30 Second PvP Timer Rule

[Bicorps]

I am sure many ideas have been suggested about how to stop griefing.

There is no such a thing as "griefing" in a PvP open world TERRITORY CONTROL game. If they want CONTROLE an area, they can.

You guys have just a very low understanding of the game.

 

[TheOxMan]

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.

the energy you have with this kinda betrays your position a bit here. But I’ll try and explain why flagging doesn’t make the game any better but actually makes it far worse for everyone(except Avery small minority of people who want zero risk when playing)

If you eliminate random killing you eliminate any reason to go after the people who are randomly killing people. You would destroy any political conflict that isn’t soulessly scripted by the groups taking part in it and it would become extremely boring extremely quickly.

there would be no good vs bad in the game at all.

What I’m gonna pretend to be a bad guy and never commit any actual crime

and who in their right mind would flag for pvp ever unless they talked it out with the other people they were playing with…” hey wanna be robbed??”

“no”

“okay I’ll find someone who does!”

you think players will do this ever even once?

you think the game would be fun for a bandit when every person walking by is like “hiiii toooom how’s being a bandit going today??”

“give me all your money”

“haha very funny little bandit I refuse!!”

duuuumb..

And you might try and escape from that vital point saying “guilds can decide to pvp over territory if they want to”

to which I’d say WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU NOT JUST TAKE THE TERRITORY AND THEN REFUSE TO FIGHT FOR IT?

and what do you do when you have that territory go into town and tell people that they should come fight for their castle?

then they can just decline the fight.

why can’t I just go into your territory anyway and then just not fight you.

it’s dumb.

very dumb.

you need to incentivize people to work together. Give them goodand predictable tools to complete their tasks, and give cogent and fair “punishments” to players who kill people as criminals.

it’s doable I think and if it’s not then the game just isn’t a good game by default.

min having fun cause I’m able to make friends in game and figure out ways to avoid being attacked by bandits all the time.

 

[cerqo]

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.

Wanna know the funny thing. This is exactly the type of shit the MO2 twitch chat on most streams spew constantly, and Henrik loves hanging out in those streams.

Thankfully it seems Henrik doesnt get influenced too much by idiots like this .... Apart from you know .... every red priest got removed .... CC and JC are now blue priests ..... guard aggro makes u lose standing ..... etc.

 

[Emdash]

the energy you have with this kinda betrays your position a bit here. But I’ll try and explain why flagging doesn’t make the game any better but actually makes it far worse for everyone(except Avery small minority of people who want zero risk when playing)

If you eliminate random killing you eliminate any reason to go after the people who are randomly killing people. You would destroy any political conflict that isn’t soulessly scripted by the groups taking part in it and it would become extremely boring extremely quickly.

k i lied, but you didn't read my post. That's what I was upset about, people not reading posts. This is why forums kill me, but I always want to explain where I am coming from, so I'm stuck coming back. Don't worry, I will soon make the decision to END IT ALL. mahaha.

I said a group pvp AS AN ADDITION would be GOOD for people who wanted to avoid GOING RED in LARGE FIGHTS. I did not say remove anything. I said addition. I would prefer the game be open pvp, too, but not gonna happen.

Like I said, as soon as someone says something, you guy's brains turn off and you just focus on PEOPLE TRYING TO ELIMINATE RPK!! But that's not at all what I said. I said that it would be cool to have the ability to FLAG for PVP and fight in an area, or dec an area as a war zone opposed to having static lawless zones that people would prol camp with zergs. It would help mish-mashes of people fighting alongside warring guilds, etc, it would be another layer.

It's complicated tho, and I dunno how it would be implemented, but it's actually not ruining anything because if you didn't wanna use the mechanic, you wouldn't have to heh. But it would be there so that large scale battles could occur without people losing a lot of standing or getting mcs in legit pvp where both sides are fighting. Seems like a W, but again, I question whether you guys are even reading what I say. Sad day in life. OK explanation over! Movin on.

 

[TheOxMan]

k i lied, but you didn't read my post. That's what I was upset about, people not reading posts. This is why forums kill me, but I always want to explain where I am coming from, so I'm stuck coming back. Don't worry, I will soon make the decision to END IT ALL. mahaha.

I said a group pvp AS AN ADDITION would be GOOD for people who wanted to avoid GOING RED in LARGE FIGHTS. I did not say remove anything. I said addition. I would prefer the game be open pvp, too, but not gonna happen.

Like I said, as soon as someone says something, you guy's brains turn off and you just focus on PEOPLE TRYING TO ELIMINATE RPK!! But that's not at all what I said. I said that it would be cool to have the ability to FLAG for PVP and fight in an area, or dec an area as a war zone opposed to having static lawless zones that people would prol camp with zergs. It would help mish-mashes of people fighting alongside warring guilds, etc, it would be another layer.

It's complicated tho, and I dunno how it would be implemented, but it's actually not ruining anything because if you didn't wanna use the mechanic, you wouldn't have to heh. But it would be there so that large scale battles could occur without people losing a lot of standing or getting mcs in legit pvp where both sides are fighting. Seems like a W, but again, I question whether you guys are even reading what I say. Sad day in life. OK explanation over! Movin on.

I really just don’t get the idea you are proposing, I also apologize if I came off short with you but it seemed like you brought some heat with all the talk about people not reading posts.

I read what you wrote andexplained why I don’t think opt in is a good idea.

perhaps I misunderstood what you said though.

idont See how what you’re saying is anything other than what they have described as teritory control and I’m pretty sure it isn’t at all the description of the original post.

but yeah man glad and please don’t END IT ALL!

 

[ThaBadMan]

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.

I think you need to go find a dictionary and learn what griefing is like so many people these days.

 

[Albanjo Dravae]

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.

You think PVP should be consensual when the game offers a complete different experience, that you consider its not cool is a completly different thing.

If someone is non violent on a world based on violence you gotta capitalize any resource available to increase your survival, the more you invest the better the results.
Problem is death is a natural part of the understanding of the game. Death even tho is punishing has great value on the learning experience of players, the understanding of the world and it's mechanics.

Maybe it's a mistake not to advertise that when people getting the game, maybe they should change the motto "skill matters" for "prepare to die a lot if you are a noob".

People not willing to give the game a chance after they die to other players means they are not the public for this game.

It's all about death it's on the game's name for fuck sakes. Should be discussing how to get better systems into the game not removing non consensual PVP or increasing pvp penalties, It's nuts.

 

[Gladiator]

I understand where this is coming from, because the game currently does not know what it wants to be, it is currently straying off from the hardcore PVP idea that it once was, considering all the recent changes make it artificially difficult for people to partake in fights, I understand the mentality of this, and I think SV would not implement such a harsh game mechanic, but i do think they will make it even harder to partake in PVP, which will ultimately alienate the PVP community even further, but its their choice i guess

 

[Stundorn]

You think PvP is griefing.

He thinks PvP can easily become griefing and suggested rules to prevent that.
I'm fine with how it is and think wardec is a soft form of consensual PvP we already have.
Everyone else is going to be criminal.
Pvpers not agreeing and using dishonest tactical like blue shielding digging their own PvP grave.
Like allways, they ruin it by and for themselfs.
Why do we have guards, parcels, MC's...?
Because some overstress it and think griefing is PvP.
Not all PvP is griefing, but a lot just simply is.
There are rules about that because it allways got out of hand.
Selfinflicted Problems.

 

[Dracu]

Lovely idea, ill support it with all my heart. I can speak of experience that iam always getting triggered hard when somebody has the audacity to attack me without my consent. Its just rude. I mean this is a real life sim right? When i challenge somebody to a friendly duell to the death i normally take off a glove and throw it at them. I hope we get a fix soon.

 

[Stundorn]

There is no such a thing as "griefing" in a PvP open world TERRITORY CONTROL game. If they want CONTROLE an area, they can.

Then there is also no zerging, if you cannot bring the numbers you cannot.

I like the thinking about solutions versus griefing and how to find compromises for PVP and other playstyles, but i dont want it the way it is described above. But we all should agree that RPKing need to have consequences and that KOS and PvP for PvP's sake isn't good for a MMORPG Community to build up and raise numbers. All the games that didnt rule and limit it were orphaned very quick. All others afaik have save zones and also punish RPKing and try to prevent too much griefing.
I like the actual system, but it needs to be somewhat expanded and improved.
I dont see the problem, but i'm not an offensive player and i'm not the one starting a fight except its a wardec guild what i then suffer no consequences if i attack. That said, we need an alliance system and the wardec system fully functional.

Spaw-/Priestcamping needs to get punished.
Imho Players who kill at priests in lawless towns should not be able to interact with NPC there.
People slaughtering nakeds in front of any vendors eyes shouldnt be dealt with.

Negative Rep with Anam Sith should make the Vendors refuse to interact with you.

Maybe the heritage/origin of some vendors/Parcel Givers then need to be corrected to make red players able to change their Rep to positive again.

There is room for improvements, the problem active PvPers seem to have is that they dont use the wardec system and just dont want to accept the restrictions.
But the restrictions are more than neccessary to prevent MO2 from the fate of MO1 with only a few hundred players left and to prevent the game becomes a PVP game for 500 players only. This way the game wont survive.
If SV want MO2 to be a successfull game, they need to fix bugs and work on server stabililty and then they need to work on having these compromises work for most players.

 

[Hodo]

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

So let me get this straight? You are suggesting a 30 second immunity to the victim to decide if they want to fight or not? Or else they will have a GM intervene on their behalf?

First question are you serious?

Second question where can I get the hook up to get what you're on?