30 Second PvP Timer Rule

[Serverus]

I am sure many ideas have been suggested about how to stop griefing. Hopefully, I can offer a little insight and suggestions for the future. The current culture of the game being that it is open world, full loot, PvP, will inevitably attract griefers. Its the developers who give it a niche for them. There are a lot of good PvPers who want honest PvP with players who can give them a challenge, then there are griefers who pick on weaker players, miners, explorers, PvEers, those who may not respond fast enough to defend themselves (Aussie lag, etc); maybe they deal with some kind of PTSD (Due to military experience in RL) and don't like to fight other players, or they are just not aggressive by nature. These are the ones who suffer the most in a game like this with griefers. Its a beautiful game, mind you and there should be a place for these players who don't want violence.

Toggle PvP is burdensome and not realistic and I don't agree with it. Players should be able to kill whoever they want and I don't think SV should take away that freedom. I do think there should be some kind of choice and a much stricter consequence for murdering someone who chooses not to fight.

In order for this to happen, GM's need to be more involved.

30 SECOND PvP TIMER RULE
Instead of quick ganking, which is not PvP in my eyes, it is just bullying. Why not give it a 30 second timer. If players engage in pvp both sides have to wait 30 seconds to attack and all players have to agree upon this action. After 30 seconds everyone who agreed to partake in PvP, their names will become orange and they have permission to fight to the death. Also whoever wins or loses will not become a criminal. Thus if a player does not want to fight he can just opt out and run away. Similar to a duel. This way it will be a mutual agreement. Thus if someone attacks that innocent player before the 30 second timer ends, who did not agree to the fight; he/she can therefore contact a GM after the assault and the GM will suspend the aggressor player or players account for 24 hours. When they return after the suspension they will be murderers with red names unable to go into player towns. So everyone in the gaming community will know who killed someone dishonorably. Being red means you killed someone without their consent. If a murderer has 3 of these player assaults the accounts will be permanently banned. If a murderer works hard and decides to be good again, they must repair their reputations. I think this will give PvP in Nave more honour and those who enjoy it can get it without having to grief and use that as an excuse to kill innocent players. This way we will find out who the skilled fighters are and who the cowards are. You may be surprised to see how cowardly the current griefers in our community are.

Something to consider. @Henrik Nyström

 

[MolagAmur]

lmfao this is extreme.

also, blue players are the real griefers.

 

[serge]

lmfao this is extreme.

also, blue players are the real griefers.

Facts

 

[ArcaneConsular]

MO is more PTSD friendly than most games like Rust or Conan Exiles. Someone starts bombing your base (nam flashbacks)

 

[Emdash]

I'd support something like this for no-take-backsie pvp and everyone else who jumped in, on either side, would be flagged local grey immediately as soon as they took in action in the fight. So I mean there would be an option for 'man up' pvp where neither side would have to lose rep or get mc'd and only they would be able to loot. But yea the reg attacking has to stay, too.

I'd certainly pvp more if this was something, but it might be hard, at first, to implement. I was wracking my brain about something similar. It's a good idea. Would also be cool to be able to declare an area a 'war zone' for a period of time. It's stuff like that IMO, that can still be semi organic, opposed to 'lawless hot spots' that will give us the kind of pvp we want, IMO. But there still needs to be the regular pvp of course.

 

[Albanjo Dravae]

The suggestion Is basically a duel but having GMs for temporal bans when killing a blue player, what the actual fuck. I think its a really stupid ass idea, im sorry i don't wanna crush some poor ass nublet dreams. But this suggestion Is absolute garbage, ill just pretend i didnt read this shit at all.

 

[Vaith]

"Being red means you killed someone without their consent." - Serverus 2022

 

[Serverus]

"Being red means you killed someone without their consent." - Serverus 2022

I can see how you’d twist the context of that. Well played.

 

[LordMega]

Consentual PvP is already in other games, I think you should go play one of those.

 

[Turbizzler]

Lol, No.

 

[Emdash]

Consentual PvP is already in other games, I think you should go play one of those.

read my part tho... it's not a bad jump off. I mean being able to have people tag up for pvp in an area opposed to have lawless zones would be better imo. It's bad when seen as the only option, but it's not a bad addition. I gotta stand up for my boy Sev on this one. If there was a flag up sort of pvp mechanism then people could avoid a lot of mcs and avoid a lot of extra fighter grief (cuz like I said, anyone jumps in in any way and they are automatically added GG, no MC 4 u.)

I dunno if this is exactly how it would work, but the game does need some kind of a pvp when pvp is developing so that people don't just bitch out and give MCs when they lose. Not saying remove the other parts; it's more like it could benefit from adding something similar to this

 

[Pragma]

"mortal online is not like others MMOs. In mortal online any player can at any point attack another player and take everything they own" it's literaly the first sentence to describe the game on the Steam page, your Idea to ban people that just play the game as intended is thé dumbest thing i've read so far in this forum ( and they been have a ton of bad Idea ), if you can't deal with this simple thing you're playing the wrong game.

 

[Serverus]

"mortal online is not like others MMOs. In mortal online any player can at any point attack another player and take everything they own" it's literaly the first sentence to describe the game on the Steam page, your Idea to ban people that just play the game as intended is thé dumbest thing i've read so far in this forum ( and they been have a ton of bad Idea ), if you can't deal with this simple thing you're playing the wrong game.

As an MO1 vet, and supporter of MO2 I get it. I’d never advocate to stop players who want to kill defenseless players. That would take away their freedom to PK.

I do think PKing should have a tougher consequence so it’s rare and not a common part of the game. I think it will populate the community and essentially create more meaningful and challenging pvp. This way griefers can’t hide behind the term PvP. With this rule the tough guys can get their action and the pussies can go play Rust.

if you flood a lake with predators the game will leave and the predators will starve or try to eat each other. Something to consider.

And how’s that for a quote? @Vaith

 

[LordMega]

As an MO1 vet, and supporter of MO2 I get it. I’d never advocate to stop players who want to kill defenseless players. That would take away their freedom to PK.

I do think PKing should have a tougher consequence so it’s rare and not a common part of the game. I think it will populate the community and essentially create more meaningful and challenging pvp. This way griefers can’t hide behind the term PvP. With this rule the tough guys can get their action and the pussies can go play Rust.

if you flood a lake with predators the game will leave and the predators will starve. Something to consider.

Actually, one of the biggest gripes with this game is that PvP not happening often enough and that it is punished far too harshly. Don't believe me? I have made threads with over 10K views/ hundreds of replies on this very subject. Many people who quit have cited that it is because PvP actions are punished too harshly and spending time running parcels to farm rep just to be able to kill someone is horribly boring, unfun gameplay. THOUSANDS of players have already stopped playing because of this. Making PvP even more rare, or punishing it even more, is going to kill the playerbase that remains.

This is why everyone (except Emdash who doesn't count) is telling you this idea is bad.

 

[Serverus]

Actually, one of the biggest gripes with this game is that PvP not happening often enough and that it is punished far too harshly. Don't believe me? I have made threads with over 10K views/ hundreds of replies on this very subject. Many people who quit have cited that it is because PvP actions are punished too harshly and spending time running parcels to farm rep just to be able to kill someone is horribly boring, unfun gameplay. THOUSANDS of players have already stopped playing because of this. Making PvP even more rare, or punishing it even more, is going to kill the playerbase that remains.

This is why everyone (except Emdash who doesn't count) is telling you this idea is bad.

You still don’t get it. This is probably why you don’t like my idea, I don’t think you truly understand it. I can give you a few facts why your mind is messed up about the idea.

1.) You think griefing is PvP

2.) You failed to see positive of the 30 sec rule and there is no penalty in it. Just pure fun PvP. No consequences and no reputation loss as long as both parties agree to fight.

3.) If someone is non violent you still see it as PvP dunking that person and destroying thier confidence. If they uninstall you consider them weak sheep that shouldn’t be playing a PvP game.

As long as you and others with this mentality exist and don’t see it as toxic, you will never be open to a new experience that might actually be more healthy for you and the community itself. It’s like people living on bad beef for years then eating fresh venison for the first time. You guys think PvP is so good when theres fresh newbs to kill. Then when they all leave you and 10k others cry about their being no PvP. 10k views, did we even get that many playing at launch? I think half of that shut the server down. Maybe the other 5k who agreed with you are the ones that quit because they couldn’t get in lol

 

[TheOxMan]

I think full loot pvp is good the way it is in terms of what you want changed.

I like that bounty hunting will give players more power in taking out criminals but to remove their ability to play as bad guys is not helpful.

the main problem I am seeing is that people are leaving town with no protection.

I think close to cities their should be a lot more guards and on major roads there should be guard posts and patrolling ai.

players would be able to wait for a patrol to go out and move with them along the roads on top of them being able to socialize in a multiplayer game and get people to agree to escort you if there is no patrol.

make it predictable enough that players can plan around it.

now a bandit who wants to kill you would have to fight a lot more people.

that is the solution to ganking imo.

There is zero chance a pvp murderer would have fun in the game if they needed permission to kill people.

.
I would go as far as to say players could pay gold to have an npc or a number of NPCs follow them around (maybe that could cost reputation as well)

Anyway that’s my thoughts on it at least

 

[LordMega]

You still don’t get it. This is probably why you don’t like my idea, I don’t think you truly understand it. I can give you a few facts why your mind is messed up about the idea.

1.) You think griefing is PvP

Nah man, you don't get it. You think PvP is griefing. Find a new game.

 

[Serverus]

I think full loot pvp is good the way it is in terms of what you want changed.

I like that bounty hunting will give players more power in taking out criminals but to remove their ability to play as bad guys is not helpful.

the main problem I am seeing is that people are leaving town with no protection.

I think close to cities their should be a lot more guards and on major roads there should be guard posts and patrolling ai.

players would be able to wait for a patrol to go out and move with them along the roads on top of them being able to socialize in a multiplayer game and get people to agree to escort you if there is no patrol.

make it predictable enough that players can plan around it.

now a bandit who wants to kill you would have to fight a lot more people.

that is the solution to ganking imo.

There is zero chance a pvp murderer would have fun in the game if they needed permission to kill people.

.
I would go as far as to say players could pay gold to have an npc or a number of NPCs follow them around (maybe that could cost reputation as well)

Anyway that’s my thoughts on it at least

I agree. Maybe the idea can be tweaked a bit. If a player decides to attack before the 30 sec rule, if the victim manages to escape he/she can then report the attempt to the guards. And a bounty can be placed on the criminal. This way bandits who are less honorable have an option. It still should be difficult to live as a bandit and not easy for them to keep killing victims. Like say the bandit attempts on another life and ends up getting killed by a guy more skilled than him; the victim can still report that he killed a bandit in self defense and the bounty will still go out even if the bandit lost the fight. This is a fair consequence for being a scum criminal.

 

[TheOxMan]

I agree. Maybe the idea can be tweaked a bit. If a player decides to attack before the 30 sec rule, if the victim manages to escape he/she can then report the attempt to the guards. And a bounty can be placed on the criminal. This way bandits who are less honorable have an option. It still should be difficult to live as a bandit and not easy for them to keep killing victims. Like say the bandit attempts on another life and ends up getting killed by a guy more skilled than him; the victim can still report that he killed a bandit in self defense and the bounty will still go out even if the bandit lost the fight. This a consequence for being a scum criminal.

Lol the last sentence you wrote made me laugh

I wonder why even have a 30 second rule in the first place though.

Problem with that is you take away a players ability to ambush unsuspecting people.

imho I think pvp should be as fun as humanly possible for all kinds of people.

if someone wants to justkill Noobs then sell their loot for a penance I see no problem with that in theory.

I think the loop should look like this for a new player.

join the game>explore town>adventure away from town> Wander off into an unprotected area> get attacked(eventually)> talk about what happened in town> get some advice and more prepared with the tools in game> head back out and either fight back or escape.

it is the only way to truely reward a blue playerI think.

tbey have to know they have conquered a world full of danger otherwisewhat is their reward?

a pvp player on the other hand should find themselves at more cross roads that lead them to a much higher class of “ganking” where they may be stuck ambushing noobs early in the game they should be put into positions where they are given incentives to fight against stronger opponents then themselves.

perhaps for some it is good enough that they will get better loot but I think other people don’t want to risk their items on large groups.

maybe you can have bandit camps work with the lawless players and even follow them into fights if they havehigh rep.

if lawless players felt like they had tools to focus on higher value targets I think they would do that much more than against noobs/crafting/gathering players exclusively.

I think we need to hear both sides of the story and really the game should try its best to maximize the experience of both sides.

I don’t want rust online 2 but notdo I want hello kitty island adventure

 

[Emdash]

guh forums, loads of trash. I was responding to a PM before, but I figured this would still be going.

Here is my problem, and it's one that tends to happen on forum often. People see something like A TITLE and then they skim the post. I don't agree with the whole post, that all pvp should be removed in lieu of this... HOWEVER, how can someone be against a system like this for pvp? Maybe not 30 seconds, maybe just everyone in an area flag up, someone throws up a flag and then it signals that everyone else has the option to flag for x amount of seconds and if you don't, you need to get out... or if you involve, you autoflag. Only flagged people can loot, no MCs, no rep loss. Why is this bad?

It's like there was a thread similar to this before they reintroduced the duel feature and people were like LOL ITS A FULL LOOT OPEN PVP GAME AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DUELING. Surprisingly, mo1 had dueling, and now dueling is a big part of mo2! People get caught up in stuff, which I dislike. I won't say anymore (yea I say that all the time, but I generally do OK w/ it on a thread by thread basis,) but sometimes an idea can have good parts, but people react without really considering it or when it could be beneficial.

Like I said, people want lawless zones, but the counter to that is that people would just zerg up or super gear and go there. This would allow for smallscale w/o problems, and people who jumped in on the already flagged pvp would become flagged, too, so there will still be element of surprise. IT WOULD REDUCE MC/REP GRIEF.

Just sayin'. I def am sad about this community responding to things before they have actually considered them. They see 30 sec pvp timer and they think " I gotta wait 30 sec to gank someone? LOL no...." But I mean, there might be something here. There needs to be SOME sort of a 'structured pvp' system that isn't war (cuz other people wanna be inolved, too.) I've certainly tried to figure out how to make it work. I can see how this idea would work in MO2, tbh. If you didn't wanna partake in it, you wouldn't have to, but you could save yourself some MC and get some good pvp. If you see a big group of people coming up and you have a big group of people, doesn't it make sense to take the few secs to do this opposed to get griefed by MCs?

Dono, just A THOUGHT.

Peace, tho.