Open world combat pvp just seem not fitting to existing lore and ideas that devs provided us as of now. Just look for Travelers' story shorts on youtube - its all about rebuilding civilization, finding new friends, sharing and cooperation. Whatever war related events happend in the past of this world - it lead to the downfall of society
#.
devout hearth
harsh sparrow
If I'm reading this right, you want territory outside of a claim's protection to be a PvP enabled zone. I vehemently disagree with that take. The moment PvP is no longer optional is the moment I leave BitCraft forever
rigid spade
There's plenty of games with open world PvP... we don't need bitcraft to become one
"It's not making pvp non optional, you can just hide in/around your town" is a wild take
devout hearth
Devs stated their vision of pvp so many times now...
rigid spade
^
devout hearth
We can have SO MANY environmental dangers insdead of combat pvp
edgy merlin
go play EVE or Albion, or Rust, or <insert sandbox game with PvP>.
This game (and its community) has a staunch policy against PvP. the fact it's being added at all (dueling/ possibly part of empires) has been divisive, let alone the idea of making most of the wilderness, unsafe as is, more unsafe by adding ganking baked into it..... no.
Additionally, I feel PvP is a simple tool to fall back on when lacking creative solutions to problems. On a personal note, as someone who loves EVE PvP and everything that goes into it, I truly think there's something special here in terms of design, by choosing to not have PvP baked in at a foundational 1v1 level of a social sandbox mmorpg.
shy lark
Honestly, I think the ideal 'compromise' is allowing players to construct arenas. Dueling/PVP could take place in said arenas if people want to fight each other through combat for whatever reason, but I'd really prefer to not see combat-type PVP outside of that.
harsh sparrow
One of the core tenets of BitCraft is that being around other players is generally a good thing. Opt-in PvP like duels or empire disputes (which are solely cosmetic) is fine. But players should not have to be wary of one another if they meet in the wilderness or on a long voyage
edgy merlin
The game doesn't need the added audience from those games, and even if they did come around, they would always lobby for less safety, and that would push the original audience away.
If you try and appeal to everyone, you'll appeal to no one, because in the process of making it appealing for everyone, you'll lose what made it appealing in the first place.
Also sorry to interrupt, but may I ask, how much have you looked into the game and the community? I only do so as I notice you've only recently joined the Discord, and if you are new and haven't read up on things, I feel there's material I could point you to, so we can conversate with more shared knowledge of the game and the philosophy the creators have.
shy lark
The majority consensus is that people don't want PVP that you can't opt out of.
People will accept it if it's its own side activity that won't restrict what you're allowed to do elsewhere, aka dedicated arenas, or duels, etc. Those are fine. The problem with open world, on-by-default PVP is, you can't opt out of that... not without effectively caging yourself inside a town's borders which does heavily restrict what you're allowed to do (which is why people don't like the idea of it)
keen iron
Traveling to different biomes is a necessary part of a game.
You can read some of the devs thoughts: #dev-faq message
harsh sparrow
Another thing to consider is that Bitcraft is often considered a "second monitor" game. There's a lot of downtime when your character is doing something while you tab out and do something else. Even the inclusion of PVE combat was controversial because jackals disrupted the ability for players to step away from the game. Roaming bandits would be an even bigger can of worms
edgy merlin
I in no way intended to attack you or your character, deepest apologies for that. My intent was to point out that I feel you simply don't know yet about exactly why PvP combat has been treated as a "No no subject", and not to consider you incapable of presenting good ideas.
A foundation of knowledge is imperative in discussion of additions to a game. keeping a new perspective is fine, but it needs the knowledge to temper it, lest it (in example, not in comparison of your actions) try to attempt to turn a Cozy Game into a Sweat Game. Your idea isn't bad, btw, it just doesn't fit the game that the developers and the community want to make/play, respectively.
(I meant to reply to your other message. not the proximal one, apologies)
harsh sparrow
Unless you plan on paving the whole biome that won't be enough. There's a lot of exploring the wilderness involved in most professions. For example, during A3 I scoured the majority of one of the continents searching for uncommon scholar materials. The vast majority of that was wilderness, way out of throwing distance from the nearest settlement or road. It was an hours long process and the fear of player bandits chasing me down would have convinced me to not bother at all
edgy merlin
Furthermore, the idea isn't worth exploring, as the foundational intent of its addition go against the philosophy of opt-in pvp. By the nature of having PvP being allowed freely outside of claims reach teaches players to stay near their homes to not participate in PvP. This isn't opt-in pvp. it's opt-out pvp. the current implementation is about allowing free travel to any particular spot should you have the tools to get there (boats for crossing sea, mounts for crossing land). Players prompt each other into combat via friendly duel, perhaps placing a bet where the winner takes all. It's additionally been considered for use in Empire v Empire combat, where soldiers or mercenaries confront each other on the field for control of a tower. It's about Opting into PvP, rather than opting out of it.
harsh sparrow
I think you can roughly categorize the people attracted to the PvP side of MMOs into two groups:
-PvP players who want to fight other PvP players
-PvP players who want to seal-club non-PvP players
Opt-in PvP caters to the former, opt-out PvP caters to the latter. Personally, I think Bitcraft's community is better off without the latter group entirely
devout hearth
Also, a fight between players in the style of alpha 3 combat would not be very interesting for either side ))
full haven
Strip out the PvP arguments and focus on PvE adversity and I can support the title text. Otherwise, +1 for what Chewy said; The moment PvP is forced is the moment I sigh and keep searching for a PvE focused built sandbox.
fringe elbow
Strip out the PvP arguments and focus on PvE adversity and I can support the tit...
Project Zomboid is best PvE focused sandbox
The only enemy is yourself
final zealot
I think there is plenty of room for opt-in PVP events for this game that could be fun for players who enjoy PVP and not disrupt the overall PVE ethos of the game. Events that spawn in a McGuffin you fight over, optionally toggled knock-down PVP where you don't lose items (similar to 'yellow zone' PVP in Albion), etc. But, there are soooo many other systems I'd rather see the devs focus on first.
shy lark
Yeah, it really does boil down to "PVP is fine, as long as it's opt in."
As Chewy so perfectly described it- the people against PVP aren't necessarily against PVP itself, they're against the idea of PVPers running around seal-clubbing people who don't want to be seal-clubbed. And I personally agree with that take.
limpid cloud
full haven
Project Zomboid is best PvE focused sandbox
I've dabbled in that one. Just haven't had a group stick with it for longer game sessions. I guess that's where the MMo part can mutate a games staying power. Funny enough, I thought Zomboid would have Full PvP, similar to Conan Exiles, Atlas, etc. I've just played those in small groups on private sessions that it wasn't a concern xD.
That all said, I did forget to add the 'opt-in PvP is fine too' statement. In my mind, PvP opt-in is on track to grow through the Empire system additions and we can have duels/arenas upkept by those interested in that on the settlement layer. I'd prefer Dev focus/work hours be pushed towards PvE events/enrichment rather than balancing PvP. I've always assumed similar built games that are focused on PvP end up having less on the PvE side due to that focus. Hence why I probably come off like an angry bear anytime someone comes in and says "actually, this needs full loot PvP to be fun, trust me I'm a psychologist". Probably an evolutionary psychologist...
narrow forge
Would like to add, when discussing this, I do feel it's important to distinguish between PvP combat (killing other players) and PvP in general. Fall guys is a PvP game, but I don't think something like Fall Guys where you are doing low stakes minigames with people is something that would be a deterrent. I know this thread has different context to pull from though of course.
ionic temple
Because we have played the game and know that there's no way to extend your "proximal safety" effectively. You have to travel all over the world and go way off the beaten path to gather resources.
No one here wants to have PVP. We're not doing a logical fallacy. People were drawn to this game because of its unique take on what an MMO could be.
full haven
Maybe I lost something in translation, but that pearl thing sounds horrifying. A player could just be locked out of content on the whim of other players? Sounds like some other PvP features I've seen that are cool for willing participants but... "Freedom" is not just a coded word for "Powerful people can dominate others in ways they find fun".
I like Freedom, which is why I advocate for ways for people to have fun without being 'forced' into other people's fun. I also prefer specific ideas, rather than vague philosophicals. The Pearl thing as a specific example, while interesting, sounds like a domination tool. Do you have any other examples that promote your idea of freedom that does not involve forced PvP?
shy lark
We also could effectively remove players from the game by binding their soul to a pearl and keeping them in The End.
And this is exactly the kind of "seal-clubbing" that people are saying they do not want.
Keep this in mind: The CivCraft server you're talking about as a bastion of "absolute freedom" is only one minecraft server out of many. If you find its rules unpalatable, you can just pick another minecraft server that plays by different rules. It's a classic case of survivorship bias: Everyone playing that server is fine with the idea of "absolute freedom" because everyone who isn't.... either avoided joining that server, left because they didn't like it, or was driven out by players who want the "freedom" to punch down on other players.
There's a reason even WoW (world of WARcraft) had specific PVP-enabled servers, alongside normal servers- that way, people still had a choice at the start of the game whether they wanted to be subjected to the constant risk of being attacked by the opposite faction.
Bitcraft, however, has one, single, world. It's a huge marketing point for the game, even. There aren't going to be any alternative worlds for those who prefer to play by "different rules".
final zealot
To echo what others have said, it seems like you are using "absolute freedom" as code for "if I can't kill people and take their stuff I am being oppressed". Am I misunderstanding? If that is accurate, that simply isn't what this game is being developed for. It's so clear from everything I've read and watched from the devs that cooperation and working together is the core of this game, and I don't see any way that making the wilderness into a place where players kill each other on a whim helps that aim. Making the wilderness dangerous through adding areas where "here be monsters" adds a layer of danger and also plays to the core of encouraging players to work together to overcome the obstacles posed by the monster. If I am misunderstanding I'd love to hear specific ideas of what you are thinking would be a value add.
loud elm
from this point, maybe if there is going to be some kind of PVP anyway, there could also be a PVP-related traveler. When one is wandering in the wilderness and approaches a ruin, one could possibly be attacked by this traveler if they happen to be inhabiting the ruin. Would make approaching ruins a little more edgy. It doesn't have to be an overwhelming attack - maybe just some sort of golem subservient to the traveler . . .
edgy merlin
Freedom only works when everyone is allowed to exercise it at all times. there's no point to having "freedom" to perform certain actions, if those actions lead to taking away the freedom of others.
in wow, the pvp system there works, because the game is built from roleplay lore/background, and mechanically, to support this. It also isn't punishing if you lose to another player, beyond needing to do "the walk of shame". At most, you need(ed) to call on some max level players/characters to stop the seal clubbing. This is so because the game is not a sandbox mmorpg, it's a themepark mmorpg. 1/2
shy lark
from this point, maybe if there is going to be some kind of PVP anyway, there co...
If it's not a player attacking, it'd be PVE, not PVP. But yes- There's plenty of ways to make the wilderness more dangerous without adding direct conflict between players to the mix.
fringe elbow
Guys guys, there already is PVP. Player created leaderboards.
steep furnace
.
fringe elbow
I guess that's 1 way to stop the back and forth
harsh sparrow
Perhaps we were a bit harsh, but I'm not sure what they expected. They joined the server yesterday so my assumption is that they've never even played any of the alphas. They likely saw the PvP dev video, learned that pvp was opt-in only, and decided to immediately come here and suggest we make it opt-out
edgy merlin
My long post about how EVE and Albion are what they're looking for. shrug.
full haven
Perhaps we were a bit harsh, but I'm not sure what they expected. They joined th...
I'll be harsh. If you advocate for the 'full' PvP experience and cannot handle a CareBear dog pile... Then you weren't ready to advocate for full PvP.
final zealot
The only thing I feel bad about is that I assumed they were trolling and trying to get us riled up. Turns out it was an earnest question. End of day, this is just the wrong game for them, better they find out now than wait for 30 days and learn in EA.
edgy merlin
Perhaps we were a bit harsh, but I'm not sure what they expected. They joined th...
also, yeah, I find it's the newest players who have the most, in no hurtful terms, outrageous suggestions.
it comes with not knowing about the why of things, only that things are a way. You see it in places like Blockgame (PirateSoftware's/Thor's sandbox mmo).
harsh sparrow
It may have been an earnest question but when they brought up CivCraft I knew exactly what kind of person they are. I did my time on Minecraft servers like that. They're hives of scum and villainy
We do not want BitCraft to be like those servers
full haven
It may have been an earnest question but when they brought up CivCraft I knew ex...
nods I'm ignorant on CivCraft but that pearl thing just sounded... well I'm glad to have it confirmed my judgement of what they were advocating for. I do grow tired of people dressing that gameplay as 'freedom' to lure the unsuspecting into it. If you can't be transparent about the domination fun of the gameplay, then... well I suppose deceit is part of that 'gameplay loop'.