Hot take debate: "Non-consensual PVP", does it exist in AoC?

"Non-consensual PvP" is something mentioned quite a bit on these forums regarding PvP and Corruption systems. Does "Non-consensual PvP" actually exist in a game that you log into knowing full well that at any moment another player can kill you at any time for any reason, and that it is indeed even a part of the system and games design?

Let the debates begin!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

PenguinPaladin

NiKr wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

My hope for PvX is that these cardboard concepts of 'I'm a PvEer' or 'I'm a PvPer' are used less and less. Ultimately, I/my group/my guid/my node have goals and I'll do what's necessary to achieve those goals. Most likely those goals will involve working with and fighting both players & NPCs.

Yeah, I really hope Ashes brings back this part of the mmo genre. I get that L2's pve was shit, but you still did a ton of it, yet no one differentiated between pvers or pvpers. You were just a player who lived in a world where you had to do both in order to succeed.

Play the whole of a game and enjoy it? Ya'll are crazy

Mag7spy

NiKr wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

My hope for PvX is that these cardboard concepts of 'I'm a PvEer' or 'I'm a PvPer' are used less and less. Ultimately, I/my group/my guid/my node have goals and I'll do what's necessary to achieve those goals. Most likely those goals will involve working with and fighting both players & NPCs.

Yeah, I really hope Ashes brings back this part of the mmo genre. I get that L2's pve was shit, but you still did a ton of it, yet no one differentiated between pvers or pvpers. You were just a player who lived in a world where you had to do both in order to succeed.

That is how a lot of those old games were. I feel the pver and pvper are separated in a way to try to push for pver servers and other more strong pve functions in those types of games, rather then accepting everything together as it is one and the same game.

Ludullu

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

Play the whole of a game and enjoy it? Ya'll are crazy

True dat

I love to live on the edge.

PenguinPaladin

Anyone do the meme, "send nodes" to steven about more node info? No...? Oh well.

Nerror

Any time I lose in PvP it's not consensual. I only consent to winning.

BaSkA13 wrote: »

This is simply a nomenclature issue.

Consensual means there must be consent. It makes no sense to play a game with PvP enabled everywhere and say "I do not consent to PvP". It's like playing CS and asking "is there consensual PvP here?".

I believe the better terms are "opt-in PvP" for caravans, castle sieges, guild wars, arena where you choose to participate.

And to me words such as "forced" (compelled by force or necessity: involuntary) or "involuntary" (done contrary to or without choice; compulsory) describe PKing a lot better: it doesn't matter if you want it or not, the PvP is coming your way.

Also this.

PenguinPaladin

Someone who doesnt fight back can not complain about pvp as they did not participate in pvp. They just got killed.

Ludullu

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

Someone who doesnt fight back can not complain about pvp as they did not participate in pvp. They just got killed.

Yep. If I die to a mob, I don't complain that the mob is too difficult or too strong. I either change my farming place or just do better. A person is no different. Just a glorified difficult mob.

Ludullu

Otr wrote: »

We need invisible mobs which gank silently, without agro music. Just a critical backstabbing.

I'd love those. I'd have to bring a de-stealthing class to that location and farm it up that way. Elden Ring had invis mobs and people were just fine with it.

Noaani

CROW3 wrote: »

My hope for PvX is that these cardboard concepts of 'I'm a PvEer' or 'I'm a PvPer' are used less and less. Ultimately, I/my group/my guid/my node have goals and I'll do what's necessary to achieve those goals. Most likely those goals will involve working with and fighting both players & NPCs.

This is my hope as well.

As I have been saying for a long while though, in order for Ashes to be able to do this, it needs those people to play the game. In order for it to convince people that consider themselves to be mostly PvP'ers or PvE'ers, those people need to actually be playing Ashes.

People won't make that transition before picking the game up, and won't even make it overly quickly once in the game. Any shift in mindset takes time, and that is what this is - that is ALL this is.

This means that from day 1, the game needs to appeal to people that consider themselves to be PvP'ers, but also to people that consider themselves to be PvE'ers (in both cases, people need to accept the other, at a minimum).

Dygz

CROW3 wrote: »

My hope for PvX is that these cardboard concepts of 'I'm a PvEer' or 'I'm a PvPer' are used less and less. Ultimately, I/my group/my guid/my node have goals and I'll do what's necessary to achieve those goals. Most likely those goals will involve working with and fighting both players & NPCs.

They can't really be used less and less.
A lot of people will be in the middle.
You can't make someone who doesn't enjoy coffee to suddenly enjoy coffee. You might be able to get them to tolerate the taste a bit more.

It's likely PvEers will tolerate and participate in Battlegrounds PvP when they are in the mood, for it because Sieges are on a schedule. And you can choose to either join a Caravan battle or not.
But, PvErs are not going to enjoy random, non-consensual PvP. And PvPrs will enjoy it.
Labels exist for a reason.

Dygz

NiKr wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

Someone who doesnt fight back can not complain about pvp as they did not participate in pvp. They just got killed.

Yep. If I die to a mob, I don't complain that the mob is too difficult or too strong. I either change my farming place or just do better. A person is no different. Just a glorified difficult mob.

Mobs have predictable haunts. Players do not.
I ragequit PvP servers precisely because I've changed my farm spot and been relentless followed and attacked by PvPers.
I would not play a game where the mobs are as ruthless as PvPers.

Dygz

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

Someone who doesnt fight back can not complain about pvp as they did not participate in pvp. They just got killed.

Um. If a payer attacks and kills another player, that is PvP.
If a mob attacks and kills a player that is PvE.Doesn't matter whether the victim attacks back.
PvP one-shot kill is still PvP. Everyone knows that.

Dygz

Nerror wrote: »

Consensual means there must be consent. It makes no sense to play a game with PvP enabled everywhere and say "I do not consent to PvP". It's like playing CS and asking "is there consensual PvP here?".

I believe the better terms are "opt-in PvP" for caravans, castle sieges, guild wars, arena where you choose to participate.

And to me words such as "forced" (compelled by force or necessity: involuntary) or "involuntary" (done contrary to or without choice; compulsory) describe PKing a lot better: it doesn't matter if you want it or not, the PvP is coming your way.

Also this.[/quote]
Just because something is possible in an area does not mean everyone in the area has given cosent for it happen. Again, just because it's possible for someone to mug me in Compton or Inglewood, does not mean I give consent to be mugged if I walk down those streets. It does mean that I take the risk. But, I also take that risk because I trust that the associated penalties for someone mugging me is enough of a deterrent that it's unikely to happen
Which is why, in Ashes, non-cosnensual PvP is penalized with Corruption.
And, if Corruption is not a sufficient deterrent for non-consensual PvP - people who normally play on PvE servers will not be playing Ashes.
That's OK. Don't play what you don't like.

Ludullu

Dygz wrote: »

I would not play a game where the mobs are as ruthless as PvPers.

Yeah, I keep forgetting that you're a hardcore time but casual challenge player.

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

My hope for PvX is that these cardboard concepts of 'I'm a PvEer' or 'I'm a PvPer' are used less and less. Ultimately, I/my group/my guid/my node have goals and I'll do what's necessary to achieve those goals. Most likely those goals will involve working with and fighting both players & NPCs.

They can't really be used less and less.

I mean, this is just blatantly false.

Most people on these forums would consider me a PvE player, based on me wanting to see Ashes have solid PvE, and being somewhat vocal about that. However, I'm quite at home with PvP as well.

This didn't used to be the case. When I first started Archeage, I wasn't that in to PvP at all. I would have happily called myself a PvE player, if someone asked.

After 4 or 5 years in Archeage though, I am decidedly not just a PvE player, and enjoy good PvP as well.

I argue for good PvE in Ashes because I saw that not having it in Archeage lead to many people leaving the game very early on, which lead to Trion having to increase their monetization aggression for the game. Basically, I want the people that left Archeage due to it not having good PvE to try Ashes, but to stay in the game.

I stayed in Archeage due to being intrigued by it's economic system, primarily. This led me to taking on more PvP than I had in any other game, to the point where *I* no longer consider myself a PvE player.

If Ashes can do that for all the people that left Archeage due to no actual content, then the terms PvE'er and PvP'er will absolutely become used less and less.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

I would not play a game where the mobs are as ruthless as PvPers.

Yeah, I keep forgetting that you're a hardcore time but casual challenge player.

I have to assume you say this with the same sarcastic smirk that I have every time he brings it up.

Someone that has a lot of time to play an MMO, but isn't willing to put in any real effort isn't "hardcore time but casual challenge", they are lazy. Too lazy to get good at the game, and too lazy to do anything else.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

I have to assume you say this with the same sarcastic smirk that I have every time he brings it up.

Someone that has a lot of time to play an MMO, but isn't willing to put in any real effort isn't "hardcore time but casual challenge", they are lazy. Too lazy to get good at the game, and too lazy to do anything else.

Eh, not really. I understand why someone would like to just chill in a game and just so happens to have a ton of time to do that chilling.

The only problem with those kind of people I could have is if they start yelling about all the rewards they're missing out on because they ain't doing shit in the game. But Dygz doesn't seem like that kind of person to me, so I just see him as a person with a ton of time that enjoys chill slow gameplay with maybe a few high intensity times.

Dolyem

Ferryman wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Ferryman wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

"Non-consensual PvP" is something mentioned quite a bit on these forums regarding PvP and Corruption systems. Does "Non-consensual PvP" actually exist in a game that you log into knowing full well that at any moment another player can kill you at any time for any reason, and that it is indeed even a part of the system and games design?

Let the debates begin!

The term can mean different things for different people but it is used in some games already to help defining different kind of PvP rules. For example, in games EvE, Albion and UO this term is used even you can expect that non-consensual PvP will happen. Therefore, answer is easy yes.

Making up a definition doesnt back an argument.

I am not making it up. It looks like that because some people are not heard about the definition called "non-concensual PvP" they presume it does not exist or whatever weird reason they argue against it.

Here is two examples how "non-consensual PvP" term is used. The first example is from Ultima Online wiki and the second one is a post made by Sandbox Interactive's developer (from Albion Online).

"Ultima Online began with a single world, with specific expansion packs adding additional territory and new worlds. The second world was the "Lost Lands", with additional land, dungeons, creatures, and terrain. The third was Trammel. This led the developers to distinguish the original world by making the environment more grim, and naming it "Felucca".[5] The two kinds of servers were "normal" servers with both Trammel (consensual PVP) and Felucca (non-consensual PVP) ruleset and "siege" servers with non-consensual PVP and no item insurance."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_Online

Balancing non-consensual PvP: https://forum.albiononline.com/index.php/Thread/72770-Balancing-Non-Consensual-PvP/?pageNo=1&s=08b037204632c3397121aa64248eb2574d924580

"Non-consensual PvP" is a term used for years by players and developers in different games and forums. Some people might not have heard about it but it is used to help define open world PvP rules. Yeah some people might talk about person's login choise but I am talking here about ingame rules.

Interesting, though I think the proper term would be "griefing" in all of the cases shown. Its bad terminology. The idea of not consenting to being killed in a game where you can, and are meant to be, killed is just silly.

Dolyem

CROW3 wrote: »

My hope for PvX is that these cardboard concepts of 'I'm a PvEer' or 'I'm a PvPer' are used less and less. Ultimately, I/my group/my guid/my node have goals and I'll do what's necessary to achieve those goals. Most likely those goals will involve working with and fighting both players & NPCs.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I have to assume you say this with the same sarcastic smirk that I have every time he brings it up.

Someone that has a lot of time to play an MMO, but isn't willing to put in any real effort isn't "hardcore time but casual challenge", they are lazy. Too lazy to get good at the game, and too lazy to do anything else.

Eh, not really. I understand why someone would like to just chill in a game and just so happens to have a ton of time to do that chilling.

I mean, I would consider that to be lazy.

If all you are doing is hanging around and chilling, cool. But that is what lazy people do, they hang around and chill. Actually, I can't think of a better definition of what a lazy person is other than someone that just hangs around chilling.

Child Item