server-wide, right? (Just verifying that my original argument still makes sense to make.)

I didn't mention WoW in my response because I knew that wasn't the UO-killer. I'm not sure what prompted those developers to change from forced-PvP to optional-PvP, but I doubt it was strictly user feedback. These widespread changes tend to happen due to market shifts (more/less casual players entering the market), whitepapers (usually the responses to these are overdone), or competing products with growing user bases and a different set of features. Maybe Everquest did it? Maybe console games did it? Who knows? (Not me.)
I just don't think it's coincidence that we haven't seen a game take its place yet.

So... There are servers where non-PvP players can explore all the content of the game without experiencing PvP? Again, that's all I really want for Starbound.

This is perhaps the most rational reason they could have for that change. I still think it should be a server option, but those features would entice me to visit a PvP-open server. Once. Maybe.