I see it all as choice and consequences. You make a choice to adventure in low-security zones, you have to accept the consequences that you may be attacked by other players. You may lose that battle. You make a choice (or forget) to insure your gear, the consequence is if you die your uninsured loot drops to the ground for anyone to potentially take. Hopefully there will also be consequences to those who initiate PvP to make them think if it's worthwhile before attacking, and cut down on the amount of griefing.

With the various degrees of security, I don't know that I consider it "true" open PvP, which is fine by me. I'm not always in the mood for it, and given my days off and play schedule, will likely not always have a band of friends adventuring with me.

I've never done an open pvp style game before, but *so far* I'm actually looking forward to this one.

I myself will be watching this game as info becomes available. I am enjoying PVP more then any other MMO type out there mainly due to the fact I get tired of fighting Bot_001 Im no super skilled pvp'r but human players represent more challenge. I am hoping they can limit some types of griefing that will certainly follow any open PVP game, we will see.

Hopefully they will provide more info and some podcasts (otherwise it may go into a darkfall style forum here again...) Ive been waiting for a game similar to this, as its what I am drawn to.  I do think they need to throw in limitations on Open PVP, we will have to wait and see.

Originally posted by bstuart

hmmm i did hence my first post

this game seems to be a ground based copy of eve that is going to be crafted item driven ( which is good player crafted item being the best is important) but full open pvp and item looting very bad and will be nothing but a grief fest full of bots and hackers ill pass on this one and go for a less pvp centric game

 Well bstuart I don't mean to offend you but first off: Earthrise isn't a copy of EVE or any other game for that matter. Read some of the interviews with  the CEO Atanas Atanasov here and here before saying something like that. Second better read "Freedom and PVP" in the news section of the forum for more details about the pvp in Earthrise. And if you still think the same way... well then I can't do anithing about it.

I don't mind pvp so long as I get to choose when to part take in it.  Most pvp games are never noob friendly and going into one only to get killed just outside of a town by someone 60 lvls higher then you, is frankly very annoying. Especially if the game  is ptp.

With that said, I first thought this game was going to be an AnarchyOnline2 type of game. If they took the concepts of pvp lvl restrictions in account and have pvp zones then that would be good.

Then again AO is working on a graphics update so things will get interesting by years end.

What do I think?  Hmmmm....

Well this one time I was driving down the road and I saw this chick with long brown hair, beautiful shapely legs and a nice ass.  As I drove past, I looked to see what the face was like....and it was a dude with a beard.  I was like, WTF....

Morale of story, lots of things look good from far away, but up close things can change quite a bit.

Originally posted by Wickersham

 

Originally posted by bstuart

The post you are replying to by Wickersham, posted on 2/10/08 3:20:07 AM

Originally posted by bstuart man i was looking forward to this one then i read on the fourms that its gonna have open pvp now ive lost all intrest What is wrong with open PvP?

because im tired of bunny hopping leet speakers clone camping and gankfesting everywhere while someone is trying to relax and play a game

That is a good point, but games like that are just poorly designed.

 

Open PvP is really the only real lasting end game content a game can have except resource grinds, item grinds, or mail man quests.

There are things that can be done about clone camping and player camping in general.  Stealth is the easiest one.  Not letting players track enemy players on their maps or radar.  Not showing enemy players names above their heads like a big neon sign.  Making cloning stations faction based and heavily defended by NPCs and gun towers.  Placing player bounties on PKers.  Introducing a political system into the game that encourages or discourages killing certain players in certain areas.

Maybe you can think of a few too?

I like Planetside style of open PvP - you still try to fight back (even when getting ganked), and when all hope is lost, you can just move on to a place where odds of winning are more even. As long as there is SOME kinf of a reward, this should encourage PvP while not discouraging those who wouldnt normally win.

---

Originally posted by jimmyman99 Those are some nice ideas. While Im all for Open PvP, im also all against PvP that would result in some kind of loss from the loser (other then time recovering corpse loss). Eve is a great example of that, even those it has lots of places where you in general cannot be PKed, there is a HUUGE universe that you cant really go into becuase you are a) soloer with no powerfull corp/alliance b) very casual player, you dont play enough for a big corp to invite you, so you stick with small corps that arent really in position to protect you or you keep soloing in the safe areas I like Planetside style of open PvP - you still try to fight back (even when getting ganked), and when all hope is lost, you can just move on to a place where odds of winning are more even. As long as there is SOME kinf of a reward, this should encourage PvP while not discouraging those who wouldnt normally win.

---

Well by my experience, pvp without consequence (loosing side looses something valuable) is pointless. It isent actually that important the winning side wins something, its more that the losing side really looses. Take the SWG with the NEG, sure there was many factors why the neg killed the game, but what did it for me, killing a jedi with a bh , dident matter of a jedi, he dident loose anything.
To A\If there is no consequence, there is no sorrow if you loose but not joy if you win. I have never experienced pvp in a mmo that was without consequence for loosing, that was fun, and i have played a shit load of mmos.
To B\ I was a very casual player in SWG, and i was in one of the best guilds and I had the 2nd highest guild rank. At one point we where the most feared imp guild on the server. Sure it wasent a pvp game like eve or this game where you could be killed always everywhere (unless you had it activated which was possible) but that really dosent matter, because my point is, as long as you are 100% dedicated to your guild, and its leaders, it dont matter how much you are on. This applies as well to large powerful guilds, as well as small pityfull guilds. This my expeiance, and this is the same from all my games, and it make sense. Its better to have a 100 mid/highmid guys that will show up right away, and will happily lay all their stuff for the guild leaders feet, than 30 very high guys, that you never know will show up when you ask.

Does anyone else think that this game is a lot like Face of Mankind - www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/setView/overview/gameID/91

Except perhaps that FoM is crap and really not worth even talking about, let alone playing.

A full Sandbox skill based sci-fi MMO with territory control, open pvp, player cities/bases, politics, all sounds too good to be true, but these guys are really serious about it. I have faith that they will stick to their design plan, how it turns out no one knows, but I'd rather put my support behind this than another WoW-clone.

Originally posted by bobfish

Except perhaps that FoM is crap and really not worth even talking about, let alone playing.

A full Sandbox skill based sci-fi MMO with territory control, open pvp, player cities/bases, politics, all sounds too good to be true, but these guys are really serious about it. I have faith that they will stick to their design plan, how it turns out no one knows, but I'd rather put my support behind this than another WoW-clone.

i cannot wait for this game, for anyone who is wondering, it is a sandbox MMOFPS, with a player driven everything.

From what they've said it's not a true FPS, that might mean something like Tabula Rasa, but everyone on their forums has made it clear that it needs to be better than TR if it's not real twitch combat.

Originally posted by bobfish

Except perhaps that FoM is crap and really not worth even talking about, let alone playing.

A full Sandbox skill based sci-fi MMO with territory control, open pvp, player cities/bases, politics, all sounds too good to be true, but these guys are really serious about it. I have faith that they will stick to their design plan, how it turns out no one knows, but I'd rather put my support behind this than another WoW-clone.

I played FoM quite a lot in beta and it promised a lot of the same things that this game does but FoM could not deliver. The player run economy was not all that great and the open pvp was a nightmare. There were way too many renegades. In FoM there was not a big penalty for just randomly ganking people, which is why 50% of the players were gankers. I am not saying this game will be like FoM I am just stating the obvious, which is that this game is promising a lot of the same things that FoM promised.