Scripts v.276, The last ever PvP patch. Cough.
|
*sam* Posted Dec 22, 2009, 4:21 pm |
This patch brings in per-gang pvp flags. So you decide on an individual basis whether you want to take part in road encounters with other player squads.
There's a 14 day delay between each status switch. Since combats are squad-based rather than gang-based however, each squad is identified as being open or closed for pvp. If any vehicles in a squad belong to gangs who are open for pvp, then the entire squad is open. Two exceptions: 1. In Shantyville, every squad is considered to be open for pvp 2. In Somerset, every squad is considered to be closed for pvp Any gang that is open for pvp get a field-training boost in all events - even town events and PvE combats. The 'squad spying' and 'gates monitoring' systems that run in the lobby will now only notify you about potential targets, i.e. closed-for-pvp squads won't be monitored or spied on. If your squad is not open for pvp, it can no longer define an enemy squad or look for human enemies when scouting A squad's PvP status is shown clearly, towards the top of its page. Why this is actually quite different to camp attack pvp: Camp attack pvp is all about making pre-scheduled attacks on a camp during the camp's opening hours. Both sides know it's going to happen ahead of time and have prepared for it. However, scouting pvp is all about opportunism and hitting an unsuspecting target while they doing their regular travel/scouts. Note that bugs are possible since this code has been edited and patched many times, although it wasn't too convoluted so hopefully is ok.. |
||||||||||
|
FireFly Posted Dec 22, 2009, 4:24 pm |
Would it be possible for squads that only includes "open to pvp" players to be targets, example, open to pvp people that are soloscouting? | ||||||||||
|
*sam* Posted Dec 22, 2009, 4:25 pm |
If any vehicles in a squad belong to gangs who are open for pvp, then the entire squad is open. That's a yes, then. |
||||||||||
|
FireFly Posted Dec 22, 2009, 4:26 pm |
|
||||||||||
|
*sam* Posted Dec 22, 2009, 4:29 pm |
Ah, gotcha.
No, SS is currently closed pvp for all. I'm a little wary of making it too complex by putting in a special rule for open pvp in SS. But I'm open to discussion on this point.. |
||||||||||
|
FireFly Posted Dec 22, 2009, 4:31 pm |
Well, it was just a thought, the only reason I see not to have SS open to pvp is... well, now that we can pick weather to be open to pvp or not, I see no reason not to have it open... | ||||||||||
|
*sam* Posted Dec 22, 2009, 4:34 pm |
It's because we don't want marshals and other vets who take new players out scouting to find themselves in a sticky position, FF. If they ceased helping new players, that would be bad for the game. | ||||||||||
|
*Longo* Posted Dec 22, 2009, 4:41 pm |
What about PvP fame and where it can be assigned? Are you still addressing this, or not going to anymore? | ||||||||||
|
Marrkos Posted Dec 22, 2009, 4:41 pm |
So, if a gang is Open for PvP, but only scouts out of SS, are they getting the PvP bonus for no risk? This is probably only an issue if the bonus is enough to offset (or nearly so) the slowdown to training SS imposes. Similarly, if two gangs are Open can they do squad challenges in the SS area, or do they have to move to another area? |
||||||||||
|
*sam* Posted Dec 22, 2009, 4:44 pm |
You mean giving you a choice of which camp to represent? That's a separate issue, still planning to do it.. didn't seem as urgent as the current pvp-teacup-storm-thing |
||||||||||
|
*sam* Posted Dec 22, 2009, 4:47 pm |
Currently, yes. Assuming they never even travel outside of SS (gates events can be pvp'd too, not just scouts).
True. And yeah, non-pvp scouting in BL will still give better training than pvp-training in SS.
Anyone can still do squad challenges anywhere; these are completely consentual so presumably there's no need to fiddle with them.. they're not part of the pvp system at all. |
||||||||||
|
*Ninesticks* Posted Dec 22, 2009, 5:14 pm |
Keeping SS locked out from PvP is probably a good idea, not only due to possible sticky situations already mentioned but also to avoid 'creative' use of the system to catch new players out that we saw before with neg rep targetting. | ||||||||||
|
4saken Posted Dec 22, 2009, 6:02 pm |
So what would be the downside of making it so that in SS PvP requires ALL players to be open and not just "any"?
The newbs or those not interested could simply keep their PvP status off and they will never see a PvP in SS (nor would they get a bonus for having the flag on while being immune). They would also never be jumped when traveling. |
||||||||||
|
Nekojin Posted Dec 22, 2009, 6:34 pm |
Possibly-complicated coding for a single side-case instance is rarely a productive use of coding time. Edit: Fixing punctuation for clarity. |
||||||||||
|
*jimmylogan* Posted Dec 22, 2009, 7:22 pm |
My take on SS and PvP - keep it simple - keep it closed. If EVERYONE in the squad WANTS PvP then they can squad challenge. If they want to "jump" someone then they need to leave SS. 
|
||||||||||
|
Iffler Posted Dec 22, 2009, 7:27 pm |
I honestly do not understand the motives of those who are against closed pvp in ss. | ||||||||||
|
*goat starer* Posted Dec 22, 2009, 7:32 pm |
my motives are entirely evil | ||||||||||
|
Mad Mike Posted Dec 22, 2009, 7:44 pm |
interesting situation:
Player A has PVP checked to closed Player B has PVP checked to open Player A scouts with Player B and thus squad open to PVP. would Player A get the skill bonus for being open to PVP even though they have PVP set to closed? |
||||||||||
|
*jimmylogan* Posted Dec 22, 2009, 7:45 pm |
Mike - I'd say no.
Also - meant to say this in the other post - having the mixed members in the squad is no different than one having a bounty and the entire squad being jumped... JL |
||||||||||
|
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted Dec 22, 2009, 7:46 pm |
And surely this is a good enough reason to attempt to move out of the new player comfort zone, because that is just what SS is a starting point, move on to the other towns and open up your PVP options. |
||||||||||
|
*Lugal* Posted Dec 22, 2009, 9:34 pm |
And for players who want to move out of SS but have no interest in PvP, now they can. As long as they avoid Shanty. |
||||||||||
|
Joel Autobaun Posted Dec 22, 2009, 9:50 pm |
Fair enough...but now we got this complicated "flag" system so I say...F#@$ 'em. |
||||||||||
|
Mad Mike Posted Dec 22, 2009, 9:52 pm |
actually I think its quite simple... | ||||||||||
|
4saken Posted Dec 22, 2009, 10:03 pm |
Because open PvP where there is mostly nothing but tumbleweeds is kind of boring. All the population is in SS. Hopefully that will change, if slowly. This should be a step in the right direction. |
||||||||||
|
Iffler Posted Dec 22, 2009, 11:23 pm |
We all hope so. |
||||||||||
|
Karz Master Posted Dec 23, 2009, 4:51 am |
I like this new system. Keeps most people (I think and hope.) happy. | ||||||||||
|
darthspanky Posted Dec 23, 2009, 5:19 am |
how about a way to force or pay to have someones pvp flag on for you.
cause ya know players will steal yer stuff, then sell it. marshalls do it all the time, now some will turn off pvp cause there cowards and players whose car is stolen will have no option but to hunt them in town events i guess |
||||||||||
|
*Longo* Posted Dec 23, 2009, 5:19 am |
There is just one word that comes to mind after this change...."Trammel." | ||||||||||
|
Marrkos Posted Dec 23, 2009, 5:32 am |
An instrument for drawing ellipses?
|
||||||||||
|
*Longo* Posted Dec 23, 2009, 5:38 am |
In Ultima Online, due to overcrowding and people crying about Pvp, they made a complete copy of the land, and attached it via a Gate to the original land. The new land was Pvp free, and called Trammel. I hated it but homes crowded the land so bad it was the only place to build a large home and so I was there alot. Worst thing I remember about it were super noobs kill stealing my monsters, and then laughing at me for doing it, and me being unable to burn them down. | ||||||||||
|
darthspanky Posted Dec 23, 2009, 6:19 am |
oh man please tell me im not the only one with flag on ill have to pvp myself 
sam you should make pro events and leagues like combats and dr unavailable unless pvp is on, we wouldnt want the poor new guys to feel grieved if they got thier car shot up
|
||||||||||
|
darthspanky Posted Dec 23, 2009, 6:36 am |
whats to prevent someone turning pvp on then just scout from a camp. while there camp noob minions with pvp off run supplies to that camp?
we need a way to hunt players traveling between camps or from a camp. 
|
||||||||||
|
Lord Foul Posted Dec 23, 2009, 6:37 am |
Mine is on Darth, you can take out your agression on me. I don't mind a good butt kicking now and then to keep me on my toes.
|
||||||||||
|
darthspanky Posted Dec 23, 2009, 6:47 am |
thanks lordfoul but im sure yer gunna win some too it will make us both better.
but i do have ta say for a rc member thats a awsome post you just made 
|
||||||||||
|
*Lugal* Posted Dec 23, 2009, 7:59 am |
Luna Sea's PvP is [X] On [ ] Off.
|
||||||||||
|
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted Dec 23, 2009, 8:56 am |
Renegades declare open for business PVP set to ON | ||||||||||
|
*sam* Posted Dec 23, 2009, 10:40 am |
Good point, this was on my to-do list at some stage as far as I recall. |
||||||||||
|
*goat starer* Posted Dec 23, 2009, 11:38 am |
Special Circumstances are PVP ready...
crews on route to elms to combat the Spanky menace!
|
||||||||||
|
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted Dec 23, 2009, 11:50 am |
Im already, there 
|
||||||||||
|
*goat starer* Posted Dec 23, 2009, 12:05 pm |
It needs a name...
Spanking (Span-king) n. 1. The act, occupation or sport of hunting Klingons 2. Pervy stuff |
||||||||||
|
Zoltan Posted Dec 23, 2009, 4:43 pm |
If everyone didn't know. My PVP is definetly on.
|
||||||||||
|
Iffler Posted Dec 23, 2009, 6:07 pm |
Mine is on. | ||||||||||
|
Nekojin Posted Dec 23, 2009, 7:22 pm |
Mine is off for the time being. All of my old skilled gangers left or died while I was out of the game for the past year; I only have one ganger with any skills over 30.
I will reconsider the switch once I have some skilled gangers that could fight back. Until then... *shrug* It's kind of frustrating to have the resources of a skilled gang, and being unable to use them. |
||||||||||
|
Joel Autobaun Posted Dec 23, 2009, 9:51 pm |
Is it against the code of ethics in this game to threaten to kill another player's gangers in an event(that is PvP like a DR/combat), unless they turn their PvP flag on?
Just asking. |
||||||||||
|
Nekojin Posted Dec 23, 2009, 10:30 pm |
I don't know whether it goes against the rules of the game, strictly speaking, but I'd consider it an extremely dickish form of metagaming. |
||||||||||
|
*Longo* Posted Dec 23, 2009, 10:35 pm |
Are you kidding me? Go play with barbies. |
||||||||||
|
Nekojin Posted Dec 23, 2009, 10:58 pm |
At least Ken and Barbie have more gonads between them than anyone who feels the need to even consider making a threat like that. | ||||||||||
|
Serephe Posted Dec 23, 2009, 10:58 pm |
Speaking for myself, I'd say yes. |
||||||||||
|
*Longo* Posted Dec 23, 2009, 11:02 pm |
Im no big Pvp guy, but this is a post-apoc game, and its called a DEATH race.... I dont approve of guys going out and killing other guys gangers in town events after they have resigned...but until then, they are fair game regardless of what their darn PVP flag is set at. You sign up for the event, if you dont want the risk, do a race or scout SS. Just because your PVP flag is off doesnt give you free reign of not getting hurt in Pvp events..... 
|
||||||||||
|
Nekojin Posted Dec 23, 2009, 11:06 pm |
I have no problem with having characters die in a Deathrace event. But using the threat of it as extortion to "force" a player to effectively take away a choice in how to play is dickish, no matter how you want to spin it. And actions like that will cost the game players, as people decide that rather than be put in a Catch-22 like that, they'll simply not play at all. |
||||||||||
|
*Longo* Posted Dec 23, 2009, 11:14 pm |
Like I said, its post apoc society... Ive seen threats much worse in this game, and been the subject of 1 or 2 myself. Its a game, if Joel wants to bully people in town events there isnt anything saying he can't. The DW community always seems to address bullying and bullies dont last. I dont really see him bullying anyone in town events unless they are really annoying in the forums, however....
And besides he cannot be in every event... |
||||||||||
|
Nekojin Posted Dec 23, 2009, 11:24 pm |
Well, the extended implication of the threat is, "You can play Scouts/Travels, or your can play Town events, but I'm not going to let you play both." If you keep your PvP flag off, you can play all the Scouts and Travels you want, but you're vulnerable in the Town events (with the implied threat that he'll keep joining and killing your characters until you switch). If you turn your PvP flag on, you're vulnerable in your Scouts and Travels, but you have an implied promise of not being molested (by that person) in Town events.
Even with all of that said, MY response would be something along the lines of, "Oh really?" *RESIGN* - Go to a different event. If he followed me to another event and made the threat again, I'd report him to Sam for griefing/harrassment. Problem solved... one way or the other. Edit: The original question, though, was whether it would be considered a breach of ethics. I don't see how it could NOT be considered a breach of ethics. |
||||||||||
|
*sam* Posted Dec 24, 2009, 12:19 am |
I find the question ambiguous. If you mean "would it be ok to use threats of killing gangers to anyone in a DR, regardless of their pvp flag status" -- I'd say it's fine, as long as done in the right way If you mean "would it be ok to threaten to kill someone's gangers unless they turn on their pvp flag" I think it would be a lot less acceptable. |
||||||||||
|
darthspanky Posted Dec 24, 2009, 1:56 am |
im going to huint 2 players in town events cause i feel they grieved me. i complained nothing happened so to me this means its ok and i will do it, ill not do it to any others but they started this by stealing my car, i have no way to get at them cause pvp off so ill do what i must
|
||||||||||
|
Serephe Posted Dec 24, 2009, 2:44 am |
Just like to say, it is a GAME. |
||||||||||
|
Joel Autobaun Posted Dec 24, 2009, 3:19 am |
Bah... ok then. |
||||||||||
|
Joel Autobaun Posted Dec 24, 2009, 3:25 am |
Well I'm a bigish dickish, just ask asmoday and uhh oh hell a few other people I don't remember now.... Frankly this is the result of the PvP flag breaking my immersion. "Oh wait I can't attack that gang that's racking up all the glory in BL because..." /ooc PvP flag "...well geee why can't I???" |
||||||||||
|
*Marc5iver* marcg@comcast.net Posted Dec 24, 2009, 3:57 am |
Why do people who are pro PvP feel the need to disrupt the enjoyment of those who do not want PvP? I don't get it. Everyone has their own preference on how they want to PLAY THE GAME and shouldn’t be harassed by their choice of play style unless that choice is to harass others.
I have my PvP flag set to non-pvp but if I enter a deathrace or combat event, I realize my gangers may get injured or die, but if someone continues to shoot at me after resigning, I would consider that griefing. |
||||||||||
|
Joel Autobaun Posted Dec 24, 2009, 4:20 am |
Cause yer all in the same "world" as us brah |
||||||||||
|
*Lugal* Posted Dec 24, 2009, 5:12 am |
Agreed. The PvP flag mechanism is designed to enable people to play the game either way. Such "meta" mechanics should not be susceptible to in-game manipulation. It would be like threatening to kill a player's gang if the player renewed his subscription.
Agreed. The new system has been introduced to allow different styles of play to coexist with minimal fuss from either side. One player's decision to opt-out of PvP does not hinder another player's experience.
Agreed. Town events are unchanged - PvP flag status has NO bearing. Any player has the same chance to be as brutal as any other, just like before. These events are still an open and fair forum for "settling disputes". |
||||||||||
|
Nekojin Posted Dec 24, 2009, 5:44 am |
Sometimes, Joel, your preferences (your "immersion" if you will) just has to take a back seat to reality.
I started to make an argument about the immutable fact that PvP, across all MMO-style games, is actually not a preferred play-style, but I didn't have data to back that up. So I decided to get the best data I could find. - - - - - But before we do that, let's do a little anecdotal evidence. I've been playing MMOs nearly since the start. I dodged the bullet called Ultima Online (specifically because of the unrestricted, open PvP setup - note that UO actually changed its playstyle to be "more carebear" because they were losing members in droves to newer MMOs that catered to people who didn't like open PvP), and picked up Everquest right after its first expansion was released. EQ tried repeatedly to come up with some sort of PvP system that would work. Even with dozens of "carebear" servers, they were unable to adequately populate even a small handful of PvP servers. The PvP community openly and loudly criticized Sony for its handling of PvP, and made numerous suggestions that Sony was willing to try, such as the "Good vs. Evil" server (Good characters could only initiate PvP against Evil characters, and vice versa) and the "Hardcore" server (death by any means resulted in a character reset). Despite that, none of these servers maintained a large enough population to justify having them all, and so in 2005, Sony merged ALL of its PvP servers into one server. - - - - - So, back to the hard facts. The best data to date comes from that monolith of MMO gaming, World of Warcraft. Blizzard currently has 241 official servers running. Of those 241, there are 112 "Normal" servers, 106 "PvP" servers, 17 "RP" servers, and 6 "RP-PvP" servers. Going solely by the server counts, it seems fairly balanced, with a slight edge going to the non-PvP servers. In fact, it appears that Role-Playing is far less popular than PvP, even! But that's not really how it stands. I took a snapshot of those servers at about 8:30 PM PST (in other words, at the tail end of the peak called "Prime Time"). Of the 112 "Normal" servers, almost all of them are rated at "High" (30 servers) or "Medium" (81 servers) population, with only one "Normal" server at "Low" population. Contrast that to the PvP servers - of the 106 PvP servers, 45 are "Low" population, 44 are "Medium," and only 17 are "High." What exactly is meant by High, Medium, and Low is something that nobody but Blizzard knows. But it's still possible to draw parallels - Despite there being nearly as many PvP servers as Normal servers, the PvP servers have slightly more than half as many High population servers compared to the Normal servers, and again slightly more than half of the Mediums. - - - - - Keep in mind that I'm not a Carebear (rabid anti-PvP'er). I've played EVE Online, and my main characters in WoW were on PvP servers - I was even a known and respected member of my server's Battlegrounds population for a while. I also enjoy directly competitive games like Team Fortress, Altitude, and Halo. I'm not trying to make Darkwind a non-PvP game. That would be absurd - Car Wars, and by extension Darkwind, is very much a PvP game. But it also pays to be aware of the gaming community, and be aware of the sensibilities of the player base for this game. The avidly pro-PvP section of the community is a small percentage of the player base - just as small as the Carebear section, in fact. Most of the players lie in the middle ground, and want their PvP to be controlled in some fashion. The solution that Sam came up with is a reasonable solution. Sam could have made Darkwind an expressly PvP world, with players being able to freely jump other players at will, at any time. And perhaps that could have had a large enough player base to support the game... for a time. But there's no question that the game would be much, much smaller than it is now. Take what you can get. PvP on limited terms is better than no PvP at all. The harder you try to make others fight PvP battles, the more you're going to come off as a jackass. Be cool, let it be, and gradually more people will come out into the wilds beyond Somerset, and try their hand at PvP'ing with you. The change is new. Give it time to settle. |
||||||||||
|
Mad Mike Posted Dec 24, 2009, 5:47 am |
if you are followed into a town event by someone looking to kill your characters the playing field is a bit leveled by the fact you will both have the same vehicles.
i think it adds to the game for this to happen. your pvp flag is off so you avoid pvp in scouts and travels that has changed. the fact you enter town events and are subject to getting killed has not changed. so really, nothing has changed. it was always possible to get shot and killed even after you have resigned. the scenario is the same now as it has been before. so just stay out of town events and scout more... |
||||||||||
|
Nekojin Posted Dec 24, 2009, 5:55 am |
Characters auto-escape from Town events a few turns after they Resign. How many turns is that, these days? |
||||||||||
|
Joel Autobaun Posted Dec 24, 2009, 6:31 am |
Bah i'm zero for 12 or 15 something in Forum PvP, I guess I'll just shut my mouth here and make everyone including myself happy.
That care bear stare is a bitch. |
||||||||||
|
*Longo* Posted Dec 24, 2009, 8:44 am |
Nek-
You got alot of time on your hands bud. 
I liked your post and hearing the fact that you have played so many games, excellent! But having played UO and EQ ALOT, I have to say that some of your statements are incorrect. UO didnt lose players because of its open Pvp. It lost them from its incredible, terrible lag, and the fact that EQ was created, and took many of its people. The Pvp did annoy some people, but it was also part of the game. Some of my best UO moments were calls on my "ICQ" requesting help with bad guys. As for EQ, I started on a carebear server, but then started a guy on Rallos Zek, a Pvp server. I ended up staying there, and was in probably the biggest and most successful guilds on the server. The server was very busy, and these servers did not merge because people didnt like Pvp. They merged because WOW came out, and everyone left. I stayed well into the merge, but Rallos Zek only had allowed you to attack people of 4 lvls difference, and after the merge, there was no level restriction and I didnt like it, and moved to a carebear server, and eventually quit because it took so dang long to recover. I 2 boxed a Mage and Cleric, and occasionally a Enchanter (3 boxing), and would actually kill mobs and then go do yardwork for 10 minutes while my mana recovered... Well back to DW PVP. Ive played 2 years and a PvP debate comes up every so often, and the rules change. The fact of the matter is that PVP has never been a big thing, being almost totally unrestricted when I started and very seldom abused. You had your Shark, etc, but the community addressed him. As I have said before, Im not big into Pvp, but I like the option to be able to attack if I want to, and not have the "world" restricted. Sure, there is a chance of me being jumped, but its part of the thrill of the game not knowing if my next encounter is an NPC or a PC. I just hate to see DW restricted like this, and can already see a few abuses of the brand new system. I dont want to see anyone leave the game because they are worried about Pvp, and know Sam was backed into a corner with all of the debate on it and had to do something. I would only hope that people would give the Pvp option "yes" a try, they can always revert back if they need to. Because, cmon guys, Evan is a dangerous place.
|
||||||||||
|
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted Dec 24, 2009, 9:26 am |
Well at least Joel had the courtesy to ask sam and the community before actually doing what he stated, for that i give him Kudos not hate | ||||||||||
|
*sam* Posted Dec 24, 2009, 10:21 am |
Good point, Grog. Good post BTW, neko. |
||||||||||
|
Nekojin Posted Dec 24, 2009, 10:57 am |
My facts are not incorrect, actually. Different perspectives for viewing the same events, perhaps. UO lost a fair number of players because they hated the UI, or the lag, or any number of other reasons. There's no question of that. But until EQ and other early MMOs came along, there was no choice with regard to PvP - you either played and dealt with it, or you simply quit. There was no way to gauge how much the MMO player base liked or disliked PvP. Felucca (original UO) was all there was... Until EQ came along. EQ had many advantages over UO, not least of which was the 3D graphics. However, note well the dates: EQ was released in March, 1999. UO: Renaissance, which introduced Trammel (and gave Felucca a name) as a PvP-safe world, was released in April, 2000. The timing is not at all coincidental - the non-PvP nature of EQ was noticed and heeded by the UO devs, who saw a dramatic rise in departures after that point. PVP (or, more specifically, ganking and griefing*) was one of the most frequently-given reasons given for leaving UO, and UO's devs felt that they had to add a non-PvP portion of the game to stay even remotely competitive. It took them a year to come up with and implement a system that satisfied them.
Yes, the advent of WoW (and EQ2, to a lesser extent) were somewhat of a death knell for EQ. And you're right, the PvP servers were fairly busy (and yes, I exaggerated the lack of players on PvP servers - it's hyperbole), but there were a small handful of PvP servers, compared to the several dozen non-PvP servers, most of which were just as busy. EQ was ruthless about managing server populations, and server mergers happened even before WoW came out.
*snip*
What abuses? I'm sure Sam would like to know about them.
Sure, Evan's a dangerous place. But people need to feel like they're making progress. It's a human instinct. And when someone can come along out of nowhere, taking you by surprise and make weeks worth of progress vanish in just a few minutes, it's more than frustrating, it's damn infuriating. The element of consent makes all the difference in the world, and so does the awareness of replaceability. Losing your only Big Pickup or Buzzer hits a lot harder than losing an Apache, Phoenix, or Moose. Coupled with the loss of your top gangers, all because you were ambushed? Not a pretty picture. Also, with regard to, "Hoping that people toggle to Yes to give it a try," note that you can only change your PvP setting once a week (I'm getting that right, aren't I, Sam?). If someone toggles their PvP on, and then decides they don't like it, they're stuck with that decision for a week, and if there's another player actively gunning for them, it could end up crippling their ability to replace their losses. When I was around before, I constantly told new players not to use cars that they couldn't afford to lose when going out for Scouts, and frequently demonstrated the combat-worthiness of cars that others considered "useless" (among my regular combat cars were a Pickup, a Poltergeist, and a Chomper that I still have and use). Low cost to replace or repair means a lot, but many people either never understand that, or forget it. Some listened to my suggestions about replaceability, some didn't. It doesn't seem that people are still giving that advice - or that it isn't being followed, at least. Finally... I do know about risk and PvP. I won the Evan Deathrace Ladder of 2046., and I'm in good position to be in the Top 10 of the current Deathrace League. You don't do that without throwing your gangers face-first into danger. But it's danger I choose, when I'm ready to deal with it. Some days, I just don't want to deal with the hassles of player interaction - and especially not with another player as a surprise attacker. So come give me a challenge some time. I might take you up on it. Or I might not.
- - - - - * I actually considered playing UO waaay back before EQ existed. I'd played MUDs and Door games, and had some fond memories of the Ultima series. But before I could get around to trying it, I started hearing tales of high-powered players standing just outside the gates of towns, fireballing anyone who approached, just so that they could loot the poor suckers' corpses. Which was perfectly within the rules of UO at the time. Thank god for progress, and the community's overall disapproval of griefing, ganking, and other forms of virtual harrassment. Edit: Damn broken MB Code. =>_<= EDIT: Fixed your coding, per your permission. -Lugal |
||||||||||
|
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted Dec 24, 2009, 11:00 am |
To long...war and peace kept my attention more
|
||||||||||
|
Nekojin Posted Dec 24, 2009, 11:02 am |
Broken code doesn't help, either. 
Short version: Let people feel that they're making progress, and more importantly let them take risks on their own terms. Short enough?
|
||||||||||
|
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted Dec 24, 2009, 11:04 am |
I tried to make sense of it, broken code and all, but my head hurts. Your shorter analogy does help
|
||||||||||
|
Nekojin Posted Dec 24, 2009, 11:08 am |
There was also a small bit about, "Me big tough Ladder Champion, you no question my bravery," or something to that effect.
|
||||||||||
|
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted Dec 24, 2009, 11:16 am |
God we have another Spanky in our midsts
|
||||||||||
|
*Longo* Posted Dec 24, 2009, 3:40 pm |
LONGO said "I just hate to see DW restricted like this, and can already see a few abuses of the brand new system."
NEKOJIN said "What abuses? I'm sure Sam would like to know about them. " Player A and Player B own a camp together. Player A has his Pvp switch turned OFF. Player B has his turned ON. Player B creates a squad that Player A joins. They kill a ton of PC gangers in numerous ambushes around Elms and GW. Then Player A goes back to running his camp, moving tons of materials there, and those PCs that he destroyed with Player B can only sit at the Gates and watch, unable to do anything. Yea, Player A doesnt get a PvP boost, but who cares? Its not that significant and the trade off to travel without a chance of PC intervention is worth it, and he gets his PVP fun by just ganging up on others with Player B. |
||||||||||
|
Mad Mike Posted Dec 24, 2009, 4:41 pm |
looks like the pvp flag thing didnt really fix anything.
its sad with this small community we actually have to micro manage the rules to make sure no one is exploiting |
||||||||||
|
*jimmylogan* Posted Dec 24, 2009, 4:44 pm |
The only "exploit" there is Player A can't be retaliated against, but Player B sure can... | ||||||||||
|
*Ninesticks* Posted Dec 24, 2009, 5:53 pm |
And of course there is always Bounty Hunters | ||||||||||
|
*Lugal* Posted Dec 24, 2009, 5:57 pm |
Too bad; Neko's posting some good stuff. Neko if you want I can go back and fix your code.
So this has little to do with the new system, and more to do with the Camp War system. If you feel flagging your camp isn't worth it, that's up to you. Player A can still be hit when he goes out with player B. Just because they may be hunting doesn't mean they'd win. If that's not enough, maybe petition Sam to move more to a WoW system - engaging in PvP automatically flags your gang and resets the cooldown.
It's been what, two days? Not every change will directly affect every player; that doesn't invalidate it as an improvement. When did you guys get so bitter?
|
||||||||||
|
Nekojin Posted Dec 24, 2009, 6:22 pm |
If you can make the changes stick, more power to you. Every time I check the "Use code, dammit" checkbox, it ignores it; when I go back in to edit, it's unchecked again. |
||||||||||
|
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted Dec 24, 2009, 6:27 pm |
even i tried to edit it, complete quote/unquote mess lol |
||||||||||
|
*Longo* Posted Dec 24, 2009, 6:41 pm |
Incorrectl Lugal, I was just giving an example and my example utilized a camp. |
||||||||||
|
Marrkos Posted Dec 24, 2009, 6:52 pm |
Regarding the borked quoting, the only way to fix it (that I've found) is to
1. copy all the text out 2. delete the post 3. make a new post 4. paste the copied text in It's possible that doing an Edit, removing all the text, saving the now blank post, and then editing again, and pasting the old text in would work as well, but I haven't tried that. |
||||||||||
|
*Lugal* Posted Dec 24, 2009, 8:56 pm |
Gotcha; I misunderstood. So one player flags, and his buddies don't, because they can just join his squad when they want to PvP. Well if that becomes a problem:
The "resets the cooldown" only applies if you had PvP turned off, otherwise it would be hard to ever turn it off. Neko I fixed your coding. You had some open brackets - the only way I know to fix it is to go through line by line looking for holes. Hope I got all the quoting right. |
||||||||||
|
Nekojin Posted Dec 24, 2009, 9:17 pm |
It should only be the aggressor squad that gets flagged in this manner. The defender shouldn't be penalized for getting jumped on. Likewise, two groups that happen to encounter each other just by random roll of the dice shouldn't be flagged, either.
Bah. I thought I had it all square. Thanks for fixing it. =^_^= That's one of the downsides of this forum software - if there's something broken, it breaks the entire post, instead of leaving an orphan bracket or two somewhere. |
||||||||||
|
*Ninesticks* Posted Dec 24, 2009, 9:49 pm |
Perhaps a simpler solution is to disallow a squad of mixed pvp flags from initiating a pvp - in other words only squads where all the cars belong to those flagged open could be used to attack. | ||||||||||
|
Nekojin Posted Dec 24, 2009, 10:01 pm |
Sounds like a good way to do it, yes. |
||||||||||
|
*jimmylogan* Posted Dec 24, 2009, 11:19 pm |
I'm off the "let's wait and see" feeling... Yes, it COULD happen, but probably won't. At the very least it could create some tension...
Example - Player A has PvP on and Players B C D don't, but they go 'hunting.' Players E F G get "hit" but can't hunt Players B C D, but they can sure hunt A, which might make A not so quick to do this again... Plus E F G can hunt B C D in town events.
Bottom line - I'd hate to see more coding work when this is brand new... We already have mixed squads of bountied & non-bountied and Bounty Hunters can hit them, so the precedent is there. |
||||||||||
|
*goat starer* Posted Dec 25, 2009, 1:42 am |
Todays Jimminy Street was brought to you by the letters A, B, C, D, E, F and G and by the number 4. | ||||||||||
|
*Longo* Posted Dec 25, 2009, 6:42 am |
The recent Pvp debate that caused teh changes is all based upon this.... 
|
||||||||||
|
*jimmylogan* Posted Dec 25, 2009, 6:51 am |
I disagree... People wanted a flag to be "off" PvP so they wouldn't be attacked, not so they could NOT attack others.
JL |
||||||||||
|
*Longo* Posted Dec 25, 2009, 7:17 am |
This whole idea. Its darn hard to Pvp someone unless you know they are on, where they scout etc. Unless your dead set on it and setup different CRs of vehicles, the odds of someone getting attacked are slim to none. Lets face it, if Z and/or Darth and/or Simon are not on, its not gonna happen. |
||||||||||
|
Joel Autobaun Posted Dec 25, 2009, 7:34 am |
I guess that's what irritates me the most. When someone gets PvP'd whatever their particular whine is gets addressed immediately, because of a whole bunch of "joiners" who come into the debate and start in with all the years of online baggage regarding PvP they might have. A mountain out of a molehill is made and Sam/RC feels like something MUST BE DONE OR ELSE and a knee jerk, perhaps worse solution is implemented like the next day.
This, over what 2, max 3 "incidents"? Meanwhile the gripes of the godless, parent's basement living, anime pr0n surfing, PvPers go unanswered...because they ask in a civil and non urgent manner that certain things in PvP be fixed. Picking a camp to "pvp for" comes to mind... I "feel"(yes i'm probably wrong but can't shake the feeling) like you gotta hold a gun to Sam's head to get stuff changed in the game, agendas definitely seem to be getting pushed, here on the forum or in the RC forum. Stuff you do in the game = meaningless. |
||||||||||
|
*Longo* Posted Dec 25, 2009, 8:15 am |
I feel the same way Joel. |
||||||||||
|
*Ninesticks* Posted Dec 25, 2009, 8:18 am |
Whilst I most definitely agree on letting the dust settle, doesn't hurt to address a possible future snag ;-) You want to take part in an attack then you need to be a viable target for attack - only fair. |
||||||||||
|
Iffler Posted Dec 25, 2009, 10:12 am |
Makes sense to me |
||||||||||
|
*sam* Posted Dec 25, 2009, 11:19 am |
Fair point, Joel. Will get this done ASAP, you're not the only one asking for it. |
||||||||||
|
*goat starer* Posted Dec 25, 2009, 5:08 pm |
i dont... i ask in an urgent and rude fashion.... do everything i want... immediately... or else and Sam its Christmas Day. You should be passed out on guiness and whiskey not answering things in the forums
|
||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Dec 27, 2009, 10:12 am |
Could we have a "PvP" indicator in the lobby next to the usernames? A simple "+" comes to mind, it seems so tedious to manually navigate on the web page to see peoples' status, this transparent system would let all people know, and show abuses from players A and B scenarios if it would happen.. Also a Camp/clan indicator would be useful (if your at war with them) btw my PvP is On |
||||||||||
|
ISHOULDCOCO Posted Dec 27, 2009, 12:39 pm |
I had a similar idea last night , while in lobby
Why not an Ebay Seller style indicator Red for on , blue for off Plus instead of a + or a - make it the number of involvements in PVP in the last month ( or poss. PVPs initiated in last month) THis would allow the SS PVPers to engage with each other AND allow travelles more info before they bolt for the gate ? COCO |
||||||||||
|
*Rezeak* reecestensel@hotmail.co.uk Posted Dec 27, 2009, 12:53 pm |
I second COCO's idea
|
||||||||||
|
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted Dec 27, 2009, 1:41 pm |
I like the idea , apart from details that help people miss an engagement, if they are PVP open then that risk shouldn't be diminished IMO | ||||||||||
|
ISHOULDCOCO Posted Dec 27, 2009, 3:42 pm |
DOn't you see it the other way ? Folks are more likely to run with PVP 'on' because they have more information. If they can make an educated guess based on all available info to hand - e.g He is red and mental but currently in a fight - My cue to leg it ! Also Folks want to go scout training and get PVP training bonus This will mean more contact I believe. Player trade runs will reduce a little but stuff like this and PVP recognition ( which I keep going on about) will let the culture surface COCO |
||||||||||
|
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted Dec 27, 2009, 5:19 pm |
i think those that want PVP have it on now, those that dont, wont change to open PVP whatever is done imo | ||||||||||
|
Nekojin Posted Dec 27, 2009, 6:18 pm |
Color-coding the names would have an unintended side-effect that would further diminish PvP in Darkwind (unnecesssarily, IMO). Red is subliminally associated with "bad" to many people. They don't view red as bad for all things, of course, but when you're using a few select colors (red, green, blue, yellow), then "hot" colors (Red, yellow) have a negative connotation, while "cool" colors (blue, green) have a positive connotation. It's minor, but self-reinforcing. |
||||||||||
|
Procyon Posted Dec 28, 2009, 8:43 pm |
Make PvPers blue and non-PvPers pink then. | ||||||||||
|
*Rezeak* reecestensel@hotmail.co.uk Posted Dec 28, 2009, 9:01 pm |
or make PvPers green, and non PvPers blue
|
||||||||||
|
Marrkos Posted Dec 28, 2009, 9:15 pm |
Text indicators would be better, as they avoid any issues people might have with seeing certain colors.
On/Off +/- p/e (pvP/pvE) |/O (pipe/capital 'o') Those are probably in order from most clear to least. |
||||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Dec 28, 2009, 9:57 pm |
what the hell does that mean?
|
||||||||||
|
Marrkos Posted Dec 28, 2009, 10:04 pm |
It's as near as I could get to the symbols used to indicate 'On' and 'Off' for a great many electric/electronic devices.
|
||||||||||
|
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted Dec 28, 2009, 10:42 pm |
god thats desperate Marrkos lol | ||||||||||
|
*Rezeak* reecestensel@hotmail.co.uk Posted Dec 28, 2009, 11:00 pm |
And once again... I am left confused | ||||||||||
|
*Rahn* Posted Dec 29, 2009, 3:41 am |
I am interested in knowing how many people now have PvP on and how many have it off.
Sam, can you pull those numbers some way? |
||||||||||
|
Joel Autobaun Posted Dec 29, 2009, 5:02 am |
How about Yeller for the non-PvP? | ||||||||||
|
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted Dec 29, 2009, 10:52 am |
Anyone subbed for longer than a year id say Rahn
|
||||||||||
|
*sam* Posted Dec 29, 2009, 11:24 am |
59 gangs have open pvp turned on, and there's 190-ish subscribers currently, so that's probably a good estimation of our number of currently active users. So, about one-third are open pvp. | ||||||||||
|
*Rezeak* reecestensel@hotmail.co.uk Posted Dec 29, 2009, 12:07 pm |
I've been subbed for 3 months and mines on
|
||||||||||
|
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted Dec 29, 2009, 12:54 pm |
But your just a southerner who wants a punch up innit !!!!! |
||||||||||
|
*Rezeak* reecestensel@hotmail.co.uk Posted Dec 29, 2009, 2:46 pm |
Well grog, that's just prejudice. I'm offended, I might just have to shank you up blad
|
||||||||||
|
*goat starer* Posted Dec 29, 2009, 6:52 pm |
I'm not sure any of us 'have it off'. I met Iffler for a drink last night but things didn't get that far
|
||||||||||
|
Skasi Posted Jan 7, 2010, 2:23 pm |
On pain of putting myself at a disadvantage I just wanted to point out that non-premium users will never be open to PvP anyways, so they gain this bonus as a.. well, I think you understand.
How about making them gain the bonus without having to activate "open for PvP", because they might not know that this setting exists (or didn't think about it too much) - they would be treated less favorably. edit: Oh yeah, I turned it on ten minutes ago.
|
||||||||||
|
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted Jan 7, 2010, 4:40 pm |
which bonus ? you dont mean increased skill gain !!!! | ||||||||||
|
Skasi Posted Jan 7, 2010, 7:00 pm |
uhm, yes I do.. why not? | ||||||||||
|
*sam* Posted Jan 7, 2010, 7:02 pm |
Seems reasonable to me. Subscribers can go open pvp but never leave SS, just then same way... | ||||||||||
|
Skasi Posted Jan 7, 2010, 7:18 pm |
So set it to ON by default and ask the player whether he/she wants to turn it off, when leaving SS the first time.
I don't care much about it, it's just that some players will be at a disadvantage. I am very sure that there's at least a single player who does not know about this, or forgot about it, or whatever. Feeling sympathy for them.
|
||||||||||
|
*Marc5iver* marcg@comcast.net Posted Jan 7, 2010, 7:22 pm |
Doesn't make sense to me that nonsubscribers would have a skill gain for this. It should be a perk for having paid for a subscription. | ||||||||||
|
Skasi Posted Jan 7, 2010, 8:18 pm |
Oh what, you're just jealous of my Zombie Slayer badge and too scared to turn on PvP.
*runs around in a circle* |
||||||||||
|
triad4evr Posted Jan 8, 2010, 12:38 am |
I'll be honest, I hate PvP, I always have. So I'm cool with not having to engage in it unless I'm in Shanty. I'm actually a little disappointed that now I will gain experience from scouting more poorly, personally I think those that really rabidly _want_ the PvP already get their reward- the ability to kill off other players and show their mightiness. But I'm okay with it, I mostly only scout SS anyway, although I am almost to the point of having a couple capable vehicles in Elms. As long as my poor scrubby gang doesn't all of a sudden stop developing due to the dual training nerfs of being in SS _and_ being non PvP... that would probably be a deal breaker for me. Anyway, my nickel, minus three cents change. | ||||||||||
|
*Ninesticks* Posted Jan 8, 2010, 5:22 am |
Not sure you should be looking at it being a double nerf which implies a negative impact. Rather look at it as just having less bonus, plenty of players before the pvp skill bonus came into effect have managed to train up good gangers 'up north'. | ||||||||||
|
*sam* Posted Jan 8, 2010, 10:31 am |
Yep, neither of these things are nerfs. Training in SS, for non-pvpers is as it has always been.
Both things are bonuses: (i) to encourage play outside SS (ii) to offset the huge risks of engaging in pvp and providing some incentive for it |
||||||||||
|
*Urban Decay* Posted Jan 26, 2010, 9:44 pm |
Havn't really looked into how the PvP system works at all yet. Is there any system in place to disable the ability of being engaged by a drastically higher CR force? | ||||||||||
|
*Ninesticks* Posted Jan 26, 2010, 10:18 pm |
Well the basics have not really changed at all Urb, for the squads to fight they have to be within a certain percentage of each other (CR wise). You can overload your squad and use CR matching which will drop cars off the bottom of the squad till it matches within that criteria (hence why you can change where a car is listed in a squad). | ||||||||||
|
*Bastille* Posted Jan 26, 2010, 10:56 pm |
I keep pvp off, and still get great skill gains, 2-3 points each main skill for each character, even on short scouts out of SS. |
||||||||||
|
*Urban Decay* Posted Jan 26, 2010, 11:56 pm |
Sounds pretty good, though I'm still gonna retain PvP off, and only engage in it randomly when I feel the urge like I do in most games hehe. | ||||||||||
|
darthspanky Posted Jan 27, 2010, 2:16 am |
sure must be nice for the players who dont want pvp, its not like its the apocolips or a place where people fight to stay alive. the game should really be called evan carebear for the poor noobs land | ||||||||||
|
*Urban Decay* Posted Jan 27, 2010, 3:16 am |
Even in the apocalypse there are always groups of people who want to rebuild a civilized society. Then the people who are crazed with blood lust and want the stuff in that society come in and try to kill and eat everyone.
Without both, where would the fun be? Regardless, PvP on seems to be very plentiful amongst the population, as I always see PvP as open in any squad that goes out scouting. Besides, if PvP was open across the entire game in a pure PvP environment, 60-80% of everyone would be gone in a week more then likely from the griefing that always follows any purely open PvP game. |
||||||||||
|
*Wolfsbane* Posted Jan 27, 2010, 10:07 am |
Yes spanky, we know it's impossible for you to have fun if you're not ruining someone else's. Go away now please. | ||||||||||
|
*Urban Decay* Posted Jan 27, 2010, 5:28 pm |
It's all good Wolfsbane, we need him around to keep things interesting. Besides, with Darth around you know he will eventually find a way to get more and more people involved in the PvP system, even it means he finds a way to drag people into it by force somehow. ^_^ | ||||||||||
|
*goat starer* Posted Jan 28, 2010, 12:44 pm |
to be fair to Darth he is inconsistent, irritable, articulates his ideas badly and gets really stuck on one idea.. but he is not a griefer (and that comes from someone who has been on the sharp end of his irrational anger and spurious accusations ).
I fully support Darths general drive to make PVP more accessible (although i would probably support it with slightly more punctuation and less swearing). When you get to a certain level in this game the AI does not cut it as an opponent for many people. PVP is where the longevity will come from. |
||||||||||
|
FireFly Posted Jan 28, 2010, 2:34 pm |
|
||||||||||
|
*goat starer* Posted Jan 29, 2010, 2:04 pm |
i dont think anyone in the game has more skilled gangers than they know what to do with... if i lose 2 good large gunners I am starting to look a little threadbare. look how pissed off darth got when i accidentally killed one of his good people... even equipment is not exactly plentiful... i cant imagine anyone would be happy about losing a FT or a RGM in a PVP. but if you never lose stuff this is not a game ... its a post apocalyptic turkey shoot which is not my idea of a laugh. The few times i have taken really nasty losses it has hurt but it has also been fun! |
||||||||||
|
Serephe Posted Jan 29, 2010, 2:13 pm |
What's more fun and rewarding? Sitting on a hill shooting people day after day, or fighting to the last of your armor, the last of your gang members, just to survive?
|
||||||||||
|
*goat starer* Posted Jan 29, 2010, 3:04 pm |
thats the badger! I came home in Bl the other day in a buzzer with 5 points or less of armour on 5 sides.... that was a fun fight! |
||||||||||
|
Zephyr Posted Jan 29, 2010, 7:03 pm |
Yeah, I totally support PVP in this game. I've been a veteran of PvP in MMOs for years before coming to Darkwind, in games like EVE Online and DarkFall that have more aggressive PVP rules than, say, WoW.
PvP can be extremely rewarding for the players who approach it with the right attitude. It is the appropriate "endgame" content. On the other hand, it should be possible to play the game without being subject to PvP, even if there is a serious tradeoff. There should be a "safe zone" for new players and for vets who have taken some serious losses and need to rebuild. EVE has its Empire Space, and Darkwind has Somerset. I think Sam has the design down pretty well, with the PVP flag. Though there ought to be a few more positive rewards for being PVP+ than simply a bit of a skillgain boost. Perhaps someday, when Sam has time to design and implement several new cities, there will be more robust "Always PVP" and "Never PVP" zones (more than just one city each). |
||||||||||
|
ISHOULDCOCO Posted Jan 29, 2010, 10:58 pm |
Is this not the catalyst for a "Newbie protection Force" in SS ? Could this not kick off PVP properly ? COCO |