One Ruleset to Rule them All (discussion)

[GorgonKain 355]

One ruleset does not work, only because there is such desparity between PvP players and PvE players. Both need to pull their heads out of their respective rectums and work together on new suggestions and changes.

There is nothing we can do about what is implement on high, that is neither player base's doing, people just need to start recognizing that.

Edited July 9, 2014 by GorgonKain

[Aum 771]

if this was in suggestions I would just -1 this pro styles.

as you said its never been done, simple cause its not possible.

pvp players will act like pvp players

pve players will act like pve players or get banned

 

 

perfect example is when PVE players had a dragon hunt scheduled but the PVP players didnt give a crap and came to grief the event anyways, simply cause of the PVP mentality, they are not gonna sign up to a public event letting their enemies know when and where they are going to be. no wonder they whined for chaos to be connected to pristine so they would have another easy access island to raid all of PVE's uniques and horde it all back on to PVP..

 

IMO they should close the borders to chaos and you should only be able to teleport there like epic servers. only the first time you skills would be copied over for ppl wanting to try PVP, and if you dont like it you'd still have your skills to come back to.

 

PVP does not belong on PVE servers in any way shape or form.  having them connected only makes all of this worse, separate them properly and save yourself some work.

meshing it all together only makes more spaghetti~!

[conmcb25 378]

Separate the code and be done with it

[geode 292]

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

Already did over the years in other games. I don't like PvP and I don't want to play on a PvP server (if I did I wouldn't be on Xanadu).

 

EVE manages a good medium ground in this aspect.

Not in my opinion it doesn't. PvP can happen in Eve Online anywhere, especially High Security Space (I know, I lost many barges in so called "safe" space before I woke up and quit that game)

 

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.

PvP and PvE players can co-exist... but not all of us will choose to do so. If Wurm went to a "one rule set and opt-in PvP" kind of arrangement I would take my money and go to another game. I will not play a game with PvP happening on same server I am playing on.

 

My point? A suggestion like "one rule set" could work I think but players like me won't stand for it and some may quit (I would). Simple as that. If Rolf wants to risk that than that's up to him. There's plenty of new sandbox games on the horizon.

Edited July 9, 2014 by geode

[elf 156]

Separate playstyles, so separate servers (not connected at all) and separate codes.  

[GorgonKain 355]

You would have lost me for one, if Chaos was not connected to the rest of freedom. Your problem is with one group of PvP players Aum, and that is MR. As stated elsewhere, every playerbase has toxic players, and most of them on Chaos gravitate to that group.

Edited July 9, 2014 by GorgonKain

[Cynosin 7]

I'm sorry Eyesgood but this has been tried before, it cost Rolf a lot of money, time and effort to re-establish(Think Independence).

 

It also cost me a lot of money and a fair time away from Wurm as I don't want anything to do with the PVP rule set.

 

I understand what you are looking for but I would rather it take longer for the game to progress than go back to having to play on a PVP(even optional) ruleset server.

 

At this stage Wurm seems to be one of the only games of this type that has a split PVP/PVE system and I for one would like it kept that way.

 

Regards,

 

Cynosin.

[Eyesgood 2,121]

I'm sorry Eyesgood but this has been tried before, it cost Rolf a lot of money, time and effort to re-establish(Think Independence).

 

It also cost me a lot of money and a fair time away from Wurm as I don't want anything to do with the PVP rule set.

 

I understand what you are looking for but I would rather it take longer for the game to progress than go back to having to play on a PVP(even optional) ruleset server.

 

At this stage Wurm seems to be one of the only games of this type that has a split PVP/PVE system and I for one would like it kept that way.

 

Regards,

 

Cynosin.

 

Thanks for the comments, Cynosin, but I am not looking for anything in this idea.  I am asking so I can hear from everyone what the pros and cons might be from the player's perspective.  That is why I did not post this in the suggestions.  I am not suggesting this - only suggesting discussion of it.

[Kagrenac 812]

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

 

Pretty sure 99% of pvp players do "pve"

[Westfold 14]

One ruleset does not work, only because there is such desparity between PvP players and PvE players. Both need to pull their heads out of their respective rectums and work together on new suggestions and changes.

 

 

No, they don`t.

 

One ruleset/server for pvp-player and pve-player won´t work, and no, i never does in any game (EVE, good joke).

 

I played pvp in most games, when i want to pvp i don´t want freaking restrictions, i want to kill everyone, everywhere at any time, or it isn´t open world pvp.

 

As a pve player in wurm i want to craft and build my deed in peace and don´t get pissed from some random-moron who is able to destroy things i payed money for.

 

That won´t work, and it even don´t have to.

 

Rolf can choose to keep both player-groups seperated from each other or lose one.

And why should he choose one, he don´t play the game anymore and lost touch with the gameplay years ago.

In that case i am glad that money is all that counts for him anymore.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Westfold

[Rozwell 24]

Why would anyone think this would be a good idea? Nothing is wrong with the current system.

[Plebian 89]

Chaos is part of the Freedom Isles. So the system is already under one ruleset realistically. You could easily make the Epic servers able to be sailed to just like Chaos.

 

The game already basically has opt-in PVP system. You just gotta cross a server to activate the PVP tag on yourself.

[Becket 843]

pvper's and carebears do not play well together.

[Ricowan 199]

Oh my god no.  There should be MORE separation of code, not less.

[joedobo 1,187]

I've never seen a game where pvp and pve play side by side using the same rules and pve doesn't end up getting shafted. Well opt-in dueling style system works well but I don't think most hardcore PvP want that. The solution is usually separate servers.

 

The most common consequence for PvE I've experienced is having to "make due" with less content. Also, constantly having to be thinking about unwanted game experiences. Eve online is an excellent example of this.

 

 

 

There is one idea I do like to get PvE to take part in PvP.  Lotro does it with Monster Play.  Basically make it super easy for PvE to jump into, for example, troll body. There would be no grinding, building or anything. If you die, you lose nothing other than the time you spent controlling the troll. Players could either opt-in to allowing raids on their deeds or go out and raid NPC villages. PvE will take part in battles if we don't have to risk losing things we worked hard to make and acquire. Monsters can't pick up things so worse case a troll bashes a few fences/houses down. Winning could be defined by killing all villagers and standing around the token for a few minutes. There would need to be a zone which prevents or heavily penalizes players who try to use monsters for reason other than the event.

 

The no loss aspect of this is actually a good thing because it will get many PvE involved and the best AI is other players. The reward of this is simple the challenge and fun of competing against others.

[Klaa 4,872]

It was done... see the original server layout that Chaos dates from.

 

There are pve players that simply do not wish to play pvp for whatever reasons.

[Rathgar 959]

I belive that eventually only the PvE ruleset will remain.  So the most effort to include people within that ruleset should be made,  like scoreoards for duels, team-duels, in-game betting for duels, or a way to solve disputes thourgh duels, etc.

Absorbing the PvP players, with contained elements withing a big PvE ruleset  would be the way to go, for me, my personal opinion.

[Arvid 64]

You would have lost me for one, if Chaos was not connected to the rest of freedom. Your problem is with one group of PvP players Aum, and that is MR. As stated elsewhere, every playerbase has toxic players, and most of them on Chaos gravitate to that group.

Wut? I'm sorry, but the idea that "most toxic players on Chaos gravitates to MR" isn't exactly what I'm experiencing. If that was the case how would you think MR would ever manage to gather such a large and tight knit group as they actually have? There's toxins in every human, not just particular groups or individuals. Sure some may be playing it out a bit more than others, but in the end noone is better or worse than anyone else. And well .. I'd say that judging another human as toxic, in itself might just be .. toxic.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Arvid

[Arvid 64]

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

Believing this to be possible is to be just plain naive. There's already been multiple attempts in that direction and the conclusion everytime has been that it just doesn't work.

[Othob Rithol 700]

Incompatible due to terraforming non-deed lands, the use of non-pvp alts to avoid safeguards and the incompatible definitions of grieifing. There has to be separate areas for the two play-styles, even if they are connected. The mistake I always see made in Wurm is extra cookies always given to pvp in order to incentivize it (which is grossly unfair to non-pvp players) and lack of safeguards to prevent exploitation of non-pvp zones (eg raiding Wild from the Home servers).

[metis 51]

Wow we are so close... I can almost feel the new world of PvP & PvE making a true union. Keep it up were almost there guys!

 

seriously tho I cant see this working. closet thing I can see is letting players flag then unflag themselves/Deeds for PvP. there by letting them choose when they want to PvP and when they want to PvE.

 

of course there will be issues but there are a TON of PvP/Pve game that use this type of system that creates a lock so when you flag your self your stuck for a certain period of time so you cant just attack then unflag so they cant attack you back. 

 

also make it a discount for PvP DEEDS because they will get raided and lose stuff but make it cheaper so its more appealing and also to make the "pain" a lot easier to bear for them so they don't get up and quit 1st time they get ganked. 

Edited July 13, 2014 by metis

[Othob Rithol 700]

That'd work except that Wurm has terraforming. There would be nothing stopping a group from using a second non-pvp deed to attack their neighbors by destroying the roads, digging pits, deforming mines etc. By the same token, there would be nothing to stop a group from building extensive off-deed defenses that negatively impact non-participants.

 

Having said all of this, I still support the idea of allowing deeds (with mutual agreement) to place themselves and their citizens at war with each other. Either deed should be able to cancel the war at will. This would have the caveat that, as far as the GM staff is concerned, anything done by the parties to each other or their deeds will not be referee'd but all off-deed activity (eg removing the highway leading to your enemy) is governed by the normal Freedom rules concerning grieifing and right of access. If two groups of players want to have a private little war for fun, as long as they don't impact others it should be allowed. 

[demondan 1,865]

Wth Gorgonkain, I find it exceptionally disrespectful for you to say such words. Especially when you are personally insulting everyone in the great community of ours. Do you not have a conscience? Are you so diluded with rage towards people you don't even know ?! None of us have ever heard of you until a few months ago when you jumped on Chaos, yet you use these personal insults on me and my friends constantly! Do you know me? Do you know my friends? No you don't. I deserve an apology from you and so do all my friends in MR. No one deserves to be called toxic, especially from someone that doesn't even know us.

[Hogwash 177]

someone give demondan a hug

[Eyesgood 2,121]

Wow we are so close... I can almost feel the new world of PvP & PvE making a true union. Keep it up were almost there guys!

 

seriously tho I cant see this working. closet thing I can see is letting players flag then unflag themselves/Deeds for PvP. there by letting them choose when they want to PvP and when they want to PvE.

 

of course there will be issues but there are a TON of PvP/Pve game that use this type of system that creates a lock so when you flag your self your stuck for a certain period of time so you cant just attack then unflag so they cant attack you back. 

 

also make it a discount for PvP DEEDS because they will get raided and lose stuff but make it cheaper so its more appealing and also to make the "pain" a lot easier to bear for them so they don't get up and quit 1st time they get ganked. 

 

This is probably the best solution I have yet read.  I would refine it thus for a unified ruleset: 

 

1.  Able to flag self as pvp.  Allows pvp of other flagged players.  3 HOUR LOCK on status (game time not real time).  No village raiding - only ability to PVP other flagged players.  No full loot.  Winner gets to choose 1 item from inventory of killed player (including worn items).

2.  Able to flag villages as pvp (members auto-flag for duration).  Allows raiding of other flagged villages (wars).  3 DAY LOCK on status (real time not game time).  Can kill any flagged player and raid any flagged village.  Full loot is available but only within the deed tiles of flagged villages.

3.  Villages receive a 75% reduction in upkeep every day they are flagged pvp and token drain is removed from the game.