Totally clear for a PvX game with regulated owpvp. This game is not FFA, it has rules.
BDO Devs want a game with owpvp but also with limits, to guarantee a minimal progression to players. Karma, safe zones on Boss, lvl 49, Marni...
You want compromises? There they are!
This is not a compromise and these regulations do not work.
Karma - doesn't work at all because toxic pk player don't kill you but cc you between the mobs to make them kill you, so pk toxic players lose nothing, you loss exp and crystals.
Sailing karma - pk toxic players lose nothing, you loss hundreds of millions (barter value), sailors cure and a huge waste of time.
Safe zone on boss - doesn't work at all because toxic pk player can kill you before the boss spawns and almost immediately after his death (only recently pvp is blocked for maybe 15 seconds after the boss dies), also no protection during field bosses.
Lvl 49 - life skill requires active play also in end game zones, and character at lvl 49 is not fully developed, currently quests and character development end at lvl 62, also a lvl 49 character can't use ship's cannons, so he can't progress sailing (quests) and has a hard time developing bartering (island quests).
Marni - only one hour; for one hour, I don't even feel like leaving Heidel, also marni are not available in all zones: there are eg. no centaurs or mirumok marni zones.
Conclusion: as i said many times already: opponents of pve only channels have no arguments.
And it's funny to me because the same people:
- complain about karmabombing
- they refuse to play on the Arsha channel
- no one is forcing them to play on pve only channels
- they should be happy that people who enter "their spot" (muuahahahaa) will disappear because they will go to pve only channels.
This is not a compromise and these regulations do not work.
1) Karma - doesn't work at all because toxic pk player don't kill you but cc you between the mobs to make them kill you, so pk toxic players lose nothing, you loss exp and crystals.
2) Conclusion: as i said many times already: opponents of pve only channels have no arguments.
And it's funny to me because the same people:
- complain about karmabombing
- they refuse to play on the Arsha channel
- no one is forcing them to play on pve only channels
- they should be happy that people who enter "their spot" (muuahahahaa) will disappear because they will go to pve only channels.
1) Ofcourse the karma won't work. Because it's not functioning for it's intended purpose. After discovering how to circumvent it either by unequiping gear and intentionally suicide to another player(being a nuisance) or just as you have described it - cc to mobs. You've said it yourself why players are complaining about the karma system. But this belongs to another topic already. And DONT elaborate it here, if you're smart.
2) Conclusion: There are arguments. But reading it hard it seems.
- complain about KB - (see above)
- Why not playing on Arsha? Because it's not regulated. Here's a counter to PvE players about the "Go to Arsha" part. Go to seasons with alt chars. :)
- no one is forcing them to play on pve only channels - Just like no one is forcing PvE players to play on the normal servers, if they're afraid to get killed by another player or take the game too seriously. Seasons are here still.
- About the "people disappearing" part it's what answers are wanted to be found about this problem. Not going to discuss it here. It's not the place.
Heck. I can even bring more to the table. Just ask.
- no one is forcing them to play on pve only channels - Just like no one is forcing PvE players to play on the normal servers, if they're afraid to get killed by another player or take the game too seriously. Seasons are here still.
How they are not forced if there is no alternative?
Can I play my main char on Olvia? I can't.
Also fact is that there are players who don't play for a month or play on two accounts to play on olvia channels.
Can I play my main char during the season? I can't.
Also these channels are overcrowded because there are not enough of them, so they are not playable, yet they show that players want to play pve only channels.
So why do you keep mentioning solutions that don't exist?
It's not about taking it too seriously, it's about toxic situations that involve loss for the person attacked and no punishment for the aggressor.
I don't see a problem: we leave open pvp as it is but we remove loss of exp and crystals due to death.
But you don't agree to it either.
So how can you have a dialogue with someone who does not want to accept any changes, and additionally forces others to play the way he wants? And as I wrote above: pve only channels in no way affect players who want to stay with open pvp.
There are arguments. But reading it hard it seems.
Where are the arguments?
"Arguments" has only been mentioned once in this thread by PeaceInChaos here:
https://www.naeu.playblackdesert.com/en-US/Forum/ForumTopic/Detail?_topicNo=26049&_page=12&_opinionNo=118030
but I refuted them very quickly here:
https://www.naeu.playblackdesert.com/en-US/Forum/ForumTopic/Detail?_topicNo=26049&_page=12&_opinionNo=118035
And that's all. The rest of the topic is:
- comments of people who want pve channels but see that they are talking to the wall so they stopped posting (and mostly stopped playing too)
- comments of people who don't want pve only channels but don't present any arguments against them, only provoke and insult others.
How they are not forced if there is no alternative?
Can I play my main char on Olvia? I can't.
Also fact is that there are players who don't play for a month or play on two accounts to play on olvia channels.
Can I play my main char during the season? I can't.
Also these channels are overcrowded because there are not enough of them, so they are not playable, yet they show that players want to play pve only channels.
So why do you keep mentioning solutions that don't exist?
It's not about taking it too seriously, it's about toxic situations that involve loss for the person attacked and no punishment for the aggressor.
I don't see a problem: we leave open pvp as it is but we remove loss of exp and crystals due to death.
But you don't agree to it either.
So how can you have a dialogue with someone who does not want to accept any changes, and additionally forces others to play the way he wants? And as I wrote above: pve only channels in no way affect players who want to stay with open pvp.
There are arguments. But reading it hard it seems.
Where are the arguments?
"Arguments" has only been mentioned once in this thread by PeaceInChaos here:
https://www.naeu.playblackdesert.com/en-US/Forum/ForumTopic/Detail?_topicNo=26049&_page=12&_opinionNo=118030
but I refuted them very quickly here:
https://www.naeu.playblackdesert.com/en-US/Forum/ForumTopic/Detail?_topicNo=26049&_page=12&_opinionNo=118035
And that's all. The rest of the topic is:
- comments of people who want pve channels but see that they are talking to the wall so they stopped posting (and mostly stopped playing too)
- comments of people who don't want pve only channels but don't present any arguments against them, only provoke and insult others.
I mean I can't put any fault on what's being said here...I have yet to understand the argument against just 1 server that's PvP disabled where we can use our mains (which season doesn't allow, unlike what people seem to want to say). The most valid one is the dividing of the playerbase but, Elvia already does that, and if the argument is the "Choice of PvP", if some people like PvP so much and hate the Karma system for not letting them go full D&D murder hobo (t's a joke in D&D RPG types, not an insult, chill), there's Arsha, which is usually empty as heck, proving the point the goal is not actual open world PvP, it's easy, unsuspecting targets that will have no chance to actually defend themselves. With a PvE server (Even though I do enjoy the PvP tomfoolery), there will be A LOT of issues that I think a lot of people aren't realizing, that I mentioned in at least 2 other comments (in one better than the other), however, that's their choice to go there and deal with them to have said PvE only experience.
At the same time, I remember seeing a post about a complete double standard, which boils down to "PvE players aren't allowed a server, GIT GUD! Stop being carebears" and at the same time "Please kick players that aren't doing PvP during PvP times like Node Wars and Sieges cause muh PvP dedicated experience".
I'm up for giving both sides what they want...Sure, have those servers dedicated for NWs and Sieges, or even instanced NWs and Sieges, but at the same time, give the people that want PvE the same thing (either a server, or increase marni's realm to 3 hours during week days, and 6 during weekends respectively or something like that). But no, kicking people that aren't PvPing, cause, how dare they I guess, is fine, but PvE? Immediate uproar...When all arguments fail the mythical "PA's Vision" comes along (I dont' think anyone actually believes that excuse anymore, otherwise, if PvP was in their minds, there would have been a lot of improvements to PvP, not just more capping NWs and Sieges, and let's be honest, PvP players DESERVE some good new content for Node Wars and Sieges, but every time seems like it gets messed up more and more)
Still, all in all, we're discussing this, it's what the forums are for, but PA has given their answer on the matter recently so, although we can discuss this for all eternity, the reality stands, PA doesn't care, and will not give either side what they want.
I mean I can't put any fault on what's being said here...I have yet to understand the argument against just 1 server that's PvP disabled where we can use our mains (which season doesn't allow, unlike what people seem to want to say). The most valid one is the dividing of the playerbase but, Elvia already does that, and if the argument is the "Choice of PvP", if some people like PvP so much and hate the Karma system for not letting them go full D&D murder hobo (t's a joke in D&D RPG types, not an insult, chill), there's Arsha, which is usually empty as heck, proving the point the goal is not actual open world PvP, it's easy, unsuspecting targets that will have no chance to actually defend themselves. With a PvE server (Even though I do enjoy the PvP tomfoolery), there will be A LOT of issues that I think a lot of people aren't realizing, that I mentioned in at least 2 other comments (in one better than the other), however, that's their choice to go there and deal with them to have said PvE only experience.
At the same time, I remember seeing a post about a complete double standard, which boils down to "PvE players aren't allowed a server, GIT GUD! Stop being carebears" and at the same time "Please kick players that aren't doing PvP during PvP times like Node Wars and Sieges cause muh PvP dedicated experience".
I'm up for giving both sides what they want...Sure, have those servers dedicated for NWs and Sieges, or even instanced NWs and Sieges, but at the same time, give the people that want PvE the same thing (either a server, or increase marni's realm to 3 hours during week days, and 6 during weekends respectively or something like that). But no, kicking people that aren't PvPing, cause, how dare they I guess, is fine, but PvE? Immediate uproar...When all arguments fail the mythical "PA's Vision" comes along (I dont' think anyone actually believes that excuse anymore, otherwise, if PvP was in their minds, there would have been a lot of improvements to PvP, not just more capping NWs and Sieges, and let's be honest, PvP players DESERVE some good new content for Node Wars and Sieges, but every time seems like it gets messed up more and more)
Still, all in all, we're discussing this, it's what the forums are for, but PA has given their answer on the matter recently so, although we can discuss this for all eternity, the reality stands, PA doesn't care, and will not give either side what they want.
The funny part is that Arsha, Elvia and Marny already divided the playerbase enough. Last week been on hot spot both normal and Arsha there was time that Arsha is way more populated. At this point I can say that PvE server wont do any more harm to the game. But one PvE server will bring demand for 5, later 10 and more servers. I think PA prety well understand that.(Actualy people already dont want just one PvE server)
There are arguments. But reading it hard it seems.
Where are the arguments?
"Arguments" has only been mentioned once in this thread by PeaceInChaos here:
https://www.naeu.playblackdesert.com/en-US/Forum/ForumTopic/Detail?_topicNo=26049&_page=12&_opinionNo=118030
but I refuted them very quickly here:
https://www.naeu.playblackdesert.com/en-US/Forum/ForumTopic/Detail?_topicNo=26049&_page=12&_opinionNo=118035
And that's all. The rest of the topic is:
- comments of people who want pve channels but see that they are talking to the wall so they stopped posting (and mostly stopped playing too)
- comments of people who don't want pve only channels but don't present any arguments against them, only provoke and insult others.
To which I stronly disagree in that number to seperate the playerbase. Also just to add: There's an idea of Black Desert already from day one. PvX. An open wild world. I say "wild" for a reason. And it's naive to think that only the PvP-ers are toxic. ;)
To be more accurate here: And you've said it yourself. The karma system is not working as intended.
And yes. Curious question. Will anything change, if the discussion keeps going on?
At least HatBOI is reasonable, albeit our different views.
But one PvE server will bring demand for 5, later 10 and more servers.
And why would they want more? Because that would be a good idea. One channel will be overcrowded and unplayable just like seasonal channels. Wherever you go, you'll meet a player, and two people at the bdo spot is already a crowd. BDO should be developing and not stuck in 2005, especially since the Western market is different from the Korean one.
PA is making this game for us players, not for ourselves. Why do we have a suggestion section when PA will say that "this is against their vision of the game". And that's why I asked recently where is the dialogue between players and PA dev team, since the topic of open pvp has been going on since the game's release, so PA must know what the problem is. But what does PA do? Avoids, yes avoids because all the changes that have been made only mask the problem but do not remove it, as I wrote above:
https://www.naeu.playblackdesert.com/en-US/Forum/ForumTopic/Detail?_topicNo=26049&_page=29&_opinionNo=134875
There's an idea of Black Desert already from day one. PvX.
And you have pvx.
Pve content and pvp content:
- red battlefield
- battle arena
- team battle
- arena of arsha
- solare arena
- node wars
- conquest war
- arsha channel.
Question is: why are we back at it again? You won't force anyone who doesn't want to pvp. You will be complaining about karmabombing, i'll be giving a solution to this problem. There is a third side, i.e. PA, which, as I wrote above, avoids topic.
Correct, regulated PvX, in which the most common forms are consent or a form of karma system. Safe zones, usually cities, are also extremely common. Marni servers, and similar ideas, is rather unusual for a game perceived as PvX. You will usually run into PvE servers and PvP servers if the developer wants to protect both ideas equally - very not PvX. I say usually here because I can't say I've encountered PvX games other than BDO with something like that, that being Marni servers, but it doesn't mean they don't exist.
Right, but if the goal is for guaranteed minimal progression, the same is achieved in a grindspot that is less likely to have other players because it's not favored. Most of the Marni spots are places that are highly congested because of specific item drops. Operative word here: most.
The counter argument is at lv.56, you're missing a lot of damage and you'll simply be outperformed by a higher level player with full access to their kit and ultimately be driven out.
I didn't say I want to raise the level cap for forced PvP. I said an argument could be made for it since the game has progressed further along since its inception and implementation. Don't get it twisted and argue a strawman.
For sailing, I've specifically pointed out elsewhere that it could be done with a lv.49 and you could safely do SMH without being attacked by players. This was when ramming was how you killed sea monsters and sailing pulled comparable silver to grinding. Bartering also didn't exist. Then they implemented driver-fired cannons and required forced PvP to use them. This is a core design change to that lifeskill that forces a player to ask, "Do I want to level sailing at all, or do I wish to barter in peace?" While sailing and bartering are linked, in one scenario, you can do one safely and cannot do the other. Sailing and bartering lifeskills are unique in this situation as I don't think any other lifeskill has to make a choice like this. I even said I don't know how dangerous gathering in high level areas with a protected gatherer is and no one has stepped forward to comment, either. I will also point out this isn't comparable to the sailing and bartering situation as the game doesn't actively disable gathering in these areas because you are below the forced PvP threshold. I am saying this is something to consider in the overall discourse of the topic.
Both thoughts fall under, "An argument could be made for increasing the safe-from-PvP cap," or even the topic of the thread, PvP disabled server. I never said I was for OR against either. Knock it off and properly discuss. At least you did bring up a couple of good points, even if you are being needlessly antagonistic.
Antagonistic? Not at all. That's simply the kind of answer one should expect when he throws some thoughtless, superficial considerations. Did you really think you brought some deep reflexions here?
Marni... You see it as unusual, but it is a possible solution as you mentioned and Devs decided to use it : in itself, that's enough to consider that it has its place in BDO. If we want to go deeper, less popular spots were already existing in BDO, yet devs decided to add Marni realms on top of that. Connect the dots.
That's a kind of PvX concept, and one which allows a guaranteed progression even for pvp. Maybe you're not used to it, I was also against it at first, but in the end, if every player can gear up, isn't that even better for the pvp side of the game?
Side note : most of the time, you won't get the same "minimal" progression on a less popular spots than on Marni. They're less popular for a reason.
Pvp activation... Yep, at 56 you have less accuracy, less skills than a lvl 61 and you may be outgrinded. But you can wear accuracy stuff, it won't be a bother for you if you can hit AP Caps with it. Meanwhile, if the idea is to set pvp activation at 56, while one can stay at this level without activating pvp and compensate his lack of accuracy with gear, the other won't be able to suddenly become pvp protected. If the spot is popular, it won't be a matter between 2 players only. One may get attacked, the other may not. That's inconsistent. So no, such a basic argument don't have to be made, above all when you know level is far less important than gear. If you want to change the way to activate pvp, it should be linked to a minimum GS instead of a minimum level.
But hey, nothing new here, certainly not the first time such a suggestion appears.
Then, about sailing. Sailing in itself does not require to go above lvl 49, SMH is now far from its past glory, and again, if you want to do high level naval pve (killing some mobs on sea is the same than on land), I say it again : are you THAT different from a basic grinder? Are you still a pure lifeskiller when you hunt monsters?
Make your choice, make a level 49 barterer, and a 50+ sailor if you want. Others did.
So, if you don't like when I point the flaws of your reasoning, just give us some real well-thought suggestions. Then we can "properly discuss".
There is a third side, i.e. PA, which, as I wrote above, avoids topic.
Official answer given. You're wrong, that's proven.
Moreover, pve on one side + pvp on another is not PvX, both has to blend at some points to make it PvX.
And we're back at it because... Well... You ignore every answer given to you.