I want Fallout mmo to a real pvp game, but diffferent and i definitely want sandox feature in. Sometimes different is good enough. I like to kill real players, not mobs. Show me any pvp based game out there that is worth a damn right now. Warhammer svcks. AoC svcks. WoW is not PvP ,back in the old times Uo ,Anarchy Online ,Asheron Call were ok at that period but now they are history. Mortal Online is not released yet, but it looks like Darkfall and Darkfall (i play it atm)is amasing but alot of unfinished things in this game too and the all thing with full loot is not to birght(maybe partial loot with saved/cloning items/gear/money will be the best idea) but the pvp/ganks are awsome and the cahracters are realy free to do waht they want(no instance is a great feature and huge map).
From what Chris told us and i personaly think V13 looks like it has big potential and milions of fans all over the world, but something still gives me the eerie feeling about this outfit's legitamicy.Hell, the games I thought looked good were crap...so maybe the one that looks like crap will be great. After all WTH do I know? 27 years of consuming air and playing games since 93 doesn't really make my opinion better than that guy with 15 years of pormstar experience lol.I hope fallout mmo will be a game that will shake all the mmo galaxy .

I am the Formless in all forms.Strenght si the only measure ,all things can be resolved with violence and blood share.

yea a pvp setting is where i am at too, i also play darkfall by the way. But my ideal setting is fallout

I realy think Fallout can be a full loot game but with availability to save/clone your items/gear/money, with alot of features involve in pvp and of course with a small amount of safe areas or none(maybe only the newb zones) for the players.Some kind of rewards from pvp shuld be available (not the arena wow system ) but more of a solo and not team based becouse we all know in fallout the most good thing was that you are a lone wulf venturing in the world and skill your atributes that you use .We can have a succesfull mmo with full loot and with alot of free pvp and with no restrictions at all.

I am the Formless in all forms.Strenght si the only measure ,all things can be resolved with violence and blood share.

In that case I hope there will be servers with your ways of PVP handling, and "normal" servers without. Making the game all around PVP "open" would be a reason for me to play it not. I hope the will find a way to make the game interesting for all groups of gamers.

Yeah full ffa servers and normal servers are in need i think.Like in warhammer or aoc you can chose were u wana to play and what tipe of server you will end up in

I am the Formless in all forms.Strenght si the only measure ,all things can be resolved with violence and blood share.

On the subject of pvp, yes I would like too see full world pvp too, but with some restrictions. I've noticed that in some games people just purposely go around killing people, there should be a system which prevents or makes that harder. I was thinking along the lines of say NCR was in the game. NCR would want to have a good reputation (a place with less crime), so people can be killed in NCR, but the killer will basicly be attacked by everyone there. When the attacked character revives(or however that system will work), they would have there lost good returned to them. Of course when there is a full scale assault on the town by a group, that is the point when everyone who doesn't want to get gets out.

For towns like New Reno, killing new people that arrive there would be ok, with no consequences(except maybe if the person who was killed had friends), but for people who have befriended the mafia there should be protected.

When traveling outside the towns there should be buffer zones (if someone kills you near a city, a bounty will be placed on the attacker), and the further you get from a city the less protection you get and the more chances there are to be killed and have all your stuff taken. This is where group travel would come in handy, everyone protects everyone else.

This would also make long quests more challenging. You leave with a group, someone follows you and tries to kill your group, you win, finish the quest and on the way back you have to fight again. The kind of feel that should be for group quests like these are like in Knights of the old republic 1. You have your city that you are most familiar with(Ebon hawk equivalent), then you leave that city or settlement, do a really long quest that keeps you stressed at a reasonable level(mostly worry of dieing), and then a couple of hours later, when you return to you safe haven, you appreciate it more. (I'm using kotor as an example because i feel that game displayed that feeling of safety when in the Ebon hawk the best. For fallout 2, it would probably be NCR for me, but I didn't really spend that much time in it.)

Another important thing is the map should be big enough that you don't run into people every 5 min, not for it to be easy, but to give the wasteland an empty feel and to give the fear that someone might have followed you out of the safe haven.

For the sake of contributing.

Personally I believe in a controlled mostly overworld PvP enviroment. I don't actually advocate PvP as a hardcoe feature, but in the veins of wanting to see it integrated with RP. Traditional RP in Pen & Paper cross group games can get vicious. Not for the sake of killing, but becuase it fits with agendas, goals and purposes. Most PvP is designed around gaining some form of PvP rep or gear.

If you were to approach an RP player asking him to help take Shady Sands from a group of raiders(the raiders being player). There is a descent chance he will do so. Except that under normal circumstances Shady Sands can't be taken over.

I also advocate controlled/gradual PvP scale. This is an option that let's players choose how heavily they want to participate. Throwing a new player to the dogs is good way to have those players not coming back to spend more money. By starting the players out with some low key quests, then giving them game options. Like choosing what they lose, the value of loss when they lose can ease them into hardcoe PvP. At least reach a personal level of balance.

I refer to the suggest PvP bid system mentioned in the suggestions thread.

edit: @OP
sorry, but i've been playing MMO from the days when they were Muds. I still know some of us playing modern MMO. I can honestly say that the Old gamer in you comment is actually within the range of 13-24. The height of testerone. Being in my 30's I can honestly say I could care less for mindless PvP.

Ideally the system would allow the player to loot no more than they specify in addition to what can be looted from them. While that could work, I'm not sure how well it would work nor how ideal it would be. I'm not a big fan of being able to loot people dry as it's not fun but I see the merit in allowing people who want the option to be able to loot others who want the option dry. The hard part is how you restrict what can be taken. If you set a monetary limit then you run into trouble with low level characters killing high level characters and being unable to take anything but if you set a item limit then you run into people getting upset about loosing their super rare items (though that should be less of a problem in Fallout as there shouldn't be rares, epics, and other such magical crap). I'd prefer having the number set when the character is created and be permanent or have a long delay between changing the value and it actually changing for your character (thinking 12-24 hours, though that might be extreme). This would be to prevent people from abusing it to avoid being looted while doing something dangerous and then changing it so that they can then hunt people down and loot them, resulting in very little profitable PvPing at all.

I don't quite remember EVE's system, I'm not sure if it allows the player who killed you to loot everything on your ship or only random things but I do know that the game randomly destroys random amounts of items in order to further discourage dying (you loose varying amounts depending on how you had your ship insured). As far as PvP goes, EVE has the best system that I've ever played so it's certainly something to look at for this stuff.

persanoly i think that with a game like this you can realy go wild and do things never befor seen .
the bigest problem with mmos today is that they are so boaring . they are all the same .. from a crapy character cration to missions that are all the same with a diffrent backround .
i guess what im trying to implie is that you should think out side the box and create something truly magnificant .
a better character creation where you can realy make a unique avatar that is truly your own .
dont have 5 faces and 3 hair styles plus eye color ..then u get every one looking the same ..boaring .
give options ! lots of options . like roll playing .. which 90 % of the mmos out there are lacking its called an online RPG yet u dont have any roll playing .lets say if a player wants to just chill out at a bar after a long days travel ..haveing a cold one ..
you know have options , details , all sorts of fun stuff for a player to do, form interaction with other players to stuff u can do other then just runing around doing quests all the time .
the ability to make camp out in the wilderness and cook your own food .. and eat it ..
player build citys , lots n' lots of equiptment and weapon options , the ability to open your own shop or bar or action house .... options .
till next time .

-Ace-

Depending on the structure of allience, i would say full pvp, just because it sounds more realistic. On the otherhand you dont have to be a total moron to see that the best way is full pvp and normal pvp servers, that way you get a bigger audience and everyone gets what he wants from a mmo.

Although i dont think this is what all 'old gamers' want as what the topic titel suggests, i do think it could be more in line with the Fallout canon. i say 'could' because it all depends on what systems the devs want to use. Lets say they use a harsh death system which really makes you feel the pain of death (loot loss, stat/xp loss) or that they want to give pvp a certain profit (other pc's loot/faction tokens).

Sure you can in throw both but thats why i think splitting this in different servers is more sensible, you dont want to loose stuff in pve and pvp at the same time if you dont have the option to choose. Anywayz, well see in time what devs have in store for us (Keep up the good work, and if you guys need a part time 3d moddeler, i'm here)

cheers There can only be one Highlander!

Ideally the system would allow the player to loot no more than they specify in addition to what can be looted from them. While that could work, I'm not sure how well it would work nor how ideal it would be. I'm not a big fan of being able to loot people dry as it's not fun but I see the merit in allowing people who want the option to be able to loot others who want the option dry. The hard part is how you restrict what can be taken. If you set a monetary limit then you run into trouble with low level characters killing high level characters and being unable to take anything but if you set a item limit then you run into people getting upset about loosing their super rare items (though that should be less of a problem in Fallout as there shouldn't be rares, ep..

One of the things I was thinking you can't take value more than you bid. So you bid 100caps worth of stuff then you can't take more than 100caps worth of stuff. It's not inclusive of everything of course. Just a starting idea.

Currently, the best PvP is LOTRO (WoW players agree), however it has balancing problems too.

First rule to PvP -

1) What happens in PvP stays in PvP. This means that PvP will be in controlled areas. This will prevent newbies getting fragged every time they spawn or rez. They have enough problems in PVE, they do not need us brutes or some low-life curmudgeon camping rez points or new player spawn points. Yes, FO is a cruel world but not everyone agrees with PvP. And it is very frustrating if you new, keep losing stuff, and you can not go anywhere with campers. Unlike LOTRO, the only exception is that we have more than two areas to combat -

1) An arena where we can bet or the fighters can bet too or they can earn points for new crafting materials, good quality BFGs, etc.
2) City battles.
3) Fortification take over and hold it.

Rule 2 -

I believe you should be able to loot but none of the equipped items since these will be the player's best armor and weapons. And I feel 25% of what they have in their packs is free game. If they do not have anything, maybe the game can either tap into their bank account or provide the winner with a "bottle cap prize". OR, have the game provide a bottle cap (monetary) or point prize. That is one thing I dislike in LOTRO, we don't get any money when we make a kill so we have to farm NPCs for money and I don't like that. PvP in LOTRO is expensive and some times the farming is monotonous.

Rule 3 -

Perhaps, players can play opposition such as the Enclave, mutants, ghouls, or something unusual. In LOTRO, you can either play a Free Person of Middle Earth (human, elf, dwarf, hobbit) or you can play a monster player. I like to break the monotony by playing a monster player the most. The current choices are spider (crowd control), Urukai Black Arrow (archerer), Orc Reaver (warrior), Orc Defiler (debuffer\main healer), Urukai War Leader (jack of all trades, master at none), Warg Stalker (stealthy warrior, scout, freep healer harasser). I have a decent level warg (rank 8 out of 15) and I use it when I am tired of PVE and want something different. Different set of skills, different tactics, true intelligent opposition (no AI), and lots of fun. It is great to stalk hunters who are not tracking or anyone else I can attack 1 vs 1 and win. There are also raids\fellowships\warg packs formed to take castles and to repel freeps. Nothing like being in a warg pack and attacking loners of crowds smaller than your own. Just imagine riding down the dirt road and all of sudden, you are off your horse and die in 5 seconds from 24 wargs biting and clawing you. It's great to be in a warg pack.

Rule 4-

If you enter PvP, you will be warned in the staging area. If you step out into the war zone, take it like a man or woman. Everyone is fair game - I will kill or be killed.

Rule 5 -

Staging areas - these areas are used to form groups, take a break, restock supplies, etc. This is so you will not be instantly in combat once you transition into PvP. There will be multiple ingress\egress points with barricades to help mitigate campers. Once you enter the staging area, you can not be shot or shoot at a player. The barricades will help you fight your way out if there are campers or provide cover until you can repel the campers. Then it is up to the community to curse at campers because if you camp, people will be turned off from playing PvP.

More to add later

As a PvE fanatic I really hope V13 does not end up being centered around PvP, and that PvP somehow ends up being mandatory in some way.

I am all for PvP, but only when the player choses to participate.

Separate servers for PvP hungry players, as always, seems like a good idea. ---------------------
Best Regards
Daimyo

Diehard hard core Fallout cultist want down right dirty PvP and there has to be considerable effort placed into PvP equal in size to PvE. Fallout Online wouldn't be Fallout Online without a huge PvP content.

Another idea, is do not worry about instances or parallel world but in your control panel you can flick a switch or whatever that changes you from PVE to PVP or back again with warning that You are about to enter PVP mode" or "You are about to enter PVE mode". Campers are still subject to nasty wandering monsters to keep them from camping a place too long. And if you exit the game in PvP mode, it will tell you before you load your character and you have the option to turn it off before loading.

This may save resources by doing to PVP this way. PVE can not hurt PVP characters and vice versa. PVE characters can not heal nor trade with PVP characters that are in combat and vice versa. PvP and PvE characters can emote each other no matter what.

How about some good old IN GAME TECH SUPPORT which is severely lacking in other games.

Enough resources so there is little to no lag. Granted there is always Internet congestion. I just don't want the game server to be pegged or hosed.

PvP - player versus player - at any time, a player can engage in combat with you regardless if you want to or not or if you are prepared to fight them and vice versa.

PvE - player vs (computer) environment or player versus AI. Also, PvE have aggro points. While you may be in range for PvP to see and engage you. And usually PvE mobs will stop aggro after you run so far which is less likely with PvP players unless they feel they are being led into a trap or become bored.

Although AI is improving, there is nothing like fighting another player because all of the tactics change. You can pretty much stay still and hack on an AI. With players if you stay mobile, you increase your odds of winning like real combat. The only draw back is that you may be of lower level or they may have the controls down while you may still be struggling. Also some PvPers like to camp and wait for greenies for easy kills and of course engage more veteran players as well.

The only way I see separating PvE and PvP is have restricted instances or more ideally either a separate server or a setting in your control panel to address resource issues. Because of the constant fighting with potential raid size operations, it takes a toll on servers that are also committed to PvE.

To address this - For example, a player is being attacked and suddenly switches so he can't be attacked anymore, then switches back once he has healed and finishes the other player off.

- He can not switch in combat nor does he really want to either.

I think it should play like the fallout mmo that is being worked on by those Russian guys. I was lucky enough to play during the open beta over the summer and I was very impressed with how the game worked. It really felt like a mmo Fallout should. When you met someone in a town you wasn't sure if they would walk by you or kill you were you stood. When playing solo items were hard to come by, you either scavenged or you killed and looted. I think there are some great aspects about that game that would make V13 a new and different feeling mmo.

The only problem is that the company needs to make a profit. Sure you will attract all of the PvPers but why not attract the PvEers too. And I would not doubt the PVEers outnumber the PVPers at this time. Resources given, either the PvE and PVP worlds need to be separate with a free option for a player to convert from PVE to PVP and back to PvE or the old switch in the game control panel or game settings.

Thank you for clarifying. I thought it was something like that, but I wasn't too sure.

I'm not sure why a player would not want to switch to avoid dying though. A massive thank you to EA for:
- Producing great quality games time and time again
- Providing excellent technical support
- Never destroying any highly acclaimed studios for profit
- Never ripping people off
- Never wasting people's time