pvp vs pvp
-
@Trashcan said in pvp vs pvp:
transparency increases your odds of maintaining a healthy PvP environment dramatically
1000% this.
-
You know what I notice about the posts in this thread? Most of the people who are adamantly against PVP are also people who ran from any game where they thought it might happen before ever giving that game a chance. The objections to ICA=ICC always seem to be that a hypothetical psychopathic player will just go out killing everyone for OOC reasons and ruin the game anyway, so they might as well abandon the game before it happens.
It’s like people who never go on dates because they know it’s going to go poorly so why even try? Most of them are giving up based on fear alone.
Not that there isn’t a valid point that yes, there are assholes in the world and if someone is PVPing just to be an OOC prick staff should step in and do something about it. If you feel you are being targeted for PVP just because someone wants to be a jerk with no IC reason tell a staff member then bow out of the scene gracefully OOCly.
It’s highly unlikely staff are going to make you fight to the death over some random encounter with zero IC motivation.
I know PVP adds complications to a game, but I also know the only games that I remember 30 years later are the games that there was danger of dying on.
I remember the epic battles, the crazy stunts, the insane back and forth between factions. I remember the after battle orgies and divvying up the loot. I remember someone leaving the head of a NPC cop in a box on my door step so that the law would come after me and keep me out of the action for a few weeks while I was a suspect.
What do I remember about the “safe” games where everything is negotiated ahead of time and there are never any surprises because everything had to be approved by a +job first? Not much.
-
@RedRocket said in pvp vs pvp:
The objections to ICA=ICC always seem to be that a hypothetical psychopathic player will just go out killing everyone for OOC reasons and ruin the game anyway, so they might as well abandon the game before it happens.
I have no objections to ICA=ICC and I have both played with and had the misfortune of having to deal with psychopaths who PVP for purely OOC reasons as staff.
I too remember some of those games having epic battles and stuff, and I also remember games where getting asked for “RP” from certain characters meant a pvp combat scene. In a few rare cases, those players managed to single out completely new players with completely new characters.
Your experience is not my experience, and neither of our experiences are invalid in this particular conversation. Everybody has their own thoughts on the topic and there’s probably not a single sweet spot of PVE / PVP balance that covers everyone in the hobby.
-
It’s funny, the only time I ever PKed, I felt like shit for a week afterward, even though the player was seemingly okay with the outcome. I’d been in PVP situations a few times before and since, but just deleting someone’s character in one roll was rough. IC he fully deserved it, the player even agreed, but I didn’t like how it made me feel.
Fast forward some 15 years and the game where I was playing a genuine honest good guy type, that’s the game 2 different people OOC accused me of wanting their characters dead and ran to the ST for safety. The thought had never crossed my mind regarding them. Most amusingly the one character I’d have been happy to bump off didn’t even realize IC or OOC that she was the one person on my list and came about one sentence away from flying lead.
It’s all good though, cause I’m free and she’s still in her self-made pit.
-
@RedRocket said in pvp vs pvp:
Most of the people who are adamantly against PVP are also people who ran from any game where they thought it might happen before ever giving that game a chance.
If you like PVP - more power to you. I don’t have any problem with people playing/running games that do not align with my personal tastes.
But many of us in this thread are speaking of actual things that have happened. We gave the games (plural) chances (plural) and we didn’t have fun. Your characterization of the anti-PVP conclusion is very dismissive.
It’s highly unlikely staff are going to make you fight to the death over some random encounter with zero IC motivation.
I have literally had this occur on a PVP game before, and know of others who also have.
I also know the only games that I remember 30 years later are the games that there was danger of dying on. What do I remember about the “safe” games where everything is negotiated ahead of time and there are never any surprises because everything had to be approved by a +job first? Not much.
Okay? I have plenty of fun, detailed memories from the “safe” games and mostly unpleasant ones from the PVP/permadeath games. All that means is that we like different things. That doesn’t make what you like superior to what I like (or vice-versa).
-
Running from a game that involves some kind of play you have tried before and don’t enjoy is a rational thing to do.
-
You know, I kinda don’t care if anyone leaves a PvP game without giving it a chance. At least they know what they want out of their RP experience and are mature enough to recognise it. A PvP game absolutely won’t benefit from a population of players who don’t like PvP and hope desperately it’ll never become a factor.
I like competitive gameplay and all, but I wanna be playing with people who also want that. Let’s allow people to curate their own experience and move on if it isn’t their thing.
-
@Juniper
Right, I’m not sure why self-selecting out of an experience you don’t want is a problem. I don’t think my posts are particularly anti-PvP but I also don’t get much of it and don’t find it worth the aggravation.FWIW I’ve been on PvP games. I’ve been on games that said they were primarily PvE but ‘allowed’ PvP (probably more common in the MUSH sphere), inevitably with very unclear rules and wildly variable types of players who approached the game real, real differently. The first is fine but not for me, the second is a mess that pleases no one.
-
@Third-Eye
I just think that on a game where a core theme of the setting is conflict between factions, making that conflict between players meaningless or even impossible for no IC logical reason makes the game setting just as pointless and boring.It’s like making a game set in the marvel cinematic universe but no one is allowed to play as the heroes or villains, they can only play normal people doing normal things. What’s the point of having a setting with extraordinary things if you are going to ignore them because it might involve conflict?
If you want a safe, casual, roleplay experience, don’t set your game in a world were killing the other guy is the main objective in the theme. It’s lame. Also, it’s false advertising.
MUSHes promise a world of darkness but deliver a world of boredom. They promised us a game of heroes fighting villains and delivered heroes trolling for sex scenes. That’s why the medium died. People will only put up with being disappointed so many times before they just stop trying.
-
@RedRocket said in pvp vs pvp:
If you want a safe, casual, roleplay experience, don’t set your game in a world were killing the other guy is the main objective in the theme. It’s lame. Also, it’s false advertising.
I now fully believe that you regularly kill the other party members in traditional high fantasy adventuring parties because the monsters aren’t enough challenge.
-
@RedRocket said in pvp vs pvp:
MUSHes promise a world of darkness but deliver a world of boredom.
Well, this also explains a lot of your thinking.
MUSH (a code base for online text-based roleplaying) does not equal World of Darkness (a popular TTRPG & LARP setting involving creatures of supernatural origin in varying levels of conflict with each other.)
Plenty of MUSHes are set in settings that aren’t Dark or Grim or anything like that. Hell, one of the most popular MUSHes I can think of in recent years is Arx, and as far as I can tell (Arx players help me if I’m getting it wrong) it’s a Lords & Ladies game that was set in a high fantasy world, and while there was some darkness and nasty bits, they weren’t the regular thing in the game.
-
-
@RedRocket said in pvp vs pvp:
It’s like making a game set in the marvel cinematic universe but no one is allowed to play as the heroes or villains, they can only play normal people doing normal things. What’s the point of having a setting with extraordinary things if you are going to ignore them because it might involve conflict?
Why are you assuming that a lack of PVP means a game with no conflict? There have been plenty of MUs where PCs are only one faction and the antagonists are all NPCs. There can still be tense battles, epic betrayals, Big Darn Hero moments.
I’ll reiterate: it’s fine to enjoy PVP. But this stubborn insistence that it’s the only way to have fun is baffling. Especially when there are plenty of people here explaining why they enjoy a different thing. I may not personally like PVP, and as a game-runner I think it has more cons than pros, but I’m not baffled by why people like it. You do you. Just don’t WrongFun others who disagree.
-
Lame is not a slur when it is used to describe a thing, only when it is used to describe a person.
It’s a synonym for disappointing, weak or unsatisfying that has been used for most of human history dating back to the early Germanic tribes that first used it to describe an animal with a non-functional of overly weak leg. You would put down your horse because it had a lame leg and couldn’t plow a field anymore.
It’s only considered a slur if you say a person is lame because you are advocating for them to be killed.
I’m very clearly not advocating for the murder of the people who run boring games.
-
-
@RedRocket said in pvp vs pvp:
Lame is not a slur when it is used to describe a thing, only when it is used to describe a person.
It’s a synonym for disappointing, weak or unsatisfying that has been used for most of human history dating back to the early Germanic tribes that first used it to describe an animal with a non-functional of overly weak leg. You would put down your horse because it had a lame leg and couldn’t plow a field anymore.
It’s only considered a slur if you say a person is lame because you are advocating for them to be killed.
I’m very clearly not advocating for the murder of the people who run boring games.
The people who have willingly engaged in extended discourse with you should get a medal.
-
-
@Faraday said in pvp vs pvp:
There have been plenty of MUs where PCs are only one faction and the antagonists are all NPCs.
And how’s that working out for you? The games are empty, the players who do still log in mostly sit and idle until one of their click logs in and only then does any rp actually happen.
My original statement still holds true, your way is always going to lead to a game withering away. Putting everyone on the same team means staff takes on the burden of being everyone else in the world. It consolidates the responsibility of creating the content most games are designed around (fighting) to a few already overwhelmed staff members.
From superhero games to world of darkness, the whole hobby spiraled into decline when people started banning conflict and putting safety rails on the content to protect the whiners who complained they got murdered just because they did stuff ICly that should get them murdered.
When the games started being about protecting the feelings of bad actors who instigated trouble then ran to staff for protection it all went to shit.
Staff got tired of it so they just banned anyone from playing anything that could cause even the slightest bit of controversy and the games got more shittified every year.
Look at what is happening with the “collective shout” nonsense on steam and itch.io. This is the same thing played out over a longer timeline. Once you start capitulating to people who make it their life goal to ruin things for everyone they don’t stop. They get off on the second-hand power they are handed. They are never going to be satisfied, you can’t ever appease them enough.
It doesn’t matter what kind of game you are on or even what industry you are looking at, you can still see it happening every year. The slow creep of content getting more bland and restricted to protect the feelings of the professionally fragile.
If someone is facing actual injustice, then I will 100% stand with them, but as long as you try and cater to the people who whine about everything just to create drama, no matter what kind of project you are running, it is doomed to collapse.
If staff had learned to say, “That sounds like a you problem.” The text gaming community might not be a ghost town today.
-
@RedRocket said in pvp vs pvp:
My original statement still holds true, your way is always going to lead to a game withering away. Putting everyone on the same team means staff takes on the burden of being everyone else in the world. It consolidates the responsibility of creating the content most games are designed around (fighting) to a few already overwhelmed staff members.
That sounds like a you problem.
-
@RedRocket said in pvp vs pvp:
Lame is not a slur when it is used to describe a thing, only when it is used to describe a person.
It’s a synonym for disappointing, weak or unsatisfying that has been used for most of human history dating back to the early Germanic tribes that first used it to describe an animal with a non-functional of overly weak leg. You would put down your horse because it had a lame leg and couldn’t plow a field anymore.
It’s only considered a slur if you say a person is lame because you are advocating for them to be killed.
I’m very clearly not advocating for the murder of the people who run boring games.
Absolutely wild and inappropriate when someone says “please don’t use a slur” to go on a weird tirade.
All the red flags (no surprise, given your “GAMES ARE DYING BC THEY DON’T PLAY THE WAY I WANT THEM TO” attitude tho).
