Poll question reguarding PVP - - please leave feedback.

deviexx · Post by **deviexx** » 05 Jun 2005, 17:15

.Please.Leave.Feedback.

treo · Post by **treo** » 05 Jun 2005, 17:17

I think that there should be no pvp in the beginners area... but if the player goes to another area there should only be protection zones

Post by **Bjørn** » 05 Jun 2005, 18:55

I chose to have special PvP areas, but actually those areas would be dynamically determined given your disposition to a certain area. For example a kingdom that is your enemy. Another note I'd like to make is that it'd probably be nice if two players could always voluntarily fight eachother.

Anyway I understand there are many ways of implementing this and I personally don't have a strong opinion about it. I do think it would be cool if the game allowed both cooperative and competitive play, from individual players and scaling up to teams, guilds and countries.

Hommer · Post by **Hommer** » 06 Jun 2005, 00:19

i chose to have outside the town pvp areas and inside the town safe areas and the starting town is a whole safe area where maggicts and scorps are so noobs can lvl without worring about being pvped and say if you pvp a certain amount of ppl a day say like 10 you die yourself and lose some lvls so it would stop like lvl 40+ to just sit and wait for noobs to leave the safe town and pk (pk means player kill) them

deviexx · Post by **deviexx** » 06 Jun 2005, 03:28

i personally chose all around pvp with protection zones.. because.. theives and looters will think twice about their actions considering they could be killed, when death penalties are developed.

also it creates a respect.. players would want to level up more , to become stronger so they dont have to take bs from higher levels heh. a little psychology for ya here

.

Post by **Rotonen** » 06 Jun 2005, 10:07

We're going to have kingdom vs. kindom wars, so it'll be quite as BjÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¸rn said: alliances and wars define safe zones and who can attack who.

Post by **ElvenProgrammer** » 06 Jun 2005, 10:12

This is similar to WoW, I've been playing it with my cousin one day, and he was playing on the PvP server where "The horde" can attack only "The Alliance" and viceversa. This way you can attack only people from other kngdoms so you're protected from your people attacks, but not from foreign attacks

Teh BillyM · Post by **Teh BillyM** » 06 Jun 2005, 11:48

I like where this is going. That sounds fun and interesting.

Post by **Modanung** » 06 Jun 2005, 18:19

Yay for Arena's!
Maybe we could have that anywhere else you can attack and be attacked only if both players authorise eachother to be able to do so.

Hommer · Post by **Hommer** » 06 Jun 2005, 18:40

nvm i change my mind i think we should have arenas so noobs wont get pked and clans can duke it out of theyw anted to

Peacemaker · Post by **Peacemaker** » 07 Jun 2005, 19:35

hi

As far as I know one of the goals of the TMW Dev Team is to deliver the Server & Client. Other Communities should build up there own gaming world... (I red that somewhere / sometime on the webpage)

I personally like the second idea ? because if there are kingdoms I have enough enemies to fight

But the delivered Server should be as flexible as possible and so it should be able to handle all three ideas (other communities like other PVP-modes)

I have a few PVP ideas:

1. Cities and Newby zones are fully protected. PVP areas are PVP

. On every other map PVP should be possible if both player agree to fight. Players from the same kingdom should have an option to agree or disagree. Enemies are always unprotected.

2. This idea is a little bit difficult to develop. Every map is PVP but the main graphical "paths" are protected (the maps need an additional layer -> more work to make a map

) . If a player decides to walk across the wood, desert? away from any path the player is unprotected. Enemies are always unprotected. Enemies can always attack in a foreign kingdom.

3. Another mmorpg called "Mystera Legends" has a good system. The whole map is PVP. But every player can purchase "Serenity" at the "Shrine of Serenity" for little money. Every second the player plays the "Serenity" will decrease by 1. If "Serenity" reaches zero the player is attackable. If the player wants to PVP he can use the PVP-Area or drop his "Serenity".

by the way, sorry about my bad English

Post by **Rotonen** » 07 Jun 2005, 21:45

Elven Programmer wrote:This is similar to WoW, I've been playing it with my cousin one day, and he was playing on the PvP server where "The horde" can attack only "The Alliance" and viceversa. This way you can attack only people from other kngdoms so you're protected from your people attacks, but not from foreign attacks

But in our case we'll (hopefully) have a more complex situation going on and the world won't be in a constant status quo as it is in WoW. I'm really annoyed by the "modern mmorpgs" having statical worlds. I think implementing player driven politics would really make the world more dynamical. (And we could change the world in a fashion that'd influence players' decisions, but we could never really be sure of what would happen next.)

Post by **ElvenProgrammer** » 10 Jun 2005, 17:08

Rotonen wrote:
Elven Programmer wrote:This is similar to WoW, I've been playing it with my cousin one day, and he was playing on the PvP server where "The horde" can attack only "The Alliance" and viceversa. This way you can attack only people from other kngdoms so you're protected from your people attacks, but not from foreign attacks
But in our case we'll (hopefully) have a more complex situation going on and the world won't be in a constant status quo as it is in WoW. I'm really annoyed by the "modern mmorpgs" having statical worlds. I think implementing player driven politics would really make the world more dynamical. (And we could change the world in a fashion that'd influence players' decisions, but we could never really be sure of what would happen next.)

Of course, this is the same idea i have, static world won't make tmw a great game

Peacemaker: I like your second idea, it could be interesting, we should discuss the possibility of implementing it

Post by **Magick** » 10 Jun 2005, 20:23

PVP should be used in open areas where all players can go. Well not in all areas but...

Anyway the reason that you cant do the idea where you cant attack a ceartin player because he is in your country or something is....some players im sure would like to play the role as a "traitor" Wich would be sorta cool. You should be able to make it so you can switch side's whenever you wish but it is not availalbe for anyone else to see..that way you can be a spy and other things to. Sorry i diddnt word this very good im really tired =\

~Magick~

Major_Nuggs · Post by **Major_Nuggs** » 19 Jun 2005, 04:06

First off, let me say howdy. Heh.. Been following the project for a little while now.. without actually ever trying it untill the other day..

Anyways, I think pvp should be anywhere that's not a town..

And even then, I think some towns should be pvp areas.. Depends on the type of town it is..

I've always felt, you don't get a choice on if you're going to die in real life, you shouldn't in a game.. Especially one that's more violent then your everyday life.

Iono.. Then again.. I've played too many MUDs and too many table top games..

and too many of everything! :/

Regards,
Anthony

Poll question reguarding PVP - - please leave feedback.

How do you want to see our player vs. player system?

Poll question reguarding PVP - - please leave feedback.