"Civilized PvP system"

[Brian9824]

None needs to shallow any pills, nothing makes everything better for everyone. That's why there are options for different tastes. And there is already pvp in this game, it just isn't the focus and none asked for pvp to be its focus or be obligatory, so what's your point?

 

 

The issue is nearly every game that adds pvp results in a degraded experience for PvE. They are literally two totally different games and are often conflicting in terms of mechanics and balance.

[RestInPieces]

The issue is nearly every game that adds pvp results in a degraded experience for PvE. They are literally two totally different games and are often conflicting in terms of mechanics and balance.

 

They are not two different games. I understand that most modern games will give you that impression though. As for the degraded PvE experience it's only because it is not done correctly.

[Brian9824]

They are not two different games. I understand that most modern games will give you that impression though. As for the degraded PvE experience it's only because it is not done correctly.

 

Name a single game that is both PvP and PvE where introducing PvP hasn't resulted in issues with PvE? The entire point is I've yet to see ANY game that has a seamless PvE and PvP mode without nerfs/issues bleeding between modes and effecting PvE.

[zombie4hire]

I wholly agree. PvP and PvE should be different games entirely. Shoehorning both experiences in the same game does not work.

[RestInPieces]

Name a single game that is both PvP and PvE where introducing PvP hasn't resulted in issues with PvE? The entire point is I've yet to see ANY game that has a seamless PvE and PvP mode without nerfs/issues bleeding between modes and effecting PvE.

 

UO, Shadowbane, T4C, Lineage, MU, KO, Eve and many others - all of the older mmos included. I made it work in a minecraft server with builders. Let me guess - you will mention Rust, DayZ which virtually have no PvE, Arc which lets other players destroy people's hard work when they are offline and the h1z1 cashgrab.

 

But none should think like that in the first place - the "if other games didn't make it work, it won't work - and this conversation would be more constructive if you analyzed the reasons why, instead of (both of us) making examples that are anything but credible because of various other factors.

[Brian9824]

UO, Shadowbane, T4C, Lineage, MU, KO, Eve and many others all of the older mmos included. I made it work in a minecraft server with builders. Let me guess - you will mention Rust, DayZ which virtually have no PvE, Arc which lets other players destroy people's hard work when they are offline and the h1z1 cashgrab.

 

But none should think like that in the first place - the "if other games didn't make it work, it won't work - and this conversation would be more constructive if you analyzed the reasons why instead of (both of us) making examples that are anything but credible because of various other factors.

 

Well for one your entire list seems to be MMO's which are a totally different type of game then this, but here you go. This was found in literally 5 minutes of searching. If i wanted to spend more time I could find a ton more examples.

 

Eve - Complaints about pvp nerfs effecting PvE -

 

MU - http://forum.webzen.com/forum/en/mu-legend-english/mu-legend-english-forum/general-discussion/2297767-no-nerfs-buffs-only-politic

 

ESO - https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/382659/should-zenimax-separate-pvp-from-pve-balancing-etc

 

Destiny 2 - https://www.bungie.net/en/Forums/Post/227061088?sort=0&page=0

 

Ark - https://survivetheark.com/index.php?/forums/topic/168691-should-pvp-nerfs-effect-pve/

 

 

I can post hundreds of games that have the same issue, i'm not that familiar with all of your abbrieviations or i'd post more.

 

The problem is you have to start adjusting mechanics like zombie spawning, damage, etc and that bleeds over into PvE. Just effecting the boosts skills do or trying to balance the game so that a new person has a chance joining an established server bleeds over into PvE.

 

For most of those games you posted classes get nerfed because one class is overpowered in PvP, however that nerf effects PvE as well. I've seen it happen with EVERY MMO in existence, and it will continue to happen because the only way to avoid it would be to literally program two totally different skill sets for use in PvP and PvE which basically makes it a seperate game. Otherwise every change to balance PvP is going to effect PvE

 

As its been said before there are thousands of PvP games out there, but very few cooperative games like 7dtd. So i'm glad the dev's have said that PvP is not their focus and that it takes a backseat to PvE. Clearly their strategy has been working well for them.

[RestInPieces]

I can post hundreds of games that have the same issue, i'm not that familiar with all of your abbrieviations or i'd post more.

 

The problem is you have to start adjusting mechanics like zombie spawning, damage, etc and that bleeds over into PvE. Just effecting the boosts skills do or trying to balance the game so that a new person has a chance joining an established server bleeds over into PvE.

 

For most of those games you posted classes get nerfed because one class is overpowered in PvP, however that nerf effects PvE as well. I've seen it happen with EVERY MMO in existence, and it will continue to happen because the only way to avoid it would be to literally program two totally different skill sets for use in PvP and PvE which basically makes it a seperate game. Otherwise every change to balance PvP is going to effect PvE

 

They are one of the most comparable types in fact - long term open world with the possibility of both pve and pvp elements. In UO and Shadowbane you could also build.

 

If you search enough you can find complaints about anything really. Most of which stem from the need to balance everything to absolute equality - which can't really happen in any RPG. Most are contented with shifting the meta every now and then e.g. wow. It proves absolutely nothing. But as I said this is a wrong way of thinking in the first place.

 

You do know that they can just use two values of damage for PvE/PvP separate from each other with just a couple of lines of code on a weapon for example, right? They don't have to touch absolutely anything in PvE. In fact they can adjust the values in a way that skills in 7dtd wouldn't even matter, so I don't see much value to this argument.

 

But again, why should they be absolutely equal in the first place? Would they be equally equipped in a realistic situation? No. Doesn't the newly joined player, after a protection period, have more than enough odds to beat an old player? I don't see why he doesn't or why you find the lack of absolute equality intolerable - it is not even realistic.

[Brian9824]

They are one of the most comparable types in fact - long term open world with the possibility of both pve and pvp elements. In UO and Shadowbane you could also build.

 

If you search enough you can find complaints about anything really. Most of which stem from the need to balance everything to absolute equality - which can't really happen in any RPG. Most are contented with shifting the meta every now and then e.g. wow. It proves absolutely nothing. But as I said this is a wrong way of thinking in the first place.

 

You do know that they can just use two values of damage for PvE/PvP separate from each other with just a couple of lines of code on a weapon for example, right? They don't have to touch absolutely anything in PvE. In fact they can adjust the values in a way that skills in 7dtd wouldn't even matter, so I don't see much value to this argument.

 

But again, why should they be absolutely equal in the first place? Would they be equally equipped in a realistic situation? No. Doesn't the newly joined player, after a protection period, have more than enough odds to beat an old player? I don't see why he doesn't or why you find the lack of absolute equality intolerable - it is not even realistic.

 

MMO's are not really comparible at all. The comparable games would be Empyrion, Ark, Rust, Day Z, Project Zomboid, Survive the nights, H1Z1, etc. All small scale local player games many whom don't have official servers or shared worlds and focus on smaller amounts of players on a map.

 

Ok, so now that I found examples your agreeing that PvP nerfs DO effect PvE. Got it.

 

It's nowhere near as simple as using 2 values for PvP/PvE, clearly you haven't been listening. Everything from skills, loot spawning, zombie damage, block durability, SI, survival mechanics, horde mechanics, etc are effected.

 

Here is a simple example. With the change to 7 day horde each person contributes to more zombie spawnings. Well a LCB only protects against player damage. 3-4 people could easily go around on horde nights and pull zombies to poeple's bases and use the zombies to destroy their base as it provides no protection against their damage. So the mechanic works GREAT for cooperative as people working togethor get larger hordes proportionate to their numbers, but works horribly for PvP. So fundamental changes have to be done if you want to have both PvE and PvP in a game.

 

Or back before A16 they had to change water mechanics because it was a absolutely devastating way to grief people yet worked fine in PvE for filling up areas with water.

 

Also I never said a new player joining a server had to be "absolutely equal" please don't put words in my mouth. I said they had to have a chance which is very different. If the game is skewed so badly that skill can't overcome raw levels then its not fun and it will drive people away.

[RestInPieces]

Ok, so now that I found examples your agreeing that PvP nerfs DO effect PvE. Got it.

They don't have to touch absolutely anything in PvE

I don't think you quite got it...

and I keep telling you that "finding examples" is futile because there are myriads of other underlying reasons of why it didn't work in the recently released similar games you like to compare it with.

 

It's nowhere near as simple as using 2 values for PvP/PvE, clearly you haven't been listening. Everything from skills, loot spawning, zombie damage, block durability, SI, survival mechanics, horde mechanics, etc are effected.

 

I've been listening what you think that should be done. Listening is different to agreeing though. Please go ahead and elaborate on why they would have to change skills if the pvp damage value isn't affected by them, loot spawning, zombie damage, block durability, SI, survival mechanics, horde mechanics etc.

 

Here is a simple example. With the change to 7 day horde each person contributes to more zombie spawnings. Well a LCB only protects against player damage. 3-4 people could easily go around on horde nights and pull zombies to poeple's bases and use the zombies to destroy their base as it provides no protection against their damage. So the mechanic works GREAT for cooperative as people working togethor get larger hordes proportionate to their numbers, but works horribly for PvP. So fundamental changes have to be done if you want to have both PvE and PvP in a game.

 

And the whole game must obviously be changed to combat this typical kind of griefing! First of all, when owners are offline their land will just simply have to be protected. And if they are in their base, zombies hone in on the players anyway, leading to a very interesting situation where the ones running on the outside are at a disadvantage. If they are out exploring on that horde night, there are more ways to combat it like player proximity to the claim block to ensure a fair and engaging fight. No fundamental changes to what already exists, have to be done.

 

Or back before A16 they had to change water mechanics because it was a absolutely devastating way to grief people yet worked fine in PvE for filling up areas with water.

Which is completely irrelevant with pvp, since it could be done on any co-op server and they did well to change it, so what is your point?

 

Also I never said a new player joining a server had to be "absolutely equal" please don't put words in my mouth. I said they had to have a chance which is very different. If the game is skewed so badly that skill can't overcome raw levels then its not fun and it will drive people away.

 

So you don't have any problems with the players not being absolutely equal, but you just don't think that a new player will stand a chance of beating an old player after a, say, a grace period of one week, when the pvp damage value of weapons makes them roughly equal? How exactly wouldn't they stand a chance?

[Brian9824]

I don't think you quite got it...

and I keep telling you that "finding examples" is futile because there are myriads of other underlying reasons of why it didn't work in the recently released similar games you like to compare it with.

 

 

 

I've been listening what you think that should be done. Listening is different to agreeing though. Please go ahead and elaborate on why they would have to change skills if the pvp damage value isn't affected by them, loot spawning, zombie damage, block durability, SI, survival mechanics, horde mechanics etc.

 

 

 

And the whole game must obviously be changed to combat this typical kind of griefing! First of all, when owners are offline their land will just simply have to be protected. And if they are in their base, zombies hone in on the players anyway, leading to a very interesting situation where the ones running on the outside are at a disadvantage. If they are out exploring on that horde night, there are more ways to combat it like player proximity to the claim block to ensure a fair and engaging fight. No fundamental changes to what already exists, have to be done.

 

 

Which is completely irrelevant with pvp, since it could be done on any co-op server and they did well to change it, so what is your point?

 

 

 

So you don't have any problems with the players not being absolutely equal, but you just don't think that a new player will stand a chance of beating an old player after a, say, a grace period of one week, when the pvp damage value of weapons makes them equal? How exactly wouldn't they have a chance?

 

Again it looks like your just arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

It's been proven that time and time again PvP changes effect PvE. You've admitted that its true and it happens with balancing. There has not been a single game in history where this has not happened and there is a reason for that.

 

Your "solutions" are a joke.

 

And the whole game must obviously be changed to combat this typical kind of griefing! First of all, when owners are offline their land will just simply have to be protected. And if they are in their base, zombies hone in on the players anyway, leading to a very interesting situation where the ones running on the outside are at a disadvantage. If they are out exploring on that horde night, there are more ways to combat it like player proximity to the claim block to ensure a fair and engaging fight. No fundamental changes to what already exists, have to be done.

 

Very simple PvP exploit. Player 1 builds base, Player 2-20 stays in base. During pvp Player 1 is offline thus making their base invincible while players 2-20 get to enjoy having an invincible structure. It also allows for invincible bases in PvE because you changed how LCB work so that people could use them in PvP. After all LCB are ALSO used in PvE since they do much more then just protect your base.

 

Also again, nothing you said stops a player from breaking into someones base which requires possibly making a few holes, and then just waiting for horde night and letting the base be destroyed while they are not on. Far less work then trying to destroy their base block by block and you can just run into their base naked once you make hole for no risk. If you make their base invincible then you have the issue above as I described.

 

Which is completely irrelevant with pvp, since it could be done on any co-op server and they did well to change it, so what is your point?

Again not completely irrelevant. It was used as a griefing tool in PvP which was why it was changed. it would basically destroy peoples bases rendering them unusable, yet it worked great in PvE for building lakes, pools, and other bodies of water. So PvE lost functionality to prevent PvP exploits

 

 

So you don't have any problems with the players not being absolutely equal, but you just don't think that a new player will stand a chance of beating an old player after a, say, a grace period of one week, when the pvp damage value of weapons makes them equal? How exactly wouldn't they have a chance?

 

Well for starters an established player will have armor, access to a stash of weapons, a fortified base, meds, etc. Then their is the more complicated issue of a grace period. Is it physical time, play time, a combination of both, etc. However thats not the argument. That type of balance doesn't effect PvP, but it does take away from resources that are needed to actually finish the game which is why PvP is pretty much on the backburner until after the game is done.

 

 

elaborate on why they would have to change skills if the pvp damage value isn't affected by them, loot spawning, zombie damage, block durability, SI, survival mechanics, horde mechanics etc.

 

Again your not thinking of the entire picture. Your fixated on one thing which is damage which is common for people who only care about PvP.

 

Their is block damage, healing, armor, and dozens of other stats to think. It's also not always clear cut if someone is in a PvP or PvE scenario. Healing to full health with 1 medkit is great in PvE, not so great in PvP when its less balanced. Being able to resist damage with armor skills is great in PvE, but not balanced when in PvP people are fighting in a totally different style.

 

Heck even if they have seperate stats for PvP and PvE damage now you have SKILLS affecting those stats differently. So now every skill that effects your weapons, block damage, stamina, etc have to be rebalanced and have alternative values that work with the PvP values instead of the PvE values. Plus some skills are completely overpowered for PvP and would need major rebalancing and aren't really able to be differentiated between PvE and PvP.

 

So again, I posed 1 hypothetical way to easily grief someone that took 30 seconds to come up with. Your "solution" introduces invincible bases and a complete rewrite of how the game logic has to work that effects both PvP and PvE. So perhaps there is a reason why no game in the history of gaming has been able to have balanced PvP WITHOUT changing PvE along with it.

 

The only way to keep it balanced would basically be to have 2 completely different sets of xmls for PvE and PvP with customized skills, damage, buffs, spawning, enemies, etc and then have to lock a server into either PvP or PvE. However even that poses a massive issue as you've now doubled the potential amount of bugs, doubled balancing, require changes to be replicated, and added a ton of complexity and room for errors all for PvP.

 

Plus again, the most basic fact that cannot be disputed is people are ♥♥♥♥s. No matter how hard you try to balance it someone will min/max, find exploits, or do whatever they can to disrupt other people just for the sake of being a ♥♥♥♥. Hence why so many people don't want PvP even forgetting about all the PvE changes.

[RestInPieces]

Again it looks like your just arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

It's been proven that time and time again PvP changes effect PvE. You've admitted that its true and it happens with balancing. There has not been a single game in history where this has not happened and there is a reason for that.

 

In mmos where they are trying to achieve absolute balance. I never had to quote myself twice before, but since you insist, here you go on what I "admitted" when talking about 7dtd:

They don't have to touch absolutely anything in PvE.

And like I predicted in my first post, you hang on to your examples of games that failed or got their PvE ruined by PvP, completely ignoring the other reasons I mentioned in that post.

 

Your "solutions" are a joke.

 

Very simple PvP exploit. Player 1 builds base, Player 2-20 stays in base. During pvp Player 1 is offline thus making their base invincible while players 2-20 get to enjoy having an invincible structure. It also allows for invincible bases in PvE because you changed how LCB work so that people could use them in PvP. After all LCB are ALSO used in PvE since they do much more then just protect your base.

 

With the player 2 not being in the player's 1 party, him not being able to use anything inside the claimed territory or open/close doors for that matter, that doesn't sound like a problem at all. In fact I would think it's a bit silly if someone attempted that. You haven't put much thought on your problem it seems.

 

Also again, nothing you said stops a player from breaking into someones base which requires possibly making a few holes, and then just waiting for horde night and letting the base be destroyed while they are not on. Far less work then trying to destroy their base block by block and you can just run into their base naked once you make hole for no risk. If you make their base invincible then you have the issue above as I described.

Since I replied to your issue above, what I said in my previous posts does stop the player from breaking into someone's base while he is offline so... your point?

 

Again not completely irrelevant. It was used as a griefing tool in PvP which was why it was changed. it would basically destroy peoples bases rendering them unusable, yet it worked great in PvE for building lakes, pools, and other bodies of water. So PvE lost functionality to prevent PvP exploits

 

Not completely irrelevant? It could be used as a griefing tool anywhere, co-op included, as long as there were people, and had to be changed. You want to make it sound like it was "changed for the sake of pvp, ergo pvp harms pve", but that is not the case.

 

 

 

Well for starters an established player will have armor, access to a stash of weapons, a fortified base, meds, etc. Then their is the more complicated issue of a grace period. Is it physical time, play time, a combination of both, etc. However thats not the argument. That type of balance doesn't effect PvP, but it does take away from resources that are needed to actually finish the game which is why PvP is pretty much on the backburner until after the game is done.

 

Play time ofc. Yes, on that I agree. I also mentioned it on one of my first posts. As I said, there are way too many things that need to be fixed before one contemplates doing something with PvP. Still, some extra scripts won't exactly waste resources or developer time like new content would.

 

Again your not thinking of the entire picture. Your fixated on one thing which is damage which is common for people who only care about PvP.

For the most unfortunate deduction of the year, this one takes the cake!

 

 

Their is block damage, healing, armor, and dozens of other stats to think. It's also not always clear cut if someone is in a PvP or PvE scenario. Healing to full health with 1 medkit is great in PvE, not so great in PvP when its less balanced. Being able to resist damage with armor skills is great in PvE, but not balanced when in PvP people are fighting in a totally different style.

 

The medkit isn't exactly an end-game item, but let's presume that the old player has a lot more of these and can use them in abundance. It's not exactly instant to swap your weapon and use a medkit and then switch back again to a weapon and while this does give the old player a large advantage (it should, since the player consumes a valuable item), the new player's odds at killing him would still be quite decent.

 

Heck even if they have seperate stats for PvP and PvE damage now you have SKILLS affecting those stats differently. So now every skill that effects your weapons, block damage, stamina, etc have to be rebalanced and have alternative values that work with the PvP values instead of the PvE values. Plus some skills are completely overpowered for PvP and would need major rebalancing and aren't really able to be differentiated between PvE and PvP.

 

It's not like I have any idea how their code is (I would like to see parts someday to understand some things better), but pvp damage not being affected by skill modifiers should not be an issue at all. So no skill would really need to be rebalanced.

 

So again, I posed 1 hypothetical way to easily grief someone that took 30 seconds to come up with. Your "solution" introduces invincible bases and a complete rewrite of how the game logic has to work that effects both PvP and PvE. So perhaps there is a reason why no game in the history of gaming has been able to have balanced PvP WITHOUT changing PvE along with it.

 

You didn't, as explained above. Do you think my solutions where more well-thought? It's not like I get paid you know. But I never said I had all the perfect solutions to the perfect system anyway. If I did I would be working for NASA etc - that's why I wrote "feel free to add to it" in the OP. Your problems until now though are very easily counterable.

 

The only way to keep it balanced would basically be to have 2 completely different sets of xmls for PvE and PvP with customized skills, damage, buffs, spawning, enemies, etc and then have to lock a server into either PvP or PvE. However even that poses a massive issue as you've now doubled the potential amount of bugs, doubled balancing, require changes to be replicated, and added a ton of complexity and room for errors all for PvP.

 

As said above skills shouldn't have to change - there is no reason, since their modifier can just not apply (personally I would prefer if it did apply but anyway). Still, you didn't explain how spawning, enemies and all these other things must change. As for the "ton of complexity", I wouldn't call a few scripts that complex and doubling the amount of bugs in the game - I think you may be exagerating a bit.

 

Plus again, the most basic fact that cannot be disputed is people are ♥♥♥♥s. No matter how hard you try to balance it someone will min/max, find exploits, or do whatever they can to disrupt other people just for the sake of being a ♥♥♥♥. Hence why so many people don't want PvP even forgetting about all the PvE changes.

 

And that explains your unconditional hate for PvP. Bad experiences - and I can't really blame you (as I said in the OP). I have many too, but I was fortunate enough to gain great ones as well despite me being a mostly PvE player. If you check my post history you will realize that. The idea of this thread is to eliminate these behaviors through mechanics on the already existing PvP. But instead of you being indifferent (because of not caring), or trying to enrich it (because you may want it to change for the better), you fight against it. The point that devs shouldn't waste time to improve it is valid, but I never said they should prioritize it over anything in the first place - the opposite in fact.

[Guppycur]

All of this is why I advocate for a completely separate PvP system...

 

...and is ironically why tfp won't likely make one.

[Aldranon]

PVP No Man's Sky!

 

Publisher vs Player?

[KingSlayerGM]

My question, as always, is why have we not seen a civilized PvP mod? Let's go modders! Supposedly once this mod comes out ALL the servers will be running it

 

My favourite pvp server is called "Let's kautsch". It is a modded server with very active admins and moderators. I would say that the experience is VERY close to civilized pvp. There is no bounty system unfortunately, but there are very strict rules enforced constantly.

Destroying bases is forbidden, collapsing buildings is forbidden, killing fresh spawned players is forbidden.

In my 2 years with them, there has been very little of this...

[Gazz]

@ RestInPieces

 

The simple fact of 3-4 page argument posts should tell you that it's not simple. =P

 

 

You do know that they can just use two values of damage for PvE/PvP separate from each other with just a couple of lines of code on a weapon for example, right? They don't have to touch absolutely anything in PvE.

Yeah, nothing but damage, weapon/armor/gear/item availability and scaling, skills type and progression, enemy staging, harvesting/building mechanics, how claim blocks and teams work.

Other than that I can't see anything obvious standing in the way. Well, maybe world size/generation.

Oh, and probably the voxel terrain, too.

But other than that...

 

 

I'm not saying it's impossible but to claim that it would be easy or only changing one value... is optimistic.

[KingSlayerGM]

Do we really need different balance for pvp and pve? Why would weapons do different damage? Why would claims work differently?

[Gazz]

Because what you see on PVP servers is that players don't progress normally at all.

Building a "starter fortress" and working your way up... does not work.

They essentially twiddle their thumbs, progress-wise, until they reach the level/perks where they "can start playing".

 

Sure, it can work if you regulate and moderate it or build special arena levels that players cant leave - but that is only proof that the game as it stands is not balanced for PVP. That's no secret.

 

You think Overwatch would work if new players would get one-shot and couldn't play with any team at all until they had put in a week of grinding XP on that server? I don't think so.

[kamer1337]

pvp is just an addition to pve, so you have to watchout for other players while scavening and fight back when gets stronger. i wouldnt play on server when xp for pvp is boosted 500% or building is faster. the fun is you have to be careful of bandit players

[KingSlayerGM]

Because what you see on PVP servers is that players don't progress normally at all.

Building a "starter fortress" and working your way up... does not work.

They essentially twiddle their thumbs, progress-wise, until they reach the level/perks where they "can start playing".

 

Sure, it can work if you regulate and moderate it or build special arena levels that players cant leave - but that is only proof that the game as it stands is not balanced for PVP. That's no secret.

 

You think Overwatch would work if new players would get one-shot and couldn't play with any team at all until they had put in a week of grinding XP on that server? I don't think so.

 

Well, you are right.

But games like Overwatch or Fortnite are competitive multiplayer games where being equals and having the same possibilities is a game mechanic requirement.

7days is different. I wouldn't mind playing in a server where some players are higher level that me. As you wouldn't mind playing WoW when others are higher level than you. It is not necessarily pvp, it is just multiplayer. Do you see my point? I wouldn't change the progression for multiplayer. Just make the pvp gameplay more civilized, less brutal, less incentivized. Make cooperation more viable and more rewarding

[Gazz]

I see your point but... does that work with random strangers who do treat it as a competitive PVP sport kinda thing?

 

There is no serious PVP issue in closed/regulated communities...

[KingSlayerGM]

I see your point but... does that work with random strangers who do treat it as a competitive PVP sport kinda thing?

 

There is no serious PVP issue in closed/regulated communities...

 

No, it does not work now. But it could work if the game offered some way to keep the community not toxic.

 

And this is exactly what this thread is about.

[RestInPieces]

@ RestInPieces

 

The simple fact of 3-4 page argument posts should tell you that it's not simple. =P

 

 

 

Yeah, nothing but damage, weapon/armor/gear/item availability and scaling, skills type and progression, enemy staging, harvesting/building mechanics, how claim blocks and teams work.

Other than that I can't see anything obvious standing in the way. Well, maybe world size/generation.

Oh, and probably the voxel terrain, too.

But other than that...

 

 

I'm not saying it's impossible but to claim that it would be easy or only changing one value... is optimistic.

 

Well, damage, land claim blocks and how teams work (I am not claiming that these don't need some work, they surely do) - rest are a matter of balance. Damage to give new players a chance and the claim blocks/teams to enforce the ruleset. But balance is overrated! People who would choose that mode would enjoy adversity.

 

Most, including me, don't think it should be a priority but one reason I made this thread is because in every pvp thread made in these forums, I see much prejudice against it and all that it represents. Some of it is justified, but much of it stems from bad pvp experiences/environments or taking what other games failed to do for granted. Especially the fact that when someone mentions the notion of pvp, some people automatically think that griefing/harassing is the only purpose behind that. There should be more open-mindedness in this (and every) matter. I think that when properly implemented it can lead to a more realistic and interesting world, because, even if I am a PvE player myself, I've seen it in action in games like UO or Shadowbane where some of my best online experiences stemmed from.

[Brian9824]

.....

 

Since you still insist with going back and forth insisting its easy (even when developers agree with what i'm saying and tell you its not) i'm just going to poke a few holes in your claims and walk away.

 

In mmos where they are trying to achieve absolute balance. I never had to quote myself twice before, but since you insist, here you go on what I "admitted" when talking about 7dtd:

 

Again, NO GAME IN HISTORY has ever achieved balanced PvP without effecting PvE. Even the examples you claimed I've proven that. If its so easy then how come in 30+ years of gaming no one has managed to do it?

 

With the player 2 not being in the player's 1 party, him not being able to use anything inside the claimed territory or open/close doors for that matter, that doesn't sound like a problem at all. In fact I would think it's a bit silly if someone attempted that. You haven't put much thought on your problem it seems.

 

Who says he can't use anything, open doors, etc. Have you heard of passwords on chests? You don't need to be in a party to use forges, workbenches, etc and you can open chests / doors as long as your know the password. It sounds like YOU haven't really given your idea much thought huh? Those are basic features of group play that any player with experience in the game should know how it works and changes to it would be a massive fundamental change in PvE that would piss off a very large portion of the playerbase.

 

Again as Gazz, Madmole, and many others have said PvP is nasty. It's very different balancing a game around PvP then it is around PvE. It's also why i'm thankful every day that their focus in on PvE, and not PvP.

[Gazz]

I'm not even arguing for or against but rather pointing out that this is a very complex issue and you can't fix any individual part of it and expect that to do any good.

 

What if you ignore loot distribution / itemisation? Does the one guy with the NVG not have a huge advantage at night that has nothing at all to do with damage or another tangible stat? Does the item need to be removed because it falsely suggests that others can not simply crank up the gamma setting?

You don't need detail like that in an elevator pitch but if you want to design a solution, you do.

(Or don't but you'll regret that later =)

 

Just look at the OP and how it suggests to nerf part of the gameplay (traders) based on some sort of PVP stat or how suggested mechanics have obvious holes that you can spot on the first read.

If it was that simple without messing up the PVE gameplay, many games would have done this successfully.

[SylenThunder]

The biggest issue I personally see in today's PvP community, is a reflection on the current state of our society. Everyone wants to immeditaely right now run out there and kick everybody's ass, like you can in so many other PvP-focused games. Those games don't have much of a leveling aspect where you have to develop your skills and equipment from the ground up. It's a combination of the instant gratification generation, and this e-peen aspect where you have to go out and prove you're better than anyone else. It doesn't matter if you are killing off little level 3 players that just joined the server, all they care about is the # of kills in their profile.

 

In other words, there is no community. When there is a community, it's usually a group of similarly geared players that are just out to gank everyone they come across. They don't want a challenge. They want to boost that kill count number as fast as possible and be "better" than everyone simply by having a higher number.

 

Back in the days of Meridian59, UO and some of the very early multiplayer games, PvP was very competitive. There was a "code" of sorts though, and there were very close-knit communities. You helped the lower leveled players gear up. You taught them the ins and outs. Where to go, what to kill, and who to watch out for. Anyone killing a player at a significant disadvantage to themselves faced penalties whether through the game mechanics themselves, or by the communities.

 

With a small co-op game, you don't have these same aspects. (Servers are not intended to support 20-100 people, regardless of what is being done out there.) The game is designed for 8 people to play together and fight together. usually everyone knows each other pretty well and it is a close-knit community. It is only in this particular case, that PvP in 7 Days is even close to being a validated option.

 

Which leads us to the actual game mechanics. As they are now, they aren't bad for PvP gameplay. As long as you are playing the game as it was intended with 8-player co-op.

Unfortunately, the majority of current PvP-oriented players do not enjoy this type of gameplay. It doesn't fit "their style". Strong landclaim protection prevents raiding/ganking the way they want to do it.

 

The real call here is to design the game to support more players, and this specific type of PvP gameplay. Which really isn't ideal for this type of game. Designing a game of this nature to be balanced for that type of gameplay is no easy feat. With enough modding, a good server manager, and multiple extremely active admins it could possibly be done as the game sits now. Unfortunately, that is a hell of a lot of time and effort to put into something with little actual reward.

 

On a side note. It would be interesting to see the landclaim not only protect the blocs, but also protect the players within the area from attacks from players as well. It would have to work the other direction so that players inside a protected area could not damage players outsideof that area.