One Ruleset to Rule them All (discussion)

[Eyesgood 2,121]

Wurm has three rulesets (Freedom, Epic, and Chaos).

 

This thread is not about which is better or why there are even three rulesets for Wurm Online.

 

What I would like to discuss here is this question (please try to stay on topic):

 

Could Wurm Online have a single ruleset that would allow ALL pvp and non-pvp players to co-exist?

 

It's not like this hasn't ever been done.  Most MMO's provide interraction between pvp and pve players.  Most allow cross-travel between pvp and pve zones.  Most have a unified economy.  Most have a unified player-base.  Most have issues with griefing but not to the extent that the two communities (pvp and pve) have to be separated.  Few MMO's do what Wurm does and segregate entire populations of players and game features.

 

What are your thoughts on the question?

 

Discuss.

 

 

UPDATE:  Let me share why I am asking this question.  Three rulesets basically means development of three branches of code.  Since Wurm has such a small development team, a single code base is easier and faster to develop and maintain than three.  Also, when one ruleset gets development attention, players elsewhere feel left out. These are some of the reasons why I think this topic should be explored both by the players and the dev team.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Eyesgood

[Druidnature 1,118]

Inb4 "sure it could, remove the pvp"

But seriously, I do not see it working with this playerbase. In general, yes... Just not how we are currently.

Not until everyone gets everything open to them at least, if PvE and PvP had the exact same things, just one served PvP toggled on, it may work.

[Woof 23]

nope.  pvp people want to pvp, non-pvp people dont want to pvp.

 

epic is a different beast entirely with enhanced skill gain.

 

 

closest thing we had was the original home server system.

[Blazer 566]

I say, PVE players should try PVP and PVP players should try PVE...

[Ecrir 887]

I think the main requirement for PvP and PvE to coexist in one ruleset would be that PvP is opt-in. So by default you couldn't be attacked or attack another player, until you opt in to pvp. At that point you could attack and be attacked by other players who have opted in on pvp. This could work similarly for deeds. After opting in there should be a reasonable delay before you could opt out again (a month or so?).

 

It might also require more focus on pvp games like the hota, instead of focusing on deed sieges and griefing.

 

I think the PvP and PvE can co-exist, but it would mainly require changes like those to be made to PvP for it to mesh well with the PvE player's mindset.

[Druidnature 1,118]

I think the main requirement for PvP and PvE to coexist in one ruleset would be that PvP is opt-in. So by default you couldn't be attacked or attack another player, until you opt in to pvp. At that point you could attack and be attacked by other players who have opted in on pvp. This could work similarly for deeds. After opting in there should be a reasonable delay before you could opt out again (a month or so?).

It might also require more focus on pvp games like the hota, instead of focusing on deed sieges and griefing.

I think the PvP and PvE can co-exist, but it would mainly require changes like those to be made to PvP for it to mesh well with the PvE player's mindset.

I don't think that would work, correct me if I'm wrong, but a major part of pvp currently is raiding, more so then anything else. I don't think with that idea it would work.

[tgod 456]

would be awesome to see battles breaking out in random spots or people getting chased by your deed 

[Sevenless 385]

I see this going good places.

[Ecrir 887]

I don't think that would work, correct me if I'm wrong, but a major part of pvp currently is raiding, more so then anything else. I don't think with that idea it would work.

 

A basic comparison of Chaos and Freedom would be that Chaos always has pvp on, and Freedom has it turned off. So to merge those two rulesets we'd have to end up somewhere in the middle, which is opt-in pvp. The problem is that opt-in pvp and the current way raiding is done really doesn't mesh, because a raider group can simply have a small useless deed from which they operate, while their main deed is managed by an alt. There would be no point for their opponents to raid that small useless deed as there is nothing to gain by doing that.

 

What could work is to put the focus on pvp games. For example imagine that there's a zone on the server, like a hota zone, but here one side has, for example, 1 month to build/reinforce a city at a certain spot. Once that month is over other groups can lay siege to the city and attempt to take it over. For every day that the original group manages to keep a hold of the city they could get resources. If another group captures the city then this group will get a month to reinforce it, and then the game starts again with them getting resources for every day. Effectively it's a King of the hill game where you are rewarded for every day that you control the hill, with some downtime so the hill can be reinforced (as time to build up defenses is just much greater than the time required to take them down). The area would probably have to be completely reset after some time (a year?) so a fresh start could be made. Multiple such spots/cities could exist at the same time.

[Elen 1,013]

EVE manages a good medium ground in this aspect.

[rosedragon 2,282]

opt in pvp were placed long time ago, doesn't work out.

No they can't be one rule since things done in pvp is griefing  in pve due to sandbox nature of the game. Unless you remove sieging deeds.. which was happened long time ago and suck badly.

[Mordraug 2,542]

First we need actual rules that go beyond "determining intent on a case by case basis" .... something that'll effectively guarantee that favoritisms and/or grayzoning are locked out.

 

'nuff said

[Audrel 2,223]

EVE manages a good medium ground in this aspect.

 

The "Concord" of Wurm was nerfed to be too slow to make it in time. :-P

[Druidnature 1,118]

A basic comparison of Chaos and Freedom would be that Chaos always has pvp on, and Freedom has it turned off. So to merge those two rulesets we'd have to end up somewhere in the middle, which is opt-in pvp. The problem is that opt-in pvp and the current way raiding is done really doesn't mesh, because a raider group can simply have a small useless deed from which they operate, while their main deed is managed by an alt. There would be no point for their opponents to raid that small useless deed as there is nothing to gain by doing that.

What could work is to put the focus on pvp games. For example imagine that there's a zone on the server, like a hota zone, but here one side has, for example, 1 month to build/reinforce a city at a certain spot. Once that month is over other groups can lay siege to the city and attempt to take it over. For every day that the original group manages to keep a hold of the city they could get resources. If another group captures the city then this group will get a month to reinforce it, and then the game starts again with them getting resources for every day. Effectively it's a King of the hill game where you are rewarded for every day that you control the hill, with some downtime so the hill can be reinforced (as time to build up defenses is just much greater than the time required to take them down). The area would probably have to be completely reset after some time (a year?) so a fresh start could be made. Multiple such spots/cities could exist at the same time.

This is the typical idea people have, and I've seen it done on other games, it doesn't work. As it's not very fun in the long run.

Even more so here, you'd completely change the pvp game, I'm sure you'll have people loving the idea, they did in the games I've seen fall to it, but a few months down the road, everyone's gone... And here, it would be way to much of a change.

You need something that keeps pvp the way it is now, while also doing the same for pve, and allowing everything in each... Its not something someone can come up with in a few days thinking, or likely a group over a few weeks.

I've been in the position to find a "balance" in this before, we discussed it over and over, gave our ideas to the players, even tested a few things small scale with them. Everyone loves it - until you do it. Very quickly everyone leaves, and doesn't come back... Because you've changed the core of the reason they played, and didn't adapt to what you changed it to. I fear wurm even attempting such a thing, especially with us - we're all extremely picky.

So as I said originally... In general, it could work. With our playerbase, and our Dev team, I can't see it working. I don't think either side would like the change.

[Drpox 73]

no mainly cuz of the pvp griefers.  Rolf tried this already when he "turned on pvp on the pve server" a couple of years ago."  Nice population drop for that. 

[Branvas 19]

First we need actual rules that go beyond "determining intent on a case by case basis" .... something that'll effectively guarantee that favoritisms and/or grayzoning are locked out.

 

'nuff said

 

Exactly!

[Druidnature 1,118]

First we need actual rules that go beyond "determining intent on a case by case basis" .... something that'll effectively guarantee that favoritisms and/or grayzoning are locked out.

'nuff said

That is impossible.

Everything is this world, from games, to company's, to politics, favoritism will always exist.

Even in the biggest games ever made, favoritism exist... Granted, it will be more so in wurm because of the staff being made up of people like you and me. But we can't help that, and I don't see Rolf being able to hire professional GMs any time soon.

Even with stricter rules, there can, and will, be favoritism. I'd suggest if you have a problem or think favoritism took part in something it shouldn't have staff wise, you report it to them. Otherwise they won't know what happened.

From my own point of view, most of the staff team are very good people, and do wish to help - and not just in it for themselves. I can't speak for them all though, as there is bound to be a few bad seeds, no matter what.

I'd say in most cases, People blaming the staff are just angry for something they got a warning/ban for, and likely deserved.

[KanePT 699]

It depends, are you talking about written rules or the coded differences (like no stealing and lockpicking on freedom)?

If its about written rules, just change whatever applies to freedom to instead of freedom, apply within kingdoms (which is a bit common sense) maybe excluding hots.

[Bittereinder 265]

no mainly cuz of the pvp griefers.  Rolf tried this already when he "turned on pvp on the pve server" a couple of years ago."  Nice population drop for that. 

 

There is griefing on PVE as well you now.

 

Just for this that don't go to Chaos: big raids only happen rarely, a couple per year. Usually we skirmish or captures towers and even that only happens a couple of times a week.

[Drpox 73]

There maybe griefing from pve'ers but last time i check a pve'er cant drain your deed token and then bash in your house walls or pick the lock and steal everything in it.  If thats what you want on the pve server - i guess the population will have another big drop from the last time rolf tried pvp on pve servers. 

 

Is that your end goal?  To kick off all the pve'er's because we are to carebearish for you? 

 

I did play eve for a while, Lottsa Pox, and I know the pure pvp mindset that has infested the pvpers is not something I care not to play in.  Hence the reason I dont play eve anymore. 

[griper 535]

I dont see why we couldnt have PMKs or even single deeds warring with eachother on a voluntary basis.

Meaning that both deeds/PMKs have to agree to be at war for a certain time period before a "war" starts.

 

During this phase, members from both deeds/PMKs could attack/steal from members of the other side.

 

Noone else would get hurt.

[Bittereinder 265]

Don't put words in my mouth, I never said I wanted to implement these PVP features on PVE.

 

I said that raids and even drains happen rarely and most of our fighting is actually tower capping and skirmishing.

 

Most villages disappear because the owners disband them, not because their coffers are emptied entirely by draining.

[Druidnature 1,118]

I dont see why we couldnt have PMKs or even single deeds warring with eachother on a voluntary basis.

Meaning that both deeds/PMKs have to agree to be at war for a certain time period before a "war" starts.

During this phase, members from both deeds/PMKs could attack/steal from members of the other side.

Noone else would get hurt.

Errr, the land would be destroyed, I think... That may not be so good

[griper 535]

Errr, the land would be destroyed, I think... That may not be so good

But people can already destroy the land on Freedom as much as they want.

I have seen horrible terraforming that would make the Druid cry if he saw it.

Edited July 9, 2014 by griper

[Druidnature 1,118]

But people can already destroy the land on Freedom as much as they want.

I have seen horrible terraforming that would make the Druid cry if he saw them.

Oh trust me, I know lol!

I mean on a much bigger scale though, does chaos not have H.U.G.E dirt walls and terraces ect? Not to mention they'd probably not want roads anywhere near, and multiple other things. If you through this right into the pve cluster, I think it would completely ruin anyone wanting a nice area, though I could be wrong