PvP Zone Expansion Success Criteria
|
Skidmark Posted Apr 6, 2011, 5:46 pm |
During the trail period where the PvP-mandatory zones are in place, data is being collected for later review. Which measurements are being taken and how are those measurements going to be evaluated?
Which combination of factors might indicate a successful experiment, suggesting that these zones become permanently PvP-mandatory? Which would indicate a failure or a "let's think about this a little more" result? |
||||||||
|
Kornkob The Dude Posted Apr 6, 2011, 6:09 pm |
Is data being collected? I know I asked for data but I never heard that we'd ever see it. | ||||||||
|
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted Apr 6, 2011, 6:11 pm |
As stated by Sam in the other thread, after the two week trial it is going to a general forum vote
s per the forum discussions on this matter, we will be trialling fully-open pvp in the towns south of, but not including, Gateway. This trial will run from April 6th until April 20th. From April 20th we will hold a well-advertised vote, open to all subscribers, deciding whether to keep this proposed change or not. Majority wins. Should the change be voted down, I will certainly be bringing forward the 'dominant camps' idea instead, in at attempt to offer profitable, consensual pvp to camps. |
||||||||
|
The Paranoid Tourist Posted Apr 6, 2011, 6:48 pm |
The problem is that the people afraid of PvP are going to stay out of PvP zones for the next two weeks, the people who are pro-PvP are going to keep from doing any PvP for two weeks for fear of upsetting anti-PvP people, and nobody is going to have any reason to change their vote based on any real experience under the new rules. | ||||||||
|
Kornkob The Dude Posted Apr 6, 2011, 6:58 pm |
Which is part of the reason I asked Sam to give us some numbers.
I personally feel that part of the problem with this discussion is polarized language used in the discussion. I don't PvP. I'm not afraid of it, I'm just not interested. I'm not changing my behavior--- I just do group scouts in SS because that's about the only place that has regular enough scouts that I get to play with a variety of people. But frequently anyone who is not interested in PvP is lumped in as 'scared' or 'afraid' of PvP and that makes it hard to build consensus because the language used is judgmental. |
||||||||
|
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted Apr 6, 2011, 7:09 pm |
With just one word changed this is basically my thoughts also. |
||||||||
|
Skidmark Posted Apr 6, 2011, 8:27 pm |
Thanks for the information, Grograt. I missed Sam's post about that because it got locked for some reason. I didn't expect to find important information on the topic in that category. | ||||||||
|
Kornkob The Dude Posted Apr 6, 2011, 9:27 pm |
There was a client pop-up that said basically the same thing though.
|
||||||||
|
Joel Autobaun Posted Apr 6, 2011, 11:41 pm |
I think data collection is great, but the most important thing is to vote after the trial run. That requires everyone interested in this debate to vote. Do it. | ||||||||
|
*goat starer* Posted Apr 6, 2011, 11:51 pm |
although if it hasn't effected you at all please don't choose to vote with your prejudices. | ||||||||
|
triad4evr Posted Apr 7, 2011, 1:54 am |
So, wait, goat, you are saying "You can't vote unless you submit to PvP!"
Interesting. |
||||||||
|
triad4evr Posted Apr 7, 2011, 2:00 am |
Sorry, goat, I was wrong... you are saying if it hasn't _affected_ me I can't vote. Well, guess what, it has. I now have to avoid Badlands. | ||||||||
|
*Bastille* Posted Apr 7, 2011, 2:08 am |
Whys that? Give it a go. I dare ya ta drive through there 50 times over the trial period. If you end up losing all your stuff and getting beat up so bad it makes you want to leave, I'll give ya a million bucks. (proof of losses will be required with event IDs  )
Im gunna keep driving through there, and I will probably never get intercepted. If I do, Ill have to run like a girl, and if anyone gets within 150 20m of my car cannons, I'm gunna snog them. I agree with PT's comment above |
||||||||
|
JS Posted Apr 7, 2011, 2:22 am |
Remember that there has been ample chance to PvP this whole time. Squad challenges have been possible from the beginning. Consensual, negotiated CR, two players who are ready and willing to PvP. This change is not about that kind of PvP. The only "data" pertinent to this change will be that from any intercepts (more/less/intercepts fought/intercepts bountied, were players flagged or not etc). Intercepts have also been open the whole time for flagged players. The only actual change this "change" makes is to increase the interceptable squads in the open areas. This has a potential to increase PvP encounters as much scouting happens in BL, and a decent amount in TX/Sars. As intercepting is a bit fiddly, and not at all certain it remains to be seen how many more PvP fights this generates, if any. In reality, the only data that matters is related to any events where an unflagged player is involved. Which is to say a player who would not have normally been at risk in those areas. Any Intercepts between flagged players is not pertinent to the question as it can be assumed it would have happened anyway. This change has always been about intercepts, which is just a portion of the PvP issue. |
||||||||
|
Thin Izzy Posted Apr 7, 2011, 3:11 am |
So, why not revise the PvP intercept algorithm (since that's allegedly the actual problem)? Then folks who want to intercept/be intercepted would have a decent shot at PvP'ing regularly, those who don't will be able to do their own thing on the PvE side. Problem solved. |
||||||||
|
*goat starer* Posted Apr 7, 2011, 8:03 am |
no.. i'm saying that if you decide to leave badlands and have absolutely no idea whether it is a hotbed of noob bashing vets in an al out pvp war on the darkwind community OR almost exactly the same as before but with people having teh occasional fun and friendly PVP match then to vote with your predjudices would make you a bit of an idiot. anybody who votes on anything because of what they assume without reference to facts is a bit of an diot.. I'm sure you woudl not like to join the idiot community. |
||||||||
|
*goat starer* Posted Apr 7, 2011, 8:08 am |
because its not JUST about the pvp intercept... its about people being able to act in certain ways in certain parts of the game with impunity in other parts of the game... its about the fact that we all play in a game that has scarce resources and some people have been choosing to milk the game without risk... its about this being a post apocalyptic wargame that differs from other games mainly in terms of grit and the past ree years of narrow views and scaremongering gradually eroding the danger of the game |
||||||||
|
*Bastille* Posted Apr 7, 2011, 8:25 am |
Guess its just me on my own again then 
|
||||||||
|
Ragnak Posted Apr 7, 2011, 8:36 am |
There's not a lot of evidence that this is the issue. It is generally thought that, all factors being equal, there's a 50-50 chance for a hit. The other factors are more in a players hand to sway the chances more or less in their direction (e.g. do I use my best scouts to move critical cargo in courier runs, use them to support town scouting, or, now if applicable, use them in interceptor squads). In addition, a PVP guide for intercepting would be extremely useful and should help some interceptors to be more successful in their hunts. On a different note, I would like to suggest that the upcoming poll provide an option to simply state no opinion on the matter of the PVP change and would instead like to have another 2 weeks/4 weeks (some reasonable timeframe) to continue the trial before deciding an outcome. |
||||||||
|
*Ninesticks* Posted Apr 7, 2011, 9:42 am |
+1 |
||||||||
|
Kornkob The Dude Posted Apr 7, 2011, 3:22 pm |
+1 In fact, I think that Sam should take a look at the incidence of actual PvP and possibly decide by decree to extend it before putting the matter up to a vote. |
||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Apr 7, 2011, 4:18 pm |
+3 |
||||||||
|
*goat starer* Posted Apr 7, 2011, 4:45 pm |
so that is 1+1+1+3 which is 6!!! |
||||||||
|
Thin Izzy Posted Apr 7, 2011, 5:02 pm |
[quote=goat starer][quote=Thin Izzy][quote=JS]This change has always been about intercepts, which is just a portion of the PvP issue. [/quote]
So, why not revise the PvP intercept algorithm (since that's allegedly the actual problem)? Then folks who want to intercept/be intercepted would have a decent shot at PvP'ing regularly, those who don't will be able to do their own thing on the PvE side. Problem solved.[/quote] because its not JUST about the pvp intercept... its about people being able to act in certain ways in certain parts of the game with impunity in other parts of the game...[/quote] For your definition of 'impunity', perhaps. [quote]its about the fact that we all play in a game that has scarce resources and some people have been choosing to milk the game without risk...[/quote] Again, for your definition of 'risk'. Not neccesarily mine or anyone else's. While the computer vehicles' AI isn't horribly bright, they just don't sit there and allow themselves to be blown up either. A human opponent is going to be considerably more deadly, and it literally takes me between one and two MONTHS (in real time) to replace/retrain a ganger reasonably skilled enought be worth using in GW. That's with a MOT3, training camps, and scouting in the limited time window I have. I don't have a lot of time that's convenient to scout extensively so my gangers aren't going to get combat training fast enough to reduce that time significantly. Equipment replacement depends on the good graces of what happens to be at the shop/marketplace at the time, or on the chance someone happens to have something on hand that I need that they're willing to part with for a reasonable sum. I already run plenty of risk just engaging the AI, thankyouverymuch. [quote]its about this being a post apocalyptic wargame that differs from other games mainly in terms of grit[\quote] Having a game with 'grit' hardly justifies opening folks up to something they don't want to participate in. It shows a lack of ethics, at the very least. As far as RP justifications go: there is also such a thing as burying oneself in the part to the point of excess. [quote] and the past ree years of narrow views and scaremongering gradually eroding the danger of the game[/quote] "Repeated personal experience as well as repeatedly observing the phenomenon inflicted on others in other games with open PvP" is hardly mere "scaremongering". This is why I prefer to avoid open PvP if at all possible. An arena or pre-established free-fire zone is all fine and dandy; however it's a different matter when sweeping changes come virtually out of nowhere with the result of disincentivising PvEing/casual play (or what passes for casual play in this game) in large swaths of the game environment. And yes, the community may police its own, but it doesn't stop the initial assualt from occurring in the first place, which the existing PvP flag does. This change increasingly appears to be aligned towards fixing things that aren't broken (and ignoring things that are), to the advantage of the established few, even though a less destructive/more effective/more beneficial alternate solution exists. While that may not have been the intent, I suspect the end result will end up with a suspicious resemblance to the above. Caveat: I have nothing against long-time players of this game having something to entertain themselves with at that stage/level/style of play - it's when it interferes with the participation of others in an unethical way that I start to have an issue. EDIT: bah... please forgive the formatting if you can... 
|
||||||||
|
*goat starer* Posted Apr 7, 2011, 5:21 pm |
crews train faster in pvp.
most people give you equipment back after pvp this game opens people up to things they don't WANT to do all the time.. like losing guys and kit... that is a terrible argument This has already been in place for a few days and i dont see an initial assault |
||||||||
|
Joel Autobaun Posted Apr 7, 2011, 9:26 pm |
I'm probably one of the few people along with goat and FF that has HATEFULLY(and there is a big different between that and GRIEFING), PvP'd.
It is a tremendous effort, it is exhausting, it is very hard to make it effective. I would never claim to be the best at it, but I am also no slouch. It ALWAYS pays diminishing returns, and I think that's a good thing(with hate PvP). Game driven/camp driven/fun driven PvP could be very profitable given the amazing ability DW players have and amazing ability to create a... "etiquette" around such things. |
||||||||
|
FireFly Posted Apr 7, 2011, 9:41 pm |
Oh my, Fight to the death, utterly hell bent on crushing the other guy PvP, You just had to bring it up did you Joel 
As having fought "Personal/Hate" PvP quite a few times, it's like Joel says... But to put it shortly, It's simply the most awesome thing in the game by far. There you are with your best gangers, about to face of against against a behemoth of a player the size of yourself. I'm my case the feeling is the mix of excitement and fear, exited because this sort of PvP is the toughest thing in the game and if you win, well yeah... And Fear, fear that you might lose gangers you've had for years of real time, and vehicle's you've scouted with so many times... Nothing beats that. And as Joel also pointed out the reason you so rarely see players slug it out like that is because any extended "Wars" between veteran players is pretty much 100% guaranteed to end in mutually assured destruction, nobody will ever make back what they lose in PvP and for most things you capture you will pay for in blood and oil... Dang, reading above makes me wish darkwind was only PvP, although I would never be stupid enough to suggest that 
|
||||||||
|
Thin Izzy Posted Apr 7, 2011, 10:31 pm |
Oh, I get the challenge thing. I get the friendly competition thing. This "hate PvP", I can't get behind. I game as a relief from stress, not to have more of it. On top of that it probably contributes to the bad image that PvP has. Best I can do there is just agree to disagree on that point.
I also get the concept of 'acceptable losses'. It's just that it's difficult enough to manage losses now; I'm essentially of limited enough means versus the computer AND trying to team up on scouts with friends (essentially my only reason for playing this game at all) who play more than I do. Adding the possibility of also having to combat a player (who again, as I stated, has the potential to be far more lethal than the AI) at inopportune times pushes it over the top for the casual PvE'er like myself. It's an additional source of losses I can't realistically soak without a time investment over and above what I have the time/energy/interest for. That, or donations from others - and while that's not entirely unwelcome, I'd like to be able to support myself whenever feasible. That's not counting the ethics issue - party A having the capability of forcing PvP participation on Party B without consent, barring the trucing fee (which in and of itself is extortive). |
||||||||
|
The Paranoid Tourist Posted Apr 7, 2011, 10:40 pm |
There is no trucing fee. There is a bounty. You can truce for free if both parties agree. You can always opt out of a PvP encounter by paying the fee, which really is not that expensive, and nobody is going to get rich racking those up.
You probably knew that, but I want to make sure someone doesn't get the wrong idea. |
||||||||
|
Thin Izzy Posted Apr 7, 2011, 10:49 pm |
Assumes the crew member(s) survive.
Assumes the opponent is that honorable. Not every player who does PvP is, and it's not practical to get to know everybody within a reasonable degree of certainty. I'm more interested in this being structured so that the players who are interested in honorable play are protected from those who aren't. While systems aren't perfect and aren't always the answer in some circumstances, keeping the PvP flag as-is (combined with interception system improvements) seems like a better bet over the long haul. On a personal note - it's not you (the honorable players) that I need/want to be protected from; it's the players who aren't so honorable that this is for (however hypothetical they may be at the moment). Also: generally the first indication of someone is going to play as a griefer is when they've actually done it, by which time the damage is done. Again, although appropriate after-the-fact compensation would help in that situation, it's more ideal to not have to deal with it in the first place. |
||||||||
|
*goat starer* Posted Apr 7, 2011, 11:41 pm |
assumes blah blah blah if you read these forums i am he evilest person ever and i have given FTs back to people (hallen!) I have been given stuff back by Longo... and he HATES me!!! ... you must all have had very traumatic pasts to be so scared of shadows i hate being one of the few people here who lives in reality... uses facts to discuss this stuff... understands logic.... but ho hum
|
||||||||
|
iceman Posted Apr 7, 2011, 11:55 pm |
You are in a minority...which is why you failed to get elected to the the rules council and yet somehow, through constant whining, you continue to get experiments you feel like running periodically inflicted on the rest of us gr8 I really am so glad im paying for your power trip |
||||||||
|
Joel Autobaun Posted Apr 7, 2011, 11:57 pm |
We'll see post april 20. Incidently the pvp nerfs ALL happened as a result of a screaming few. This is the first ever vote on public forums. |
||||||||
|
iceman Posted Apr 8, 2011, 12:01 am |
There only seem to be a screaming few clamouring for pvp and a big silent majority who aren't very interested in it Maybe you'll get your wish and after 20 apr that will decimate the small player base this game already has Congrats, even less pvp chances for you... |
||||||||
|
*goat starer* Posted Apr 8, 2011, 12:07 am |
you are right... most people dont give a #### because it doesnt effect them.. they can scout anywhere... have a giggle... whatever... so what are the few getting aerated about? is it because they are worried that they are exaclty the kind of people who might attract unwanted attention?? so scare the noobs... hope they clamour... because the alternative is to be a target. incidentally tango has had 1 ONE pvp encounter since the change... accidental.. on a travel.... truced... god knows how many people would like to kill him and yet the evil vet conspiracy cant get him.... hmmm |
||||||||
|
iceman Posted Apr 8, 2011, 12:47 am |
threats now? really
get a life
|
||||||||
|
Phyllopteryx Posted Apr 8, 2011, 1:46 am |
Lots of people have experience with PvP in other online games. It can get nasty. Why is Darkwind so special that it would never happen here (although it already has, apparently, once or twice before)? Whatever protection is deemed reasonable has to be hard-coded in, because otherwise it is just a matter of time before you get the anti-social player who will take advantage of any loopholes.
I hate PvP, and will never PvP. I can always just surrender, and accept the loss, just like a scout gone horribly wrong. So personally I don't care too much what the PvP rules are, as long as it doesn't overwhelm PvE. And there are too many PvE players here for PvP to ever be the main focus of this game. Let the PvPers have a bit of fun; they aren't going to take over the game. It doesn't matter what the PvP rules are - there is no way to structure them so that everyone is happy. |
||||||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Apr 8, 2011, 8:28 am |
Why is Darkwind different as opposed to most other MMOs with PvP? It has to do with the mature player base, most are in their 30's or over. It's also a turned based game, things happen slower. In my almost 3 years here the only hard core questionable PvP was done by a new player. The rest of us are so friendly, and the player base so small that most would have a hard time making enemies. You should also know that it's impossible to really hurt another player in the short term. Remember you can always surrender, your gangsters will not be harmed walking home, there is no radiation sickness. The only thing you loose is money and that's the easiest thing to have. You also loose gear, but again most players will be good sports and give it back. |
||||||||
|
*sam* Posted Apr 8, 2011, 8:35 am |
From where I sit.. it seems like we have a few screaming few on both sides of the fence, and a big silent majority whose opinion we don't really know about, hence the test. Incidentally, the reason I'm running the test is because of Longo's poll, which was overwhelmingly in favour of making the switch (24 yes, 12 no, 7 other). This poll didn't even offer a test period, FYI, it was actually stated as a vote on a straight-forward change. I would be ignoring the wishes of the community if I didn't at least give the idea a chance via a trial period and vote. I can assure you it would be far easier for me, and monumentally less grief, just to leave things as they are. |
||||||||
|
Gorde Posted Apr 8, 2011, 9:48 pm |
Actually, reasonable and considerate thought shows us this: Had you only been interested in fulfilling the wishes of the community at large (as opposed to only guys who like to hang out in the pvp forum), you would have involved more players before implementing a trial, cluing them into these potential changes and getting all their opinions. Like making a well advertised poll before the fact, not afterward. We know from the patch messages, that the mechanism is in place and used by you to inform anyone who opens the client and reads the pop-up. If your slant is for pvp, to the point where you're eager to force it (and that's most certainly the crux of the issue as I understand it), then carry on, but please be honest about it. Many of us (usually) silent gamers are okay with some pvp, but it has to be our choice (leagues and other events, or flagged goodness). I joined/paid for a cooperative game, so I could game with my little brother and make new friends. Not so I risked pvp I didn't ask for in any non-noobie (>100 skill) areas. People are fond of analogies and like to be amused, so consider this: In real life, non-consensual fights = jail-time in most civilized countries. (Yet when all parties agree and it's televised, it = lots of fans and money and your picture on a billion boxes of Wheaties.) But seriously, from a game design perspective, are you truly okay with limiting more choice from your player base? Do you think we're okay with non-consensual fighting, rather than pvp when we feel like pvping? If you plan to further weaken your flag system in lieu of designing a smoother consensual pvp system, then you have an ethical obligation to inform us (usually) silent gamers. |
||||||||
|
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted Apr 8, 2011, 9:53 pm |
To be honest this is going to be a waste of time, the non pvpers have made their minds up already, without giving any thing a chance.
So the vote will be in their favor, may as well end the trial now so we do not have to witness any more outbursts of 'unfairness ' Grograt - a non pvp advocate who was willing to give things a chance |
||||||||
|
Joel Autobaun Posted Apr 8, 2011, 9:53 pm |
And WHY IS IT YOU GUYS WANT THIS GAME AS BORING AS REAL LIFE? It's a Game , take a fkin chance in it! It DOESN'T MATTER. |
||||||||
|
The Paranoid Tourist Posted Apr 8, 2011, 9:54 pm |
Thanks, Grog. You saved me from starting a non-consensual fight. | ||||||||
|
Kornkob The Dude Posted Apr 8, 2011, 9:59 pm |
How sure are you of that? And who do you consider 'non-PvPers'? And what do you predict I'm going to do? |
||||||||
|
iceman Posted Apr 8, 2011, 10:03 pm |
Well: 1) Im on your side of the fence, I don't want to be forced into pvp 2) Whats actually being proposed is moving from no pvp being free through the flag system to avoiding pvp costing DW $ through the bounty system I would rather we kept the flags, but if the bounties required to avoid pvp are lowered to a level that isnt too expensive I think it would actually be okay It would also be much better if there were some time griefing prevention measures on pvp like an automatic option for either side to escape their non-demoralised vehicles after a certain number of turns or a real world time limit Honestly, as I described wilderness pvp, would it be so bad? |
||||||||
|
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted Apr 8, 2011, 10:04 pm |
I havnt the time or inclination to pvp, but i am more than happy to see it in game, if i get caught so be it, ill either pay the bounty, take the fight.
So im a non pvper im going to vote for the change because i have obviously made my mind up already
we have seen a good majority of nay sayers post here, before the trial even started. this is not WOW we have not got a player base big enough to make pvp a real threat. i think your of the same mind as me korn tbh. i am just a bit riled people wont even give this a chance. |
||||||||
|
*Ninesticks* Posted Apr 8, 2011, 10:35 pm |
Gorde, seems fairly straight forward from your post to me that you have not really read the forums, in particular Sam's posts. Perhaps you should go back and try that before accusing Sam in an around the houses way of dishonesty and unethical behaviour - quite remarkable ill mannered nonsense on your part.
|
||||||||
|
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted Apr 8, 2011, 10:46 pm |
nods
<<< Do you like my bear |
||||||||
|
The Paranoid Tourist Posted Apr 8, 2011, 11:37 pm |
If it didn't sparkle I would not.
But it does, so I do. |
||||||||
|
Snidely Carmichael Posted Apr 9, 2011, 1:21 am |
Yes, very much. Now please change your gang name to "Brothers of Carebear."
|
||||||||
|
*Dark Tempest* Posted Apr 9, 2011, 12:02 pm |
My two cents:
I can't play right now since my laptop is buggered, but I LOVE this change to PvP. That is all. |
||||||||
|
Juris Posted Apr 12, 2011, 5:40 pm |
We haven't been getting the field training bonus for having the PvP flag on since the change, right? This is something that I've definitely noticed.
|
||||||||
|
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted Apr 12, 2011, 5:44 pm |
There has never been a free bonus to training from having flag on
1. you have to actually PVP 2. you have to actually give damage to an opponent ( a lot of damage ) Having your flag enabled does / did nothing apart from making you PVP available |
||||||||
|
Juris Posted Apr 12, 2011, 5:52 pm |
Um, this is what the PvP flag text says: Any gang that has their `Open for PvP` status set to YES gains additional field training benefits in any combat they are in, even non-PvP ones. |
||||||||
|
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted Apr 12, 2011, 5:55 pm |
Sam stated that the bonus only applies to PVP encounters | ||||||||
|
Kornkob The Dude Posted Apr 12, 2011, 5:57 pm |
That's one of the problems with a wiki--- it can be filled with incorrect or dated info. | ||||||||
|
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted Apr 12, 2011, 5:57 pm |
Aye the Wiki is to blame |
||||||||
|
Juris Posted Apr 12, 2011, 5:58 pm |
I'll go back to fooling myself then
|
||||||||
|
Alec Burke Posted Apr 12, 2011, 6:17 pm |
But this isn't the wiki (at least not directly) - it is the info tag on the "Open for PVP?" option on your gang home page. The last line states: "Any gang that has their `Open for PvP` status set to YES gains additional field training benefits in any combat they are in, even non-PvP ones." I submitted a revision to add a note that this is inaccurate according to Sam's posts here in the forum. |
||||||||
|
Kornkob The Dude Posted Apr 12, 2011, 6:29 pm |
It is, however, effectively the wiki since it is community commentary, not 'official'. |
||||||||
|
Alec Burke Posted Apr 12, 2011, 6:41 pm |
True, although someone has to approve any community comment revision, so someone approved the original statement before it became available to confuse everyone. 
|