"The PvP Update"

A claimblock that is itself indestructible and can't be stolen that offers zero protection until say...20 blocks (configurable by server) are destroyed within the claim area and then when so triggered switches to 100% protection for everything in the claim area for 12 hours real time does not seem like it would stifle base raiding in the least. It would stop someone from completely destroying a base at least for 12 hours when they could then return and destroy 20 more blocks.
I see problems with that approach since it would do nothing to protect smaller bases, and abruptly make bases past a certain size effectively invulnerable. A claim block that gradually increases protection, without ever giving full invulnerability, would be better. Also if the claim protection is based on number of "blocks" destroyed, then people will throw up huge wooden structures quickly that can't be breached. The protection should be based off total block damage, otherwise it makes all those high tier blocks obsolete.

Even if the claim protection increased linearly (every 3000 damage for example), it would give the desired effect without needing full invulnerability. After the first 3k damage the claim multiplier goes from x1 to x2, then x3.... at x64 it's still "technically" possible to raid but boy you better have a lot of time on your hands. Once protection is high enough that every hit with any weapon is doing 1 damage, that ought to be invulnerable enough for anyone. Having complete and sudden invulnerability will also lead to situations where people get themselves stuck in someone else's base with no means of tunneling back out.

 
...but here is where you are showing your lack of knowledge (and i mean this respectfully)...
Thanks for the education. :)

You're right that I hadn't considered those points. I still think that for some servers and some players whose temperaments are not inclined to lead them to a "I learned something valuable and my next base will be better" moment and will instead lead them to a game uninstall action--having something to protect their base could be useful. And lets face it, there ARE some people who look at one evening's work on a base as a big deal and there are others who don't care about preserving the noobs on the server and all they live for is utter destruction.

 
"The PvP Update"

...but this thread has been focusing on the wrong stuff from post 1.

The real issues that need to be solved are the ease in which one can hack, and the general cludgliness of the controls.

Not to mention lack of 1 block crouch and lean.

Oh yeh; get rid of bedroll respawnimg too. And fix the underground glitch and Minibikes-push-you-forward-when-dismounting glitch.
Glitches first, feature set later.
^^With all due respect man, you're replying in the wrong thread the "real issues" and "fix the glitches" thread is that way >>

 
Thanks for the education. :)
You're right that I hadn't considered those points. I still think that for some servers and some players whose temperaments are not inclined to lead them to a "I learned something valuable and my next base will be better" moment and will instead lead them to a game uninstall action--having something to protect their base could be useful. And lets face it, there ARE some people who look at one evening's work on a base as a big deal and there are others who don't care about preserving the noobs on the server and all they live for is utter destruction.
Roland,

When I comment on something i always try and go from the perspective of the vanilla game. Sure, i recognise and have played all the mods and various extremes of server configs but when i comment on game balance issues I generally stick to that vanilla perspective because I know that TFP use that as their yardstick. I say this because whilst I agree that players can also act in ways that are at extreme ends of the spectrum I base my comments on the 'average' PVP players, with whom I have had thousands of interactions, raids, vendettas, discussions and good times. Its from the perspective of the median that you should balance both the gameplay and the players requirements, its pointless to point out exceptions and try to utilise them to prove or disprove a point because they are by definition, exceptions.

 
"The PvP Update"




^^With all due respect man, you're replying in the wrong thread the "real issues" and "fix the glitches" thread is that way >>
It happens to me a lot. :)

I'd call it mad genius but I think it's actually functional retardation.

 
I think this is a preference thing. I will say that upon further reflection and reading I agree that a somewhat shallower vertical progression would probably be okay but I also think that there will be plenty of people who will not look at two weeks of hiding and building up before emerging to compete as something that will hold their interest. I have no idea which type of player is the majority but like Jax said you get quite a lot of PvP players across several games crying out for a more level playing field and doing away with features that create such huge margins in relative player power.
Now I get that 7 Days to Die PvP doesn't have to be like the rest and this game can have its own brand of PvP that bucks the norm and maintains a strong player progression and if I am wrong that would be a cool distinction to have and our servers will be robust with 1000s of players. But if I'm not wrong then 7 Days to Die PvP will just be a niche experience that only caters to a small segment of all PvP players and our PvP community will stay small.
If they are hiding for two weeks before emerging to compete, they are playing a very conservative, boring, or perhaps a PVE-build-focused strategy. It's a common strategy for first timers on a PVP server and is somewhat more effective than it ought to be simply because of the steepness of the force multiplier. Which is a topic I think we have exhausted and can be addressed easily enough by Gazz's massaging. But I argue that is not a playstyle that a lot of experienced PVP players do. It's what a lot of PVE minded players do, and a prevalence of the current audience do because that's the type of players that has stuck around and still plays the game. Many true PVP players stock up on a bit of food/water, then gather a stack of arrows and set off hunting these types of players to kill and steal their mats they've been harvesting on Day 2. There just aren't very many of us left.

The reason 7DTD doesn't have a healthy PVP population is simply because of a few of the dev's and forum moderators past attitudes and blatant disregard (I do insist this is putting it mildly) towards maintaining a healthy multiplayer game environment over the alphas for the last 2 years. The PVPers were the first ones to be vocal about declines in stability, but it affected large cap PVE players the same. I'm not looking to dredge up a lot of old dirty laundry, but you even admit it in the title of this thread. "Eventually" they will come around to PVP. I love your optimism, but I'm not easily convinced. I'm engaging in this thread because I would like to see that happen. More importantly, I would like it done in intelligent ways that maintain the integrity and unique spark of the game. But I don't know where a lot of these new ideas and "problems" derived from (a separate PVP mode, invulnerable claims, perk claims, protecting griefers etc). Many of these problems aren't problems to begin with that have been vocalized by PVP players. Some of them appear to me as simple as trying to implement a system that makes players happy that got beat on a PVP server. Most have quite effective solutions currently supported in the game to counter. It just takes perseverence and learning-through-playing on a PVP server to learn how to survive. That lesson is far more lengthy and rewarding than learning how to survive against zombies in 7 days.

With regards to the PVP population, a few of us have stuck it out. It's sporadic at best though. But I've known hundreds of players, modders, server owners, and regular teammates and friends that quit for an array of reasons that ultimately boiled down to the fact that Madmole does not want a PVP game. He has stated it in no uncertain terms many times. A lot of them left when the switch to U5 came about, and it nuked the viability of servers with more than 8-10 people on them. When confronted with this evidence, the line was "we do not care about supporting multiplayer servers. this is a single player/coop game., go play rust". The forums exploded around supporting this sentiment, and people that wanted to play the game in a PVP way got the message. They left. Most of them for good.

As a couple posters in this thread have pointed out. It's not the land claims or experience curve that drive away PVP players. Heck, look at just about any MMORPG. You want to talk about grind. Look at WOW or EVE online... it takes forever to level and the risks can be devastating. As in thousands of real life dollars and hundreds of hours devastating. They have millions of players though. But they do have a perfectly stable game environment that protects players assets from needless waste (hacking/exploiting).

- - - Updated - - -

In my opinion, the following are what drives away PVP players from this game and should be TFP's primary focus on any "PVP Update". In order of relative importance.

#1 - Develop support for high population servers. 30+ is an abolute minimum. 50 is warmer. 100 is awesome. This has two aspects of it which are critical to building a playerbase of "1000's", regardless of whether it is PVE or PVP. These two aspects are attracting an audience to play a multiplayer game and also enabling the ability for people to adequately host sufficient large cap servers. This game world is pretty big, even at 10k limits. You can play for days and sometimes weeks irl without coming across another player on a 20 man server. On the 2nd aspect, the game's stability seems to be consistently getting better in the last year, but I'm not convinced that's for any pvp-minded reasons. I feel like it's more of a convenient side-effect of improving the game's code.

For example. It is uncommon but it's not impossible to get up to around a 30-man server and maintain stability for 1000's of days. BUT - it takes a hell of a good server, and a great server manager program to keep them afloat (regular scheduled restarts, backups, active admins to remove glitched bikes/suspended terrain, chunk restorations for corruption). I know the owners of several of the long-running large cap servers and have donated $ to several of them to keep them running. These guys are true lovers of the game and spend a lot of money to do this. Teammates and I have even rented our own 30-man server. It costs about $120/month to get a good enough box to host a 30-man, reliable server. That is simply cost prohibitive and the ultimate reason why no matter what you do to any of this game, PVP will not flourish until you can support enough people to play such that you can find each other in a persistent world environment.

- - - Updated - - -

#2 - The need to develop better admin tools so that owners & mods can identify and deal with the hacking/exploiting problems themselves. I'm convinced the game and server code can't eliminate hacking with the way it is currently setup and still provide the desired, moddable nature. And I'm not proposing to change that necessarily. But I think it's getting time to address this by building better server managment and admin tracking tools now that the core framework is largely in place (or seems to be). Currently, most server owners use 3rd party server managers to achieve stability and control who plays on their servers. There are a multitude of things they all do, and some implement systems that others don't have. The critical things they provide are supporting; region blocking, ping limits, inventory flagging with auto-banning, and adequately support entity removal (for all those bugged minibikes). Server owners that have been around the block know they must block China. The consequence is they will literally get 3-4 hackers per day that will teleport around and destroy/kill everything. It's just a cultural thing, but it has to be done. These players login and destroy PVP and PVE servers alike for the lulls. Some owners have developed techniques such as invulnerable claims, area zoning rulesets, and other systems to try and mitigate it. Some of the people that are asking for these things in the forums are doing so because they are not getting beat fair & square in a PVP server, but they have actually suffered from the hackers.

- - - Updated - - -

#3 - Reduce the number of exploits, trivial annoyances and needless grind. You can place minibike frames on claimed areas and scale people's walls! Projectile explosives do excessive block damage for their cost. I shouldn't have to explain that the dupes cheat the system in order to beat your competitors. Honest players face real consequences when they die and have to go farming for metal to make a new set of armor or spend 3 days looking for another decent sniper rifle. The grunts/sighs/broken legs/belly aches/temperature system are the low hanging fruit here for annoyances. What do these really add, honestly? Did someone wake up one day and say "ya know what would be fun? when I get warm in-game, I should suffer until I take off my coat". We should be setting our sights higher here. Build toggles for these into that server manager that doesn't exist yet.

This turned into way too long of a post. But my point is the vast majority of players want to play. Fewer will launch their own server. Most of those will do it from their own PC/home connection and can't support more than a few people. And an extremely low # will shell out $120/month for a dedicated server, learn to mod the game into something that supports large cap/PVP servers, and spend all of their free time on nights and weekends keeping the thing running. TFP have to improve these things, reduce the load, reduce exploiting, and make hosting a server easier in order to get the 1000's of PVP'ers into the game.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
But I don't know where a lot of these new ideas and "problems" derived from (a separate PVP mode, invulnerable claims, perk claims, protecting griefers etc). Many of these problems aren't problems to begin with that have been vocalized by PVP players.
Very likely from "the type of players that has stuck around and still plays the game". =)

You know that the game has a large PVE following, right? How do you get them interested in PVP at all when all they hear are horror stories about what is clearly "griefing" in their world?

You may consider a lot of those issues "training wheels" but there is a reason why training wheels exist.

The "hardcore PVP player" can not be the only consideration when thinking about PVE/PVP changes. You're not that special. ;)

And when some people blow a gasket hearing about "invulnerable claim stones" - they should consider who is saying these things.

Developers often look at edge cases first because when you get those working, the middle ground balancing pretty much falls into place.

Also, are invulnerable claim stones and "PVE + PVP on the same server" such a horrible idea?

If you want to promote PVP then you have to allow players to "just dip their toe in" without asking them to completely go out of their comfort zone.

Sure, that leads to other well-known forms of griefing like an "invulnerable" PVE player MMO-training a PVP player. But you're so hardcore, what's the worst that could happen? =P

Singular claim stones open up sooooo many possibilities. Imagine a "PVP zone" extending around your PVP base.

Every PVE player who enters becomes a target after x seconds. You could actually have PVE players parttake in "raids"!

(they may still not be able to attack blocks because that would be pretty one-sided =)

Perfectly doable with "singular but more powerful claim stones". When I say more powerful I'm not talking about the block durability modifier. That's just one number.

 
Depending on how serious tfp is in making a viable and different experience for PvP, long term sustainability as poojam suggests has to be taken into consideration.

If PvP is just going to be a slight variant from pve, then ignore him.

If PvP is going to be done right, then consider him.

I was a competitive fps player back in my day. I don't PvP 7days because it sucks for it.

 
Very likely from "the type of players that has stuck around and still plays the game". =)
You know that the game has a large PVE following, right? How do you get them interested in PVP at all when all they hear are horror stories about what is clearly "griefing" in their world?

You may consider a lot of those issues "training wheels" but there is a reason why training wheels exist.

The "hardcore PVP player" can not be the only consideration when thinking about PVE/PVP changes. You're not that special. ;)

And when some people blow a gasket hearing about "invulnerable claim stones" - they should consider who is saying these things.

Developers often look at edge cases first because when you get those working, the middle ground balancing pretty much falls into place.

Also, are invulnerable claim stones and "PVE + PVP on the same server" such a horrible idea?

If you want to promote PVP then you have to allow players to "just dip their toe in" without asking them to completely go out of their comfort zone.

Sure, that leads to other well-known forms of griefing like an "invulnerable" PVE player MMO-training a PVP player. But you're so hardcore, what's the worst that could happen? =P

Singular claim stones open up sooooo many possibilities. Imagine a "PVP zone" extending around your PVP base.

Every PVE player who enters becomes a target after x seconds. You could actually have PVE players parttake in "raids"!

(they may still not be able to attack blocks because that would be pretty one-sided =)

Perfectly doable with "singular but more powerful claim stones". When I say more powerful I'm not talking about the block durability modifier. That's just one number.
Oh, I know the audience. I guess I thought this thread represented an opportunity to perhaps expand that pool to re-attract "PVP" players to the game. Something about Roland's posts led me to believe that. I and others have given our reasons why singular claims +/- invulnerability is a terrible idea. I simply fail to see the attraction. All I see are pros/cons and the cons far outweigh the pros. More importantly, I see a lot of exploits and hacks that exacerbate the problem into what it is currently perceived. Instead of fixing those outstanding issues, you propose to design a system around it without addressing the underlying issues and then doing an evaluation before proposing large changes.

Just to be clear, this is not a "PVP Update" if the purpose is simply to neuter it into something more palatable for PVE players to stomach. The problem is education in this regard. If players on a raiding server knew the risks, then they play and get bent over backwards, they shouldn't be devastated. Play it or don't. There are tons of combinations of claim strengths, claim size, and partial area safe zoning via mods that already give players the ability to choose a ruleset that meets these needs. I've tossed out ideas that comport within the lore & current quest system design that can greatly improve these problems, but I feel like that was ignored.

Singular claims are awful for how that will be a great restriction to base creation. Invulnerable claims, if they are to be implemented, need to be optional. (They are useless mind you, people will still raid their crap). Implementing both would simply be just another huge degradation/nail in the coffin for anyone that enjoys raiding.

 
Oh, I know the audience. I guess I thought this thread represented an opportunity to perhaps expand that pool to re-attract "PVP" players to the game. Something about Roland's posts led me to believe that. I and others have given our reasons why singular claims +/- invulnerability is a terrible idea. I simply fail to see the attraction. All I see are pros/cons and the cons far outweigh the pros. More importantly, I see a lot of exploits and hacks that exacerbate the problem into what it is currently perceived. Instead of fixing those outstanding issues, you propose to design a system around it without addressing the underlying issues and then doing an evaluation before proposing large changes.
Just to be clear, this is not a "PVP Update" if the purpose is simply to neuter it into something more palatable for PVE players to stomach. The problem is education in this regard. If players on a raiding server knew the risks, then they play and get bent over backwards, they shouldn't be devastated. Play it or don't. There are tons of combinations of claim strengths, claim size, and partial area safe zoning via mods that already give players the ability to choose a ruleset that meets these needs. I've tossed out ideas that comport within the lore & current quest system design that can greatly improve these problems, but I feel like that was ignored.

Singular claims are awful for how that will be a great restriction to base creation. Invulnerable claims, if they are to be implemented, need to be optional. (They are useless mind you, people will still raid their crap). Implementing both would simply be just another huge degradation/nail in the coffin for anyone that enjoys raiding.
I can see the benefits of having settings that would allow PvE players to "get into" PvP on terms that would be more appealing to them. It certainly would be smart from a business standpoint for TFP to cater to that. On the other hand, I see what you are saying and I believe that I am ignorant of what truly PvP players want the more I read what you and Bloom have to say. I also think that your big three points above are exactly right for what needs to happen on a systemic level. Changing options is not enough. I see that. 30+ server support, admin tools, and PvP killing glitches and exploits definitely need to be high priority targets from the developers.

As far as options I think the key is to have as many as we can think of so that the game can easily be configured to settings that make veteran PvPers smile as well as make PvP enticing to the rest.

 
Since TFP develop in such a way that features can be turned off/on, claim blocks being one of them, then it should be a non-issue for the most part. I say, figure out what hard core gamers are looking for, then add in the special claim blocks that provide a set of benefits or whatever that can be turned on or off. I'm not so sure whats wrong with that concept?

If there is an issue with that, then it would have to be that more people would probably play pvp on servers that provide more protection than on the hard core servers, thus reducing the hard core pvp servers overall population.

I personally don't care for hardcore pvp servers. So I'm one who'd only play on pvp servers where a good community is established.

 
Also, are invulnerable claim stones and "PVE + PVP on the same server" such a horrible idea?If you want to promote PVP then you have to allow players to "just dip their toe in" without asking them to completely go out of their comfort zone.
I think it's worth noting that not all PvP is "everyone else is an enemy". Team PvP can be a lot of fun, especially if teams are large (like the realms in DAoC, for instance). Mixing PvP with PvE will make PvP in 7DTD more survival-ish as well (the zombies act as a universal enemy). That's a niche worth investigating.

 
I think it's worth noting that not all PvP is "everyone else is an enemy". Team PvP can be a lot of fun, especially if teams are large (like the realms in DAoC, for instance). Mixing PvP with PvE will make PvP in 7DTD more survival-ish as well (the zombies act as a universal enemy). That's a niche worth investigating.
This is the kind of pvp I like most. Its the reason I enjoy multiplayer. When I hosted a Rust server, we had a group of 8. We did raids in small groups but, if we had a group who was trashing buildings with salt the earth tactics, we'd do a full group raid. My same group also played on another server where we got raided by the alpha team, who we picked a fight with. It was a one sided battle, but it was a blast and we knew we had it coming. That being said, most Rust servers tended to lead to the dark side where you were always getting raided, unless you were so far out of town nothing could be looted or killed and took all day just to get back on to the map. (old rust). At that point, it was just pointless to play and no fun.
 
This is the kind of pvp I like most. Its the reason I enjoy multiplayer. When I hosted a Rust server, we had a group of 8. We did raids in small groups but, if we had a group who was trashing buildings with salt the earth tactics, we'd do a full group raid. My same group also played on another server where we got raided by the alpha team, who we picked a fight with. It was a one sided battle, but it was a blast and we knew we had it coming. That being said, most Rust servers tended to lead to the dark side where you were always getting raided, unless you were so far out of town nothing could be looted or killed and took all day just to get back on to the map. (old rust). At that point, it was just pointless to play and no fun.
I have Rust, just haven't gotten into it enough yet. I think I'm waiting for them add a single player option so I can at least get a feel for the mechanics of the game before throwing myself to the wolves. :p

 
There are some PvP servers that run very high claim multipliers on purpose, such that raiding is not really an option. Some people like to play a game where they can kill players and steal their loot, but still like having a safe zone at their home base. Personally I like player killing and base raiding. I don't mind the high stakes game play because I've learned lots of little tricks to keep my loot safe, but it's going to be too much for the casual player. I've seen many players quit after their base is gutted, which is why I think a "dip-your-toe-in" approach to PvP is the right approach. Having different areas in the same map with different levels of safety might be ideal, it's worked for Eve. I would like to see more PvE players graduate to PvP, but that's not going to work if all you do is throw them to the wolves. That will just discourage them from the game or drive them to pure PvE servers.

 
There are some PvP servers that run very high claim multipliers on purpose, such that raiding is not really an option. Some people like to play a game where they can kill players and steal their loot, but still like having a safe zone at their home base. Personally I like player killing and base raiding. I don't mind the high stakes game play because I've learned lots of little tricks to keep my loot safe, but it's going to be too much for the casual player. I've seen many players quit after their base is gutted, which is why I think a "dip-your-toe-in" approach to PvP is the right approach. Having different areas in the same map with different levels of safety might be ideal, it's worked for Eve. I would like to see more PvE players graduate to PvP, but that's not going to work if all you do is throw them to the wolves. That will just discourage them from the game or drive them to pure PvE servers.
Then they should play on servers with a high claim multiplier.

And/or

TFP should fix the offline claim multiplier so that it actually works, which would provide a middle ground that is currently absent. Flip through the server listings and you'll notice they are usually different values. I think that most people are not aware that it doesn't function.

 
Then they should play on servers with a high claim multiplier.
And/or

TFP should fix the offline claim multiplier so that it actually works, which would provide a middle ground that is currently absent. Flip through the server listings and you'll notice they are usually different values. I think that most people are not aware that it doesn't function.
That divides the player base. I would like to see more players interacting on one server, and being able to try different play styles without having to start on a new server.

The online/offline claim multiplier is a nifty idea, but even when it worked you would get players logging out (with their loot) as soon as someone threatened their base. I think the game would have to change a lot to be a tower defense game against other players.

(PS claim decay doesn't work either)

 
That divides the player base. I would like to see more players interacting on one server, and being able to try different play styles without having to start on a new server.
The online/offline claim multiplier is a nifty idea, but even when it worked you would get players logging out (with their loot) as soon as someone threatened their base. I think the game would have to change a lot to be a tower defense game against other players.

(PS claim decay doesn't work either)
Divides the players no more than they already are. They were talking about a separate pvp only mode, like h1z1's king of the hill. Which is basically a different stand alone game.

There are multiple problems with offline multipliers. That is the most obvious. You also have to add logic for friends list now. Just add a 60 minute timer to it really though and problem is solved for the most part.

 
Back
Top