Unless there was an announcement i missed, all we know about how FOOL is going to be in regards to PvP and PvE is that PvP is concentual. Chris, if you can shed some more light on PvP we'd be greatfull, but we understand if you cant.

That said, what does everyone think FOOL should do?
Keep in mind this isn't the PvP or PvE itself, but the actual game design used to seperate the two (which, IMO, is often more important). Most MMOs use a zoned method, where upon entering an area you're flagged.

Personally, though, i'd like to see a mission based system where you can select to do a mission either PvE style or PvP style. If you select to do it PvP style either another player choosing the same mission, or an opposing mission. For example, you have a mission to snatch something, they have a mission to destroy it.

I think that might be the best idea for PvP I've seen so far, I'm all for mission based PvP!

Mission-based would be nice, but not as the only way to PvP (some people just prefer FFA chaos (where you can make your own orders, the most fun part of MMOs in my opinion) over planned out, follow the linear path PvP).

I think a zoned system would work best, with the most challenging/rewarding non-player opponents spawning within the PvP zones. This means people are free to avoid PvP if they choose, but will not be able to hunt the most rewarding and challenging non-player spawns. In order to hunt the tougher stuff you would need to adapt and learn how to either flee or defend yourself and likewise people who enjoy PvP will have some nice looting opportunities. If implemented well it'll even have PvP groups fighting each other just to control the better loot spawns.

On top of this I think there should be wars. There should be a guild system that allows players to PvP members of hostile guilds wherever they may be, so as to allow people who prefer to play like this the option of teaming up and going to war with other teams and always having that feeling that you could run into trouble.

Basically, playing an MMO where you know you can't get into trouble just isn't playing an MMO at all. But not everyone thinks like this, so there should be options. However, people who prefer to avoid PvP but still like to lurk around in PvP areas for the sheer thrill of the risk and adventure involved (how I was in early Ultima Online) should be rewarded over people who just want to bake bread and repetitively kill the same object over and over again.

PvE and PvP are never going to agree on open-world situations. I like the mission based choice!

Just because someone plays different than you does not mean they have any less work involved in their own story (which is the point of an mmorpg) and should not have to be prevented from fully enjoying the game just because they don't want to pvp. Pve can be just as dangerous without the headache of dealing with immature griefers. I enjoy pvp, but I don't wish to impose my fun on someone else's expense.

I like Acrimitis idea about mission based PvP. It can easily fit in with Fallout such as accepting a mission to join a caravan as a guard. Another player can accept a mission to raid the expected caravan. An instance can start that matches players together to defend/attack the caravan. You can even add a third team with a different goal. For example, the caravan guards try to protect the caravan, bandits try to steal the goods, while some raiders for certain reasons, are trying to destroy the same caravan which will mean no one gets the goods.

I really like that idea. Battlefield pvp gets old and having missions like that really help spice it up.

I wouldnt want exslusively a mission based PvP system, but i would love it have it in addition to whatever the devs may already be working on (assuming its not mission based).

As far as PvE content which can only be reached by traversing PvP areas... I doubt it, it's already been stated that PvP is going to be purely consentual, and that doesn't exactly fit that. Also, players which want to exclusively PvE shouldn't be forced to PvP if they want to participate in high level PvE.

I also do not wish to impose my fun on anyone else. I suggest you read my post, rather than just getting angry. But I don't see how PvE can be dangerous, since if you fail, you just come back and do it again. There's no loss/risk.

My post clearly stated that I was for PvE only play being possible.

I would like to see PvP very player centered in almost every regard. Caravans are owned and operated by players. The protection and running of those caravans, i.e. where they go, what they sell, how they operate, etc., is also dictated by the players themselves. PvP missions, I think, should be largely created by other players within "guilds", or whatever you want to call them.

I also do not wish to impose my fun on anyone else. I suggest you read my post, rather than just getting angry. But I don't see how PvE can be dangerous, since if you fail, you just come back and do it again. There's no loss/risk.

My post clearly stated that I was for PvE only play being possible.

Actually, that is not what you said. You said those that wish to avoid pvp but are willing to take the risk of running around pvp areas should be rewarded better (like in early Ultima.) Better than? What? The only inference which can be made is be rewarded better than those that wish to stick to the pve areas, thus punishing those wish do not wish to partake in any form of pvp because as everyone knows, it is nigh impossible to lurk around a pvp zone and not have to fight.

Actually, in a world large enough, if you actively avoid PvP you can do so for quite some time.

Yeah, definitely. What would be cool is chain of command within guilds, where higher up ranks can make decisions on the path the entire guild takes (or attempts to take) collectively. If set up the right way, guilds will eventually be trying to achieve contradictory objectives, and conflict will flourish.

I've lurked around many PvP zones in many MMOs without having fights. It takes a bit of adaptation and learning usually, but it's possible and very, very fun.

Early Ultima Online had PvP everywhere, by the way. With a guard and flag system.

And I stick to my thought that a better MMO is an MMO that rewards players for taking risk. If you take more risk, then potential rewards should be greater.

Yeah, definitely. What would be cool is chain of command within guilds, where higher up ranks can make decisions on the path the entire guild takes (or attempts to take) collectively. If set up the right way, guilds will eventually be trying to achieve contradictory objectives, and conflict will flourish.

Yes, exactly. This will hopefully provide for epic PvP feuds and wars.

Although i didnt go too into detail here, in another thread i posted my ideas concerning player faction oriented missions:

The missions could also effect how player controlled settlements develop. If a player owned faction does a lot of caravan missions, maybe an NPC caravan office will open up in thier settlement. Perhaps in this situation, once the caravan office is established, caravan missions can be run between thier settlement and various settlements in the area and for each successful caravan the guild/clan/whatever recieves some funds in thier coffers.

If they were bandits, perhaps they could get an espionage NPC who can tell them which routes caravans are using, so they can better organize thier raids.

If guilds/clans/whatever can be tagged for PvP or PvE, they can be even put into missions based on that which could pit them against other guilds/clans/whatever.

and

Perhaps in the above example with the caravan, if the faction continues to complete caravan missions they can get a trader NPC which stocks increasingly better equipment for the faction to purchase. The 'caravan master' can even have levels which determine how many caravan routes he can establish.

With the bandit example, they could eventually get a bounty NPC, which could provide either PvE or PvP bounty missions based on whether the faction is PvE or PvP. With PvP, which bounties are offered could be determined by tracking which players have recieved rewards for quests against the bandit faction.

In the beginning I would not like this.

I would rather see that there are some already set up operations from guarding towns, set caravans with set routes and places that are hold outs (like old military installations or cities with lots of old usable items to gain.)

Plus a some open areas where enterprising players can create their own town, guard a resource, set up a caravan route.

This would allow the world to seem like a world, where you have to fight, outsmart, or even just get lucky with hard work to create your own niche in the world.

You want that valuable salt trade route, you (and your friends?) will need to either (or do all);
Kill the current caravan company and then start doing the route your selves,
Start making your own deliveries and compete with that current caravan
Or hire someone to do the above for you and you make a profit off of it.

Of course once you have taken it over or gained the route, you will now have to defend that route and caravan to keep it or someone might just take it from you the same way you gained it.

Dave Chase

And I still stick to the point that pve can be just as risky so why should they be handicapped if they wish to not have to deal with the pvp areas? A better mmo is one which allows and rewards all play preferences the same.

And I still stick to the point that pve can be just as risky so why should they be handicapped if they wish to not have to deal with the pvp areas? A better mmo is one which allows and rewards all play preferences the same.
I never said to handicap anyone. I guess your ideal MMO would just have everyone slowly gain currency (at the same rate, of course) and skills, etc. over time with no loot on monsters and no possible potential to perform better than others and have this reflected on how great your character becomes.

Well now you are just going off the deep end. I'm advocating that it is not right to reward (or not reward) players because they wish to avoid the pvp zones and stick to just pve. You keep saying your all in support of pve players, but only those that are willing to take the risk of the pvp areas should be allowed to reap the greatest rewards. I guess you are just having a difficult time understanding what I am saying.

PVE can be JUST AS RISKY as PVP when designed right, so WHY force PVE players to have to deal with PVP zones?

The only answer I can logically come up with is because you want the ability to grief pve players knowing they are not as adept at pvping because they avoid it when at all possible, allowing you to get your kicks off.

Am I missing something? Because just because you may find it fun, others may not. I love pvp. I thought Ultima Online was great. I play PotBS for the pvp. I have played pvp in just about every mmo out there, plus others such as Battlefield, M&B Warband and a whole slew of games going back to the old days of quake. I do not enjoy griefing other players, but don't let that fool you. If someone stumbles into a pvp zone, I assume they are there to fight and I hate fighting players that obviously do not wish to be there. It completely ruins the challenge. So I would rather they have somewhere else to go to mine that "uber ore" so I don't have to put up with them crying.