Make PVP opt-in only

[DoctorCookie]

i don't care lmao thanks for the hat cya next world

Happy you got a cool sig out of what you asked for. I take back what I said.

[Zentetsuken]

Conflict is surely part of the fun for some players, and I admittedly enjoy seeing small bits of it on the discord now and again.

Though it gets pretty old and repetative, and it would be a stretch to say that "conflict is what makes HAVEN fun" ... I think conflict is just fun in general, but when I compare it to all the other aspects of haven it's really not even showing up on the radar for me.

In the opt-in PVP only scenario conflict would absolutely still be available for people who need conflict in Haven in order to enjoy the game.

we all know that PVP would still thrive for the first few months of the game and that the big faction PVP groups would hardly notice any difference. There would still be ganks, meteors, scheduled PVP events and endless arguments on discord.

Any noticeable changes to gameplay after this point would only negatively effect a tiny handful of people who's goal is only to hurt the game anyways.

[strpk0]

Any noticeable changes to gameplay after this point would only negatively effect a tiny handful of people who's goal is only to hurt the game anyways.

You know damn well if PvP is made optional it might aswell be removed, with penalties when being KOed/lost gear/wounds/death if the other person or you are mraging, nobody will willingly toggle the switch on unless they don't have any idea what they're getting into or they're just using a throwaway alt.

Plus, what are you going to do when the person you agreed to fight runs away in a snekkja being driven by someone with PvP turned off, or people with PvP turned off bring horses to support someone you're fighting or block you in, etc. It just multiplies what already is a million terrible edge cases that are nearly impossible to fix. Knowing and having experienced what haven PvP is like, if its made optional I would not even attempt to participate in it, because I know for a fact its just ripe for abuse and dumb scenarios that only don't work at the moment because it is not optional.
Making PvP optional is just the worst of both worlds, even worse than outright disabling it.

Just ignoring what people are bringing up as to why this idea doesn't work doesn't make it suddenly work, lmao.
I find it odd how you do this yet keep reassuring people that:

In the opt-in PVP only scenario conflict would absolutely still be available for people who need conflict in Haven in order to enjoy the game.

This next part is specially vexxing to me:

Any noticeable changes to gameplay after this point would only negatively effect a tiny handful of people who's goal is only to hurt the game anyways.

I tend to find people who point out logical fallacies as kind of cringy, but my man this is textbook strawman right here.
"If you think PvP would be ass cancer and probably not even worth participating in if it were made optional, clearly this means you want to hurt the game. There's no alternative."

Also, who are these people that "only want to hurt the game"? I keep seeing everyone that is against PvP or have gotten hurt by its existence bringing this point up. I think if anything even the sweatiest kill-everyone-on-sight neckbeard PvPer actually enjoys this game, and have an interest in being able to continue playing it, it just so happens that killing others for fun/sport is part of it, yet some people for some odd reason get personally hurt by it, instead of accepting it and maybe considering the fact that they could learn how to defend themselves in the same amount of time or less than it takes them to write a 2000 word essay on the forums about why PvP is "ruining the game".

[Seriouskai]

I suggest making PVP a duel system, where you challenge the area around you and anyone staying in the area goes into PVP mode, giving people a chance to run away from it. Same for buildings, claims or whatever if griefing is a problem. Challenge the area then siege or wreck shit, giving people atleast a chance to pack up and leave their base but also allowing PVP players their "fun".

There's so many things in this game that feels like they clash, things that takes several IRL days to complete, but a PVP that can get you killed in seconds if you just decide to take a random walk one day at the wrong time. If PVP is in the game to counter griefers, it's not used in that way that's for sure, as I doubt randomly walking by someone and killing them for lulz when all they did was build a wall around their base then taking their corpse as trophy and not sieging the base, is in my world not anti griefing atleast. That's just player hunting for the fun of ruining someone elses fun.

Not saying that is wrong or anything, but it _feels_ wrong with how the rest of the game works in my experience. Thus, I suggest challenging duels as PVP, a midway for the opt-in PVP. Leave, or prepare to fight.

[Zentetsuken]

I tend to find people who point out logical fallacies as kind of cringy, but my man this is textbook strawman right here.
"If you think PvP would be ass cancer and probably not even worth participating in if it were made optional, clearly this means you want to hurt the game. There's no alternative."

Also, who are these people that "only want to hurt the game"? I keep seeing everyone that is against PvP or have gotten hurt by its existence bringing this point up. I think if anything even the sweatiest kill-everyone-on-sight neckbeard PvPer actually enjoys this game, and have an interest in being able to continue playing it, it just so happens that killing others for fun/sport is part of it, yet some people for some odd reason get personally hurt by it, instead of accepting it and maybe considering the fact that they could learn how to defend themselves in the same amount of time or less than it takes them to write a 2000 word essay on the forums about why PvP is "ruining the game".

You seem really upset about somebody having a different opinion than you.

Almost all arguments against PVP going opt-in only are just wild inferences and opinions, all I am offering in rebuttal is the same thing.

I am not hurt by PVP, I wasn't hunted or killed by some sweatlord, I even did real PVP in this game this world over area control disputes and won.
I am trying to offer this whole idea from a neutral third party perspective.

Observing talks about PVP both of the forum and discord, I think it's incredibly dishonest to say that PVP is good for the game after the main faction boys are done their annual headbutting.

It's okay to like PVP, but many of the sweatlord who are actively ruining the game for new players right now have been pretty honest and vocal about "trying to hurt the game" being atleast part of their motivation.

[strpk0]

You seem really upset about somebody having a different opinion than you.

Wh-what xD

I am not hurt by PVP, I wasn't hunted or killed by some sweatlord...

Yeah, I don't really intend to imply this post was made out of butthurt (might have been bad wording on my part), but its definitely the case that a lot of people have their first negative experience due to PvP and use that experience to argue for sweeping changes to the game, usually "remove PvP because x y z" being part of it.

I even did real PVP in this game this world over area control disputes and won.
I am trying to offer this whole idea from a neutral third party perspective.

So then you agree it works as a means to conflict resolution, and I don't take you for a sweatlord. Isn't this entire thread about how its "literally impossible" for anyone except the top sweatlords to use PvP as a means to get what they want out of the game? What makes the rest of the community that choose to forego PvP/denounce it different to you?

Observing talks about PVP both of the forum and discord, I think it's incredibly dishonest to say that PVP is good for the game after the main faction boys are done their annual headbutting.

I fully agree that what it often devolves into at the later stages of the world is very unhealthy, infact I'll be the first to call the devs out on stupid mechanics that hurt people who don't have a min-max playstyle or get the most out of said mechanics through bots and similar, which give an advantage to the bigger factions or groups of more experienced players. I just disagree that the solution is to make PvP optional or remove it. Infact I more think that doing those things would only worsen "toxic"/"bad-for-the-game" behaviour carried out by the spicier people in this community. Being able to aggro someone and kill them is only a small part of the universe of opportunities that exist in this game to actually legitimately prevent someone else from playing it, or make them have such a terrible time that they choose to quit instead.

It's okay to like PVP, but many of the sweatlord who are actively ruining the game for new players right now have been pretty honest and vocal about "trying to hurt the game" being atleast part of their motivation.

I've yet to see such claims (in discord/forums), but I'd be interested in hearing names/examples being pointed out.

[vatas]

If I was told to make functional opt-out system, I would start with these two core tenets:

• In/Out can only be toggled at your Hearth Fire
• People who have opted out can be evicted to their HF by people who have opted in (this is the very bare minimum, I would actually give opt-in people some opportunity to loot their items but that tends to result "just throw everything they own on the ground" -route.")

Second one does need some additional thing to prevent alts/bots from just simply coming right back to do whatever griefing they could do while having opt-out protection from being actually killed. Maybe they would be forced in PvP enabled state for some time, and if they get evicted right after that timer expires, it will be longer the next time?

[telum12]

Isn’t OP the one saying kill all the nabs so they quit playing and the game dies? I highly doubt he has the best interest of haven’s longevity in mind

Also why don’t you try to get a CF up if you think that’s what’s missing from the game dr cookie? I’d be surprised if you couldn’t convince at least one faction to defend… Sounds like a lot of hand-wave-y strawman arguments to me

[fairystyle]

Love to see it.
Big inner dialogue about pvp..
From a person who neither ever was involved in it, nor playing for real.

Your judgement about pvp is a very primitive facts manipulation for fools who doesn't know shit and can support it just bcs the article is so fancy long and you position yourself ike you are competent to state the things, but you are not. You basically replaced gaps in your knowledge about how fights are happening with your imaginary explanations and posted it.

[Massa]

Didn't read the rest of the thread but this is a bad idea. Aggroing someone isn't the only act of aggression. A game without PvP combat just leads to hideous shenanigans. This is a game about survival where anything can cost you dearly. Back in the day, being caught with your pants down meant nearly guaranteed death. It should at least remain a shadow of that.

Fortunately, I generally don't think Zent has bad takes but I also might not have paid much attention, so I won't be assuming the worst.