KingSlayerGM
New member
Do we really need different balance for pvp and pve? Why would weapons do different damage? Why would claims work differently?
PC "Civilized PvP system"
- Thread starter RestInPieces
- Start date
Gazz
Fun Pimps Staff
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.
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.
KingSlayerGM
New member
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
Last edited by a moderator:
KingSlayerGM
New member
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
RestInPieces
New member
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
Brian9824
New member
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.
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?
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
Fun Pimps Staff
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.
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
Community Moderator / IT Guru
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.
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.
RestInPieces
New member
As I mentioned several times, it would be way easier than implementing new content e.g. bandits. I don't think anyone can argue with that as long as they agree that no further balancing is needed and the changes include several scripts to enforce the rulesets and separate damage values. The seperate pvp damage value itself solves only the "standing a chance" problem. There is no need for balance, or to change skills etc - to make grounds equal for everyone, because it's not realistic in the first place. Anyone, you or the developers can disagree on this and wanting to change a variety of things in the game because they believe that further balance will be essential - that's why it's a discussion.
Talking about "what other games did in the past" and knowing only recent examples (Rust, DayZ, H1Z1 and Arc) doesn't give much credit to your argument. As said before:
Here's what other very similar games did in the recent past and there are very good reasons why these games failed to do what they did, not to mention their focus was different. Because, no matter how you have formed it in your mind, none in this thread wants or ever talked about PvP being the game's focus. That's a personal conspiracy theory.
Not to mention that if TFP line of thinking was around "what other games did in the past", they wouldn't have innovated and we wouldn't have 7dtd. It's one thing to draw inspiration from past games and another to be discouraged because other similar games failed in the past without accounting for all the reasons they did.
Also, putting "balance" on a pedestral, again. Me (and others) explained that there is no need for balance - naturally, as long as a new player stands a chance after a grace period. And if, unaffected by skills, weapon damage is modified, I really don't see why they wouldn't.
Changing how parties work is a fundamental change for this mode I am describing - I think that was made clear in the OP after all. But you realize we are still talking about an optional mode here right? Quoting one of my first posts in this thread:
Again, none ever said or wants the game to be focused on PvP. This thread is not about promoting pvp (which already exists), they are about refining it, adding limitations and incentives so that it enriches the PvE experience. Also I never said that the game should be "be balanced around PvP" (which is your main concern) or even "PvP to be balanced" in the first place - the opposite actually, in favor of realism. You have a very specific label with a selection of characteristics that go with it, called "pvp players" in your mind. Players who "only care about damage", are out to make other's life miserable, don't care about PvE in the least etc. Abandon that first if you want the conversation to be more constructive.
Last edited by a moderator:
KingSlayerGM
New member
IMO the debate should not be PVE vs PVP, but rather SP vs MP.
I think the game could be tuned to improve the multiplayer experience without affecting the single player.
I think the game could be tuned to improve the multiplayer experience without affecting the single player.
RestInPieces
New member
I would definitely ignore itemisation. After a grace period or say 1 week for newly joined players, I think you would agree that basic itemisation is in order for that new player. Beyond that, why would you need that kind of "perfect" balance? Wouldn't that be unrealistic in the first place?
How would a debuff in this pvp setting affect player interactions with traders in a PvE server (so that we would have to talk about PvE being degraded by PvP)?
You are quite spot on. This is why people are so hostile about the notion of PvP and (as said before) I can't blame them.
First of all, I am glad that someone knows what I am talking about. It is not only these games that I rely on to support my belief that PvP can enrich PvE. I have had my share of RP servers in many games with rampart PvP, created my own minecraft server to accomodate PvP so that builders (like me) will enjoy it and I can't see why that can't happen in 7dtd as well. Aren't there already PvP servers right now? Changes like these will only serve to create these kind of communities you are talking about.
You will be surprised how many good apples hide among the bad ones. Also, if this thread is of any (even tiny) indication, none in favor of PvP expressed his disdain for such rules.
This is why mechanics for it should be invented. It is nearly impossible to moderate a PvP server as it is. As for the number of players - it is not ideal, but this whole concept was always meant as something to be considered for the future. There are way more vital things to address before that.
Theoritically, there are infinite ways to go about it - one just has to find the right one.
Last edited by a moderator:
ColdSteelRain
New member
Actually, yes. Don't ask me how I know...
Kage848
Stream Team
I have to say first and foremost if TFP ever decide to do something substantial with PvP and it effects the pve game in a negative way I'm calling BS. I have seen lots of other games make changes wholesale, pve and PvP, just for the sake of making PvP better. Screw that.
I feel PvP is a lazy way for devs to make bank and not to have to worry about AI. I celebrate the devs that have the balls and talent to tackle AI, probably the hardest thing to program into a game.
I have recorded a lot of Rust videos with my friends on a private server. We had rules set up so there was no unfair fights. Having a team raided and all there ♥♥♥♥ taken sucks because they will be weak for future battle. The comments on my videos were toxic. Because I didn't take everything off the body of my buddy I just killed I was told this isn't real rust.
I think your overestimating the amount of pvpers who want rules or a fair fight. Again from my experiance all pvpers want is to raid empty sleeping bases and kill people weaker than they are. To be fair I could be wrong.
Now I'm admit the op, and others in here don't sound like that. But i Think you're
the minority.
Now, I agree with Roland. If a modder can make a cool controlled PvP experience I'll be all over that. I have been waiting for a non toxic PvP experience for a while now
I feel PvP is a lazy way for devs to make bank and not to have to worry about AI. I celebrate the devs that have the balls and talent to tackle AI, probably the hardest thing to program into a game.
I have recorded a lot of Rust videos with my friends on a private server. We had rules set up so there was no unfair fights. Having a team raided and all there ♥♥♥♥ taken sucks because they will be weak for future battle. The comments on my videos were toxic. Because I didn't take everything off the body of my buddy I just killed I was told this isn't real rust.
I think your overestimating the amount of pvpers who want rules or a fair fight. Again from my experiance all pvpers want is to raid empty sleeping bases and kill people weaker than they are. To be fair I could be wrong.
Now I'm admit the op, and others in here don't sound like that. But i Think you're
the minority.
Now, I agree with Roland. If a modder can make a cool controlled PvP experience I'll be all over that. I have been waiting for a non toxic PvP experience for a while now
ColdSteelRain
New member
I'm not a PvP player, but my son likes having the additional threat of other people. The couple of times we've played PvP, though, the server was so empty (I think just a couple of other people on it), we played for several hours and never saw any sign of anyone.
But how about this: Allow players to play as zombies. Based on experience, you level up and play as a stronger zombie (start as a cheerleader, finish as a zombie bear.) The zombies role in the game is to grief players anyway, so that kind of fits in. I don't think you'd even have to implement any protection for new players. Maybe have some limitations on what the zombie player can see and hear based on their level, maybe allow someone to switch back and forth between being a zombie and a survivor when they join a server.
And, if you allow player zombies to dig, that puts the whole underground base argument to rest (well, one can hope.)
But how about this: Allow players to play as zombies. Based on experience, you level up and play as a stronger zombie (start as a cheerleader, finish as a zombie bear.) The zombies role in the game is to grief players anyway, so that kind of fits in. I don't think you'd even have to implement any protection for new players. Maybe have some limitations on what the zombie player can see and hear based on their level, maybe allow someone to switch back and forth between being a zombie and a survivor when they join a server.
And, if you allow player zombies to dig, that puts the whole underground base argument to rest (well, one can hope.)
Brian9824
New member
Funny how you still ignore everything I posted. Name one game in history that has had balanced pvp without it coming at the expense of PvE. Then ask yourself why you can't name one.
I provided several examples from a variety of games including several YOU used as an example such as Eve.
Your suggestion that the devs develop totally different mechanics for pvp isn't feasible. As myself, gazz and others have posted youd have to change nearly every aspect of the game to make pvp work as it requires a lot of balance. So the devs would need literally two different games where the mechanics worked completely different based on which you are playing. Everything from loot, to team system, to item's, respawning, etc has to be adjusted and modified so that it works.
If the game has a PVP focus and it's not balanced then people will quit playing, leave bad reviews and it will hurt the game. Frankly hearing you suggest they add pvp and not bother balancing it all is shocking to the extreme. ALL games need balance, otherwise they fail
Brian9824
New member
Exactly. The game has succeeded because of its focus on PvE and rather then waste resources trying to turn it into a PVP game it makes far more sense for the devs to focus on what made the game a success while giving modders more access to the game so they can customize it to their pvp ruleset.
Modding the game for smaller maps for instance, faster level progression, etc can make for a fun PvP game and doesn't require TFP to try to maintain two versions of the games where the systems behave differently based on a checkbox.
- - - Updated - - -
The main problem is always the speed and stata of a zombie. All you can do is wander as a zombie and hope to find a player and get killed instantly at range.
1 zombie is no threat even to a new player and even a zombie bear end game is no threat to a decked out player.
Gazz
Fun Pimps Staff
If you were to throw the feature in without any resemblance of a design, then yes. Total bust. =)
So what if the zombie player can ghost near a player and "get up from the ground" in a dark corner the player has no LOS to?
Of course players would loudly complain about zombies just spawning in the world where they had just been looking... but it's a game... with enemies that just plain spawn wherever level designers put them.
You dont want to be surprised by such a zombie? Pay attention to dark corners and tight turns. =)
RestInPieces
New member
This is getting awkward, because I have to keep repeating myself with clear answers I gave you a while ago. You mentioned Eve from my list because you found a post about someone complaining. Quite a "compelling" argument, especially when you can find people complaining about virtually anything in the internet. Then you ignored UO, Shadowbane, T4C, some other games I mentioned in my list. I've known it worked well from experience. SylenThunder mentioned some of the reasons it worked - the idea of this thread is essentially to replicate and adjust them here. Go ahead and find as much "proof" as you want by some guy who had his trinkets stolen and raged on the forums about it *sigh*.
And for the 100th time - that whole point of yours, even if it stood true, "what some games did/didn't in the past, can't be done", is quite myopic. If innovators thought like that - there wouldn't be any innovators, simple as that. If TFP thought like that there would be no 7dtd.
What I find funny is that you deem that this mode should be "balanced", when you so clearly show your dismay for it and while others who would actually enjoy it, have already said that it isn't necessary or realistic. Furthermore that balance you want for a feature you will never use (makes total sense), is the main reason of why these rules wouldn't work because it would "degrade" PvE experience. I am the last person that wants that - check at my thread history, but, hey some people believe what they want to believe and nothing can change that. So, I'd suggest to get over yourself and agree that we disagree on how the philosophy (balance or not) of pvp should be (which is strange, if one thinks about you having such a strong opinion about something that you are never going to play).
Add pvp? Didn't you hear the news? The game already has pvp. I don't know how regulating or refining sounds so shocking to you, but I won't judge. "All games need balance, otherwise they fail" - deep, you got me there.
Last edited by a moderator: