I agree with making pvp a risk/reward decision, but I disagree with your method. Instead of creating arbitrary borders, it should rely on a properly-implemented reputation system that actually has consequences for observed murder.

I've proposed many solutions over the months, but here, the one below is my most-recent summary write-up from a different thread:

http://gtm.steamproxy.vip/app/247730/discussions/10/540738052319275911/#c540738052933338927

I agree with most of your points - the only part that we really differ on is the existence of a pure PvE experience existing in the game vs having everything always be PvPvE with consequences for being witnessed committing a murder.

I liked the bounty system - it's very much like the one from Star Wars Galaxies...the only flaw as old players remember in that is the person with a bounty on their head would wait until the bounty was large then have a friend shoot them and split the bounty with them.

I think for the healthy growth of the game - there should be ample opportunity for both PvP and PvE players to grow and learn within the game...to have fun each in their own way and to tell their like minded friends to buy and play the game...the developers will happily see that both types of players money spends the same and you give both sides the opportunity to benefit from each others areas. "PvE want to get to the next safe zone fast and snag some nice supplies? Hit the PvP catacombs in that direction and stop at the ruined hospital that is on the way! PvPer want the chance to max out your gear and weapon before an important fight or to hunt down that skilled nemesis? Build yourself up in the PvE areas and safe zones to toughen up with far less of a chance of losing everything 1/2 way to your goal."

I agree that a full PvP game is more scary and meaningful - fearing death by a foe with a brain around every corner. But to limit the games population to only hardcore thrill seekers is a mistake in my opinion - as the loss of revenue would affect the growth and development of the game.

Originally posted by GREYHILL:

I liked the bounty system - it's very much like the one from Star Wars Galaxies...the only flaw as old players remember in that is the person with a bounty on their head would wait until the bounty was large then have a friend shoot them and split the bounty with them.

I thought about this a lot in the past, and came up with some solutions.

This issue can be addressed, for example, by tying the bounty payout percentage to some kind of tangible statistic, such as the player's current experience level. Not the persistent one, mind you, but the lose-on-death experience count. Having items degrade upon pvp death, and then tie the bounty payment partially to the value of the degradation, is another solution. Basically, the goal is to prevent the bounty being worth more than the loss that the bounty holder takes when dying.

Originally posted by GREYHILL:

I think for the healthy growth of the game - there should be ample opportunity for both PvP and PvE players to grow and learn within the game...to have fun each in their own way and to tell their like minded friends to buy and play the game...the developers will happily see that both types of players money spends the same and you give both sides the opportunity to benefit from each others areas. "PvE want to get to the next safe zone fast and snag some nice supplies? Hit the PvP catacombs in that direction and stop at the ruined hospital that is on the way! PvPer want the chance to max out your gear and weapon before an important fight or to hunt down that skilled nemesis? Build yourself up in the PvE areas and safe zones to toughen up with far less of a chance of losing everything 1/2 way to your goal."

Not sure what you mean by that.

Being able to grind for loot in safety before taking it into pvp is pretty bad game design, though.

The secont part was a plug at getting PvE people to play so that there is more money going toward development and players in general. It also opens up the possibility of usually PvE minded people having the opportunity to try PvP and see if it is for them, and if not - the game isn't a total loss for them. Also - loot grinded in safety can be lost and still wind up in another PvPers hands - more risk/reward speculation. Wouldnt it be nice to get a PvP kill and have someones hours of loot drop in front of you!

My point in trying to include PvE is that I think most serious PvPers are going to stick to games that are built on PvP as its core (Battlefield, etc..). Broadening our playerbase makes the game more diverse play wise and theoretically would increase income for development and happy players also mean more in game currency purchases.

I was hoping you were an intelligent casual, but you're the same as every other one. While I agree these "shoot then step back" people need to be stopped, you're basically wanting the game to have safe areas on roads everywhere. You're supposed to be paranoid while traveling. It's the decision of: "Do I take the risk treading this street, or do I skirt around it?"

Get used to the fact you're probably going to get popped in the face. If the perp misses, run your ass to the nearest cover. You also forget that there's the system which bandits get a swarm of Nether on them every time they kill someone.

So, therefore, git gud

Originally posted by GREYHILL:

The secont part was a plug at getting PvE people to play so that there is more money going toward development and players in general. It also opens up the possibility of usually PvE minded people having the opportunity to try PvP and see if it is for them, and if not - the game isn't a total loss for them. Also - loot grinded in safety can be lost and still wind up in another PvPers hands - more risk/reward speculation. Wouldnt it be nice to get a PvP kill and have someones hours of loot drop in front of you!

My point in trying to include PvE is that I think most serious PvPers are going to stick to games that are built on PvP as its core (Battlefield, etc..). Broadening our playerbase makes the game more diverse play wise and theoretically would increase income for development and happy players also mean more in game currency purchases.

Okay, then I do disagree with this. Being able to grind in safety in a game that doesn't advertise or promote safety isn't a welcome feature. It doesn't matter whether or not pvpers would be able to get the loot, because the goal of the game is to make survival a challenge, and making loot easy to get defeats that purpose for everyone.

Furthermore, I don't consider forcing one group of players out in order to open the door for a whole new one as "broadening our playerbase."

Originally posted by Shotgun:

-snip-

Shotgun confirmed for potent Steam user

You should see the big thread in General Discussions. It's pretty crazy there. Could probably use some input there, because there's a few guys essentially advocating that the pvpers be rounded up and sent to death camps.

Originally posted by Shotgun:

You should see the big thread in General Discussions. It's pretty crazy there. Could probably use some input there, because there's a few guys essentially advocating that the pvpers be rounded up and sent to death camps.

oy vey, not my 6 million!

I have returned after 6 years.

Good God, I completely forgot about this thread. ♥♥♥♥, was I that edgy?