collapse

Author [EN] [PL] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: PvP rulesets  (Read 1179 times)

Offline mouser9169

  • Methuselah
  • ****
  • Posts: 289
  • Reputation: +7/-10
PvP rulesets
« on: January 12, 2012, 07:02:38 pm »
I'm wondering if CCP has made any "official" announcements about what rulesets they are planning to have, and what people's opinions are as to what rulesets should be available, ie: PvP always on anywhere except haven or Elysium, PvP always on in certain zones but not enabled or "consensual" only in others, "consensual" PvP only.

My first instinct would be that a World of Darkness game should be PvP pretty much always on. The problem with that is you've just created a combat-centric game, whatever your initial intent. "Social" combat, mental stuff, "roleplay", and pretty much anything else falls a distant second or third when the minute you step out of your haven and start to walk down the street you're greeted by a coterie of Kindred (and mortals) with memorable names like PwndU'Sucka and XXSephirothXX (don't undertand the fascination with this guy. Little emo guy couldn't hold a candle to Kefka for pure evil - and Kefka actually managed to 'win' and destroy the world). Plus mortals armed with submachineguns and body armor and whatever else gets handed down from the "real" characters in their guild. They won't need to fear police, and can do a whole lot of griefing before they log out (unless somehow someone manages to kill them).

These are the guilds that push everyone to "max" (whatever that turns out to be), have all the best gear, and have figured out the most effective combat clans, builds, and techniques. Their goal is to bring Final Death to as many players as possible, or failing that, kill them enough times that their playtime is completely unenjoyable. If they do get killed, it's no big deal, since their guildmates can powerlevel them back up into the game in no time.

My guess is dual rulesets, which seems to be the norm these days. Some PvP enabled, with safe zones (havens, Elysiums, newbie zones, maybe some hubs) and some "PvE" servers with consensual PvP only.

What do you guys think: is PvP necessary for the setting, or will the game feel the same either way? And how much PvP do you think is needed?
Insanity Mod: If you're not dying, I'm not trying.

Offline Nosferatu Numbers Station

  • Concealer of a dead language
  • Methuselah
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
  • Reputation: +239/-2
Re: PvP rulesets
« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2012, 07:42:16 pm »
I'd imagine the idea of PvP in this game is to completely redefine the definition it now is plagued with.  At least that would be the hype in this game.

The problem with MMOs is that it's a type of game meant for entertainment between the masses, and the masses prefer hack and slash compared to one upping your opponents in public.  To pull off this game they need to go about it differently then the WoW crap that is currently the generalization of MMOs.

While combat is an aspect (probably the fun part for many), social combat is the real iffy.  It needs to have a sense of satisfaction to it.  Think of it like fencing, where your constantly locking blades by swinging (s)words until one of you manages to get the upper hand of the situation your at odds in.  They would need to figure out how that bit works however, would it be NPCs that you are trying to sway, or other players?  This is a game as many will realize when playing, so I'd say the former.  In that case, it would be about public relations as well as string pulling the environment and it's features against your enemy.  Getting your foe kicked out of clubs would be a great way to disrupt communication, and force him into a situation he can't get out of without compromising or giving up.  And many more examples such as having him followed by ghouls or the Nosferatu and maybe even tipping off hunters of his haven...assuming you know what your doing for I'd assume the hunters like to know who they are talking to.

The point is, this game would require using your imagination on how to defeat your opponent, while riposting his own attacks.  Not to leave combat as the last resort, but rather to force some to bare their fangs so you can defeat them without even lifting a finger.  Some may not find that appealing, but when they get their asses handed to them through diplomacy they may find that doing things on their own won't win them wars.  So allies and contacts are essential to this game.  We may just be able to leave behind this solo grinding craze that has recently swept into MMOs.
If you put your head to a pipe, you can always hear ringing.  But whether it's the pipe or your head that's ringing is the question.

Offline Nanaloma

  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 1064
  • Reputation: +550/-4
Re: PvP rulesets
« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2012, 08:23:30 pm »
I'd imagine the idea of PvP in this game is to completely redefine the definition it now is plagued with.  At least that would be the hype in this game.

The problem with MMOs is that it's a type of game meant for entertainment between the masses, and the masses prefer hack and slash compared to one upping your opponents in public.  To pull off this game they need to go about it differently then the WoW crap that is currently the generalization of MMOs.

While combat is an aspect (probably the fun part for many), social combat is the real iffy.  It needs to have a sense of satisfaction to it.  Think of it like fencing, where your constantly locking blades by swinging (s)words until one of you manages to get the upper hand of the situation your at odds in.  They would need to figure out how that bit works however, would it be NPCs that you are trying to sway, or other players?  This is a game as many will realize when playing, so I'd say the former.  In that case, it would be about public relations as well as string pulling the environment and it's features against your enemy.  Getting your foe kicked out of clubs would be a great way to disrupt communication, and force him into a situation he can't get out of without compromising or giving up.  And many more examples such as having him followed by ghouls or the Nosferatu and maybe even tipping off hunters of his haven...assuming you know what your doing for I'd assume the hunters like to know who they are talking to.

The point is, this game would require using your imagination on how to defeat your opponent, while riposting his own attacks.  Not to leave combat as the last resort, but rather to force some to bare their fangs so you can defeat them without even lifting a finger.  Some may not find that appealing, but when they get their asses handed to them through diplomacy they may find that doing things on their own won't win them wars.  So allies and contacts are essential to this game.  We may just be able to leave behind this solo grinding craze that has recently swept into MMOs.

To me, the social aspect is less fencing then it is making business deals.  Hopefully, win/win most of the time.

Offline _username

  • Got Stront?
  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 6732
  • Reputation: +881/-7
Re: PvP rulesets
« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2012, 08:38:44 pm »
Or in the case of racketeering, protection scams, etc. it might be more of a "win / inconvenienced-but-not-outright-defeated"
LUNA NOBIS PROVIDET

Offline Nosferatu Numbers Station

  • Concealer of a dead language
  • Methuselah
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
  • Reputation: +239/-2
Re: PvP rulesets
« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2012, 09:29:57 pm »
Everyone paints a different picture.  How would that work for toreadors anyways?  I don't see them giving this game a tablet function or anything.

I'd say the racketeering/protection scam shlick will only work if it keeps you from tearing down the territory and taking the funds instead of siphoning a portion of it.

I suppose they'll add a 'buyout' feature to void the contract?  Not that it'll keep you from destroying the territory anyways, but still.
If you put your head to a pipe, you can always hear ringing.  But whether it's the pipe or your head that's ringing is the question.

Offline Radical21

  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Reputation: +-1344/-52
Re: PvP rulesets
« Reply #5 on: January 12, 2012, 10:21:43 pm »
The Way I see social combat happening is influenced in part by Social disciplines like Presence and Dominate:
The problem is as discussed in the past , many players feel uncomfortable with the idea of being controlled or losing control over their characters.

Where in direct social confrontation I see Dominate lets you:
A) Put words in other Player's mouths and make them say stuff to their disadvantage, for example (assuming that the game has perma-death, is PvP oriented and all the other elements hat make a game socially interesting (as opposed to "social games")) in a social duel at the Elysium,  dominate allows you to pick and emphasize a single word in a sentence, it may be every sentence or every 2-4 sentences so no one around will suspect a discipline is at work because after all it is the crowd that determines the winner in these cases.
by making the opponent blurt something to their disadvantage you can ideally cripple them socially, for example causing them to blurt out a threat or make them do an accidental confession about their disdain for one of the present company.
 (though I assume that once players figure out how this works they would be wary of such things so the user need to be cautious and smart when constructing these entrapment's)

B) Maybe instead it lets you do a more direct approach by issuing a command to the other player in some popup box, where the targeted player must abide by the commands therein, but I think its a problem to track that so maybe it is easier to just give macro commands directly to the target player's avatar based on the words spoken (i.e the words Walk Left would give the target a command to walk to his/her left for 3 seconds)
but this robs the target of control, would this be acceptable?

In either case I think the target players should have the ability to look away, since it should be a fairly simple check to see if a target is facing towards one direction or another.

Presence is slightly more tricky because it is less mechanical in application.
So how do you see that working in a social situation? In 1v1 it might allow you to send fake messages to the other client to win their favor? (when I say fake messages I mean messages only the other client can see),
For example sending a fake message of 'X just gave you control the South Haven Domain' or something equally pleasing would probably buy the affection temporarliy(as long as the user still believes X) except the content of the message was never seen by anyone else and never actually happened but it just gave a (false) motivation for that player to be nice or friendly towards X's character.
For something like that to work for a crowd you need to be more creative.

Anyway the last thing I want to see is some sort of button-pushing mini-game that is not really social as a stand-in for social combat.
I say this mainly because players won't care about something so artificial so it wouldn't really be social that way.
Social combat is closer to electronic countermeasures in that it uses tricks to shape the perceptions of people engaging or witnessing it , and since In game communication is still done in chat mostly that should be no problem.
(there are external chat clients of course but they have their limitation and inconvenience so I doubt most players will go that far to try and outwit social characters)

Without disciplines (Subterfuge, Politics, Etiquette, Charisma, Manipulation and Appearance) there can also be client perception altering maneuvers that potentially influence players motivations and perceptions in regards to social networking style stuff or helps prevent combat entirely..

And all of this is besides the indirect scams and plots you can make against other players


« Last Edit: January 12, 2012, 10:33:22 pm by Radical21 »

Offline Rick Gentle

  • Gangrel Playboy
  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 3057
  • Reputation: +595/-19
Re: PvP rulesets
« Reply #6 on: January 12, 2012, 10:52:19 pm »
I'm in favor of more-or-less open PvP, with a few "safe haven" spots, like your starter haven. That's how it is in tabletop, and vampires only exist peacefully because of a shared social contract and paranoia. This hinges on the fact that you can't tell how powerful somebody is simply by looking at them. If they tried to go the same route as World of WarCraft, or even Star Wars Galaxies (in the sense that Composite armor was plainly visible), the game breaks and becomes just like a closed-PvP server, where the weak will never challenge the strong.

To handle the griefers (and there will be some; not all will use the name of the Sabbat as an excuse), let us keep in mind that mature and responsible players will also have tools at their disposal. If you "spec" your character fully into Physical, and can take on even a Brujah with Potence 5... that probably means you have sh*tty Willpower, and will be metaphorically tossed around by a character with Dominate or Presence.

I say give powers like Dominate their full potential. (Or as full as it can get through a digital medium.) It's not Dominate if you can't make people do something they wouldn't normally do - the trick, as even the most tyrannic Prince has learned - is to make people want to do things because you asked them to, not because you Dominated them to. I lost control of my characters in VTM - Redemption plenty of times, and I sucked it up because I could either reload or destroy the Dominating vampire with another character. Reloading obviously isn't an option in an MMO, but the reverse of the situation above holds true: there will be characters who are so powerfully Mentally or Socially "specced" that they can resist the most powerful Dominate or Presence attempts. I can only hope that if all three branches - Physical, Social, and Mental - can be threatening to characters, it will make characters work together to be able to resist all of them.

I suspect most social combat will be handled like it is in your normal social situation, or in EVE Online - common social decency and the social contract. We don't kill people on the street because we do not want to be killed. Also, there are laws against it, and if we break those laws we will be punished sooner or later. Make the Sheriff do his job - but also give him the means to do his job. Mean looks and nasty words aren't going to stop those griefers mentioned above, so the Sheriff has to be able to break a few heads to get the point across.
I could see the following happening for social situations and Elysium: players can toggle their PvP status on and off - their ability to attack other players. This can be made a visual icon, or at least can be checked up on by opening up the character's profile or some such. That way, players will know if the new person entering Elysium is appearing to abide by their laws. A person who enters Elysium without toggling combat to "off" will be held in great suspicion and people will not wish to get too close to them. Obviously, if characters can be driven into frenzy via social or mental interaction (Animalism, Presence, great embarassment), they can freely attack anybody. (That is also why you need the Sheriff.)

Making social combat fully dependent on the players is worthless, though, if you are playing the game through a character. The character needs to have some impact on the social situation. The Nosferatu Primogen, for example, should not be able to seduce anybody he pleases just because his player speak real good. I would love to see Nature and Demeanor taking some sort of role in how characters are affected by social and mental combat. I have detailed some of these changes in another thread - I believe it was titled something very much like "Social Combat".

Yes, here we go: https://forums.planetvampire.com/?topic=5671.0
« Last Edit: January 12, 2012, 10:54:10 pm by Rick Gentle »
Remember: It's not the size of your fangs that matters; it's what you stick them in.

Offline Nanaloma

  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 1064
  • Reputation: +550/-4
Re: PvP rulesets
« Reply #7 on: January 14, 2012, 12:11:51 am »
The Way I see social combat happening is influenced in part by Social disciplines like Presence and Dominate:
The problem is as discussed in the past , many players feel uncomfortable with the idea of being controlled or losing control over their characters.

Where in direct social confrontation I see Dominate lets you:
A) Put words in other Player's mouths and make them say stuff to their disadvantage, for example (assuming that the game has perma-death, is PvP oriented and all the other elements hat make a game socially interesting (as opposed to "social games")) in a social duel at the Elysium,  dominate allows you to pick and emphasize a single word in a sentence, it may be every sentence or every 2-4 sentences so no one around will suspect a discipline is at work because after all it is the crowd that determines the winner in these cases.
by making the opponent blurt something to their disadvantage you can ideally cripple them socially, for example causing them to blurt out a threat or make them do an accidental confession about their disdain for one of the present company.
 (though I assume that once players figure out how this works they would be wary of such things so the user need to be cautious and smart when constructing these entrapment's)

B) Maybe instead it lets you do a more direct approach by issuing a command to the other player in some popup box, where the targeted player must abide by the commands therein, but I think its a problem to track that so maybe it is easier to just give macro commands directly to the target player's avatar based on the words spoken (i.e the words Walk Left would give the target a command to walk to his/her left for 3 seconds)
but this robs the target of control, would this be acceptable?

In either case I think the target players should have the ability to look away, since it should be a fairly simple check to see if a target is facing towards one direction or another.

Presence is slightly more tricky because it is less mechanical in application.
So how do you see that working in a social situation? In 1v1 it might allow you to send fake messages to the other client to win their favor? (when I say fake messages I mean messages only the other client can see),
For example sending a fake message of 'X just gave you control the South Haven Domain' or something equally pleasing would probably buy the affection temporarliy(as long as the user still believes X) except the content of the message was never seen by anyone else and never actually happened but it just gave a (false) motivation for that player to be nice or friendly towards X's character.
For something like that to work for a crowd you need to be more creative.

Anyway the last thing I want to see is some sort of button-pushing mini-game that is not really social as a stand-in for social combat.
I say this mainly because players won't care about something so artificial so it wouldn't really be social that way.
Social combat is closer to electronic countermeasures in that it uses tricks to shape the perceptions of people engaging or witnessing it , and since In game communication is still done in chat mostly that should be no problem.
(there are external chat clients of course but they have their limitation and inconvenience so I doubt most players will go that far to try and outwit social characters)

Without disciplines (Subterfuge, Politics, Etiquette, Charisma, Manipulation and Appearance) there can also be client perception altering maneuvers that potentially influence players motivations and perceptions in regards to social networking style stuff or helps prevent combat entirely..

And all of this is besides the indirect scams and plots you can make against other players

I see it as maneuvering events from behind the scenes via networking.

 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2020, SimplePortal