Archived How To Make Pvp Valuable For Roleplayers

This suggestion has been archived / closed and can no longer be voted on.
Status
Not open for further replies.
TheComputerGeek2

TheComputerGeek2

Some guy trying to make things work
Staff member
Tech 2
Joined
Jan 17, 2014
Messages
205
Reaction score
142
Points
0
Half expecting everyone to flip out on this idea, but here it goes.

Allow character death to be a surrender term in wars again. However, I feel that for this to be effective, there need to be some restrictions.

The restrictions I have in mind so far include the following:
- A roleplay reason for the war must be given.
- If the character to be killed has an approved character application, there must be someone supporting the attacking side who also has an approved character application for the sake of not having unexplained hangings/other means of death.
- If the above is required, the member with the approved application should post their acceptance of the venture and specify which character of theirs will be responsible for the death.

What I don't yet know/would like some help with figuring out (mainly feedback from roleplayers here):
- What is the value of having a character killed off?
- Is this something you would consider engaging in as a supporter of an attacking faction?
- What else do you think would need to be done to make this successful/satisfactory?

Disclaimer: I do not expect this to do much for reviving pvp. I am not very familiar with roleplay here, so it is likely that I have overlooked various aspects (counting on you guys to help me fill this in a bit). My main purpose here is to form some better connections between roleplayers and pvpers.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
This suggestion has been closed. Votes are no longer accepted.
I think a better question would be, how to get role players to enjoy survival and the survival worlds. PvP just is so different from rp mainly because one uses minecraft mechanics and one uses backstories and stuff so i dont think the two translate as well together as roleplay and survival would
 
I mean, I guess it might encourage the use of mercs again. Plus, I mean, it won't hurt anything. If you don't want your character to die, just take max tribute since that's always a surrender option.

I think it should be taken into account, however, the possibility of leaders and officers pressuring lower ranking members into character deaths so that they can stop being raided, even if said member doesn't really want to.
 
jes_ said:
I mean, I guess it might encourage the use of mercs again. Plus, I mean, it won't hurt anything. If you don't want your character to die, just take max tribute since that's always a surrender option.

I think it should be taken into account, however, the possibility of leaders and officers pressuring lower ranking members into character deaths so that they can stop being raided, even if said member doesn't really want to.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Do we have a way that we could avoid it? Is it specifically lower ranking members that we have to worry about? The idea was already to list a specific character to have die, not just saying "any character death". Could we have rules about who may be targeted for character death?
 
That's what im saying. Of all the grievances roleplayers have against pvp, its that their characters should be judged on combat skill that they have in their backstory or roleplayed to achieve, not how fast the player can strafe and repot.
 
Zacatero said:
That's what im saying. Of all the grievances roleplayers have against pvp, its that their characters should be judged on combat skill that they have in their backstory or roleplayed to achieve, not how fast the player can strafe and repot.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
note that max tribute is ALWAYS an option, this is simply giving them another way out if they are willing to take it. Max tribute can never be withheld as a surrender term.
 
Illegalizing it for non-officers, or requiring explicit consent from the members might reduce it, but I'd rather see the rp community's opinion on the matter.
 
jes_ said:
Illegalizing it for non-officers, or requiring explicit consent from the members might reduce it, but I'd rather see the rp community's opinion on the matter.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Can we illegalize pressuring members to take the character death option after they have already said no? And I'd also like to hear from some roleplayers.

(would tag some if I had some idea on who might have input on this matter)
 
Often times, Roleplayers are reluctant to have their character's die even doing what they enjoy- being Roleplay. Having them be removed because of PVP would probably not sit well. Very few Roleplayers actually PVP and Raid, and it would probably result in fewer joining that side of the server, and even a few leaving it.

Instead of adding consequences for Roleplayers in Factions, it would probably be more beneficial to add perks and things for them to do.
 
I'll be completely honest with you - this idea won't work. It will, in fact, do the opposite of what you want. Instead of getting roleplayers interested in PvP, it will give them yet another reason to avoid combat outside of roleplay. The loss of a character that a player has used for any duration of time is crushing to that player, especially if the character is a well-developed character with an expansive background.

I understand that as a PvPer you may not realize the amount of effort that goes into a single character, but make no mistake: as much effort goes into making & developing a good character as goes into getting your skill & stats up to par with other PvPers. To lose that would be the equivalent of surrender terms including the resetting of your account (McMMo, Money, Items).
 
I honestly think a better idea would be to have some way to both make survival RP as canonical as Regalian RP, yet somehow guarentee a character's life in the process

THIS in my opinion would be something to make it worthwhile for roleplayers to build and RP in survival
 
conflicttFTW said:
Often times, Roleplayers are reluctant to have their character's die even doing what they enjoy- being Roleplay. Having them be removed because of PVP would probably not sit well. Very few Roleplayers actually PVP and Raid, and it would probably result in fewer joining that side of the server, and even a few leaving it.

Instead of adding consequences for Roleplayers in Factions, it would probably be more beneficial to add perks and things for them to do.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
As far as I'm aware, that means that we have a safety by requiring the attacking party to be supported by someone with an approved character application. My intention was that we would be able to have rpers authorizing the war in terms of the rp value. Rather than pvpers seeking the character death, it would be pvpers fighting on behalf of rpers for a specific outcome.

Mecharic said:
I'll be completely honest with you - this idea won't work. It will, in fact, do the opposite of what you want. Instead of getting roleplayers interested in PvP, it will give them yet another reason to avoid combat outside of roleplay. The loss of a character that a player has used for any duration of time is crushing to that player, especially if the character is a well-developed character with an expansive background.

I understand that as a PvPer you may not realize the amount of effort that goes into a single character, but make no mistake: as much effort goes into making & developing a good character as goes into getting your skill & stats up to par with other PvPers. To lose that would be the equivalent of surrender terms including the resetting of your account (McMMo, Money, Items).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Would it be better to amend it to create a permanent injury to the character instead of death?
 
The way I figured it from reading wasn't that any characters would die during the process, but just that they would lose control of their 'land' aka their shanty towns?
 
TheComputerGeek2 said:
Would it be better to amend it to create a permanent injury to the character instead of death?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Honestly? No. Roleplayers control their characters except under certain easy-to-understand rules. They decide when a character gets serious hurt or suffers a permanent injury, not some other player who has nothing invested in the character being harmed. The idea that other players can control what happens to a character is the primary flaw in this idea - it would be much better to do what Zac suggested, where survival factions, players, and events can be incorporated into lore. I'm actually gonna post a suggestion thread to that end, to see what happens.
 
Mecharic said:
Honestly? No. Roleplayers control their characters except under certain easy-to-understand rules. They decide when a character gets serious hurt or suffers a permanent injury, not some other player who has nothing invested in the character being harmed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You seem to be forgetting that they do still control there character. They can choose not to use the given surrender term. They may receive a heavy prompt to take certain actions with their character, but they don't lose control over it.
 
TheComputerGeek2 said:
You seem to be forgetting that they do still control there character. They can choose not to use the given surrender term. They may receive a heavy prompt to take certain actions with their character, but they don't lose control over it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But they do. Roleplayers aren't PvPers. They will never be PvPers. When it comes down to a battle between a PvP Faction and a Roleplay Faction, the Roleplay Faction will always lose. They have no control over that except to stop roleplaying and start grinding, which is completely pointless for them since they can just ignore the PvPers by going to Regalia or building their city in an underground cave rather than on the surface. There is little for them to gain through surrender including injury.

Now, I'm not saying to dump the idea. I see no reason not to allow PvP factions to have "Character dies/is injured" as an optional surrender term. I just can't see any Roleplayers ever giving a PvPer that much influence over their character or story.
 
Mecharic said:
Now, I'm not saying to dump the idea. I see no reason not to allow PvP factions to have "Character dies/is injured" as an optional surrender term. I just can't see any Roleplayers ever giving a PvPer that much influence over their character or story.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Given our assumption that most pvpers don't roleplay, we should also assume that they don't have an approved character application. The reason I mentioned that there would need to be an approved character supporting the attacking side is so that we don't have pvpers just choosing to get characters killed off. And last I saw, character death was not a legal surrender term for some reason. Given your prior comparison to mcMMO stats, I'd also be down for allowing mcMMO stat reset to be a possible surrender term if it isn't already.

The main point of this is to just make character influence a valid option for surrender, not to force it to be the preferred means of surrender, but for it to be allowed.
 
TheComputerGeek2 said:
The main point of this is to just make character influence a valid option for surrender, not to force it to be the preferred means of surrender, but for it to be allowed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I like the idea of options, but most of these are a bit much. Characters take hours and hours to make. And MCMMO is a grind to get up to any real level. Perhaps some less extreme options.
 
conflicttFTW said:
I like the idea of options, but most of these are a bit much. Characters take hours and hours to make. And MCMMO is a grind to get up to any real level. Perhaps some less extreme options.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Point was that the action itself should be allowed if the max tribute is high enough so that the alternate surrender terms do not exceed it. Part of why I asked before on value of characters. This isn't saying that character death should be the only thing allowed, but it is saying that it shouldn't be explicitly disallowed even if max tribute were to be extremely high.
 
I just see this in a sketchy grey area of what a character app can do.

Obviously having it approved means that the character is canonized with the lore, meaning they get all the perks with it.

The problem, and grey area, is that factions aren't canon.

Sure, the regions are canon, but not the actual factions. It could be canonically possible to have a character in a conflict in these regions, but also not canon at the same time, given the current setting of "everything is kinda hell except around Regalia."

So, let's just assume we can make the death canon. Here's how it will sound: "player was killed in a recent skirmish between two minor nomadic tribes in soandsoland." That's it. While it looks fine and paper, most RPers would consider this to be a pretty lackluster finale to their character. Most people want to go out with a bang, and have some meaning overall. This undermines that for a lot of RPers.

If this was a possible surrender term, more than likely RPers will just pay the max tribute. If they don't have the money, they'll probably find some other way to surrender.
 
FireFan96 said:
I just see this in a sketchy grey area of what a character app can do.

Obviously having it approved means that the character is canonized with the lore, meaning they get all the perks with it.

The problem, and grey area, is that factions aren't canon.

Sure, the regions are canon, but not the actual factions. It could be canonically possible to have a character in a conflict in these regions, but also not canon at the same time, given the current setting of "everything is kinda hell except around Regalia."

So, let's just assume we can make the death canon. Here's how it will sound: "player was killed in a recent skirmish between two minor nomadic tribes in soandsoland." That's it. While it looks fine and paper, most RPers would consider this to be a pretty lackluster finale to their character. Most people want to go out with a bang, and have some meaning overall. This undermines that for a lot of RPers.

If this was a possible surrender term, more than likely RPers will just pay the max tribute. If they don't have the money, they'll probably find some other way to surrender.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
would it satisfy the quality requirements to instead of having the character die immediately, have them instead agree to play out an incident where the same end is meet? This seems like it would offer more room for quality.

Also, I am completely ok with them not selecting the option if they surrender. I just want it to be legal to list it as a possible term.
 
TheComputerGeek2 said:
would it satisfy the quality requirements to instead of having the character die immediately, have them instead agree to play out an incident where the same end is meet? This seems like it would offer more room for quality.

Also, I am completely ok with them not selecting the option if they surrender. I just want it to be legal to list it as a possible term.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
possibly. Honestly I'm not the best person to comment on the actual system. But I will say it is a unique alternative to max tribute, and if somebody wants to kill their character in a faction skirmish, then that's their choice. It really depends on who you ask, because some people are more attached to characters than others.
 
The flip side of the coin is that what if some faction just has a guy who studies the lore and makes a ton of character sheets and has members get approved trash characters they never use to build up a shield.
 
conflicttFTW said:
The flip side of the coin is that what if some faction just has a guy who studies the lore and makes a ton of character sheets and has members get approved trash characters they never use to build up a shield.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Already have a way of dealing with that: the attacking party specifies which character will be accepted for the death tribute. If someone specifies a character that was a trash char, that is on them. I trust the intelligence of people enough to determine what they want.

And just to clarify, this is only proposing that character death is legal to list as a surrender term, not that it is required to be listed. By contrast, max tribute is always required to be an option.
 
I could get raided right this second(im mainly an rper) and I honestly wouldn't give a piece of feces. I would honestly just sit in my room and tp regalia. I honestly don't have anything near what said "max tribute" is. So I mean, that is why I don't see why rpers are so afraid of survival. This is why I feel that pvpers are just trying to get more victims as suggested by many as it sounds as if they are trying to get more "easy targets" into the pvp field which drop "good loot" I am not meaning this offensively to pvpers or rpers but I really feel as if rpers shouldn't be so afraid of survival worlds especially because traits make it LITERALLY impossible to die in the factions world unless you are attacked by raiders. And for the rpers who think that the factions worlds are brutal waistlands in which wars never end and barbarians war for the lands. THAT IS ENTIRELY UNTRUE. I leave regalia maybe once a week. I haven't died of actual caringness in 5 MONTHS! FIVE! FIVE MONTHS! and that was before I knew about the traits and about the shop system entirely. Factions is really easy man. like seriosly- traits make you literally invulnerable to ANY attacks from mobs-invulnerable to starvation-invulnerable to guardian attacks(by swimming away fast enough)-you pretty much CAN'T DIE! Even if you are raided-just /bp real quick or go inside. Its literally that simple.
 
While this idea is very creative, it offers no hook to roleplayers. I see two major issues here.

Firstly, I (as a strict role player) never go to the factions world anyways, it's just not my territory and I know I have no place there whatsoever.

Secondly, why would I risk an approved character I have poured hours into in a pointless skirmish between me and some faction that wants my Regals? Honestly, I don't even need to fight them at all. I just /tp to regalia and my problems are solved. There is nothing about PvP that interests me in the slightest.
.
Again, it is a creative idea, but it needs a hook to succeed.
 
With respect, PvP is never going to be valuable to someone if they were never interested in it in the first place. Speaking as a roleplayer who has been trampled on by PvPers with unreasonable terms in the past, all I see in this suggestion is another way for PvPers to have the run of the world. So this has basically no appeal to roleplayers, unless you were actively looking for an easy way to get a character of yours killed off for any reason.

The bottom line is that this won't do what you think it will do for RP/PvP interactions- if anything, it will only cultivate more resentment. Think of it this way; if roleplayers are reluctant to enter faction-worlds as it is, why would they be any more likely to do so with the added risk of losing their roleplay character?
 
I do not believe that this has any appeal to rpers; why even enter the factions world when the same result might be achieved in the roleplay world? Why would a roleplayer run that risk and enter the factions world?
 
Parz1vol said:
The answer is simple. We don't.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I was feeling edgy when I typed this. Allow me to provide constructive criticism.

Reading through the OP tells me that you haven't yet grasped how the RP world is treated by players. We don't gain personally from killing off our characters, what we do gain is the risk. Massive uses a merit system, and taking big risk equals big reward. I don't see that system working in pvp.
 
FireFan96 said:
I just see this in a sketchy grey area of what a character app can do.

Obviously having it approved means that the character is canonized with the lore, meaning they get all the perks with it.

The problem, and grey area, is that factions aren't canon.

Sure, the regions are canon, but not the actual factions. It could be canonically possible to have a character in a conflict in these regions, but also not canon at the same time, given the current setting of "everything is kinda hell except around Regalia."

So, let's just assume we can make the death canon. Here's how it will sound: "player was killed in a recent skirmish between two minor nomadic tribes in soandsoland." That's it. While it looks fine and paper, most RPers would consider this to be a pretty lackluster finale to their character. Most people want to go out with a bang, and have some meaning overall. This undermines that for a lot of RPers.

If this was a possible surrender term, more than likely RPers will just pay the max tribute. If they don't have the money, they'll probably find some other way to surrender.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Go out with a bang you say?
image.jpeg
 
TheComputerGeek2 said:
Half expecting everyone to flip out on this idea, but here it goes.

Allow character death to be a surrender term in wars again. However, I feel that for this to be effective, there need to be some restrictions.

The restrictions I have in mind so far include the following:
- A roleplay reason for the war must be given.
- If the character to be killed has an approved character application, there must be someone supporting the attacking side who also has an approved character application for the sake of not having unexplained hangings/other means of death.
- If the above is required, the member with the approved application should post their acceptance of the venture and specify which character of theirs will be responsible for the death.

What I don't yet know/would like some help with figuring out (mainly feedback from roleplayers here):
- What is the value of having a character killed off?
- Is this something you would consider engaging in as a supporter of an attacking faction?
- What else do you think would need to be done to make this successful/satisfactory?

Disclaimer: I do not expect this to do much for reviving pvp. I am not very familiar with roleplay here, so it is likely that I have overlooked various aspects (counting on you guys to help me fill this in a bit). My main purpose here is to form some better connections between roleplayers and pvpers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

In the past we had a "roleplay reason" necessary for raiding/wars but we received a lot of complaints that this was too restricting, even though the roleplay reason was very flexible - it wound up just being a silly requirement when it was so easy to make up a roleplay reason on the spot, how true or untrue that reason may have been. Just like we don't want to "force" PvP on roleplayers, we don't want to "force" roleplay on PvPrs.

Forcing lore character death in a survival situation will never happen as there are too many IC variables that won't match up with OOC variables. Obviously, if two people agree to duel it out in PvP at the expense of one of their characters dying this is their own prerogative but it will never be enforced by staff. From personal past experience through observations of others and friends, if you have your character forcibly killed in a situation you feel unprepared for or are unready to let said character die- it leaves an extremely negative taste and be difficult to rebound from. Many people place a lot of attachment on their characters, for one reason or another.

I am going to reject this suggestion as it is not going to encourage roleplayers to PvP. It may even do the opposite.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom