Why no choice between PvP/PvE?

[ShadeKynth]

While I respect some people's desires to have an open world where people are regulated by other people in the game and mechanics are in place to handle all of the PvP content - including stealing, PK, etc...

Why not give people an option to play this game as a sandbox where we collaborate against the environment and non-player threats? There are too many complications if you integrated both, so I'm not suggesting a flagging system, as that would allow PvP players to hide behind a shield of friendly PvE players or whatnot. Why not have a choice between multiple servers, though, with one server not allowing stealing/attacking/etc other PCs?

[Sevenless]

All philosophical notes aside?

Because the game isn't designed for it and the devs wouldn't have the policing power to stop people griefing. PvP is both how we're able to grief, and how we're able to stop griefing. It would require a complete rebalancing of the game to the point that it really wouldn't be Salem anymore. It's too much work to do for "one" game.

Not to say what you're thinking of isn't a viable game. It definitely is, but Salem can't be that game.

Edit: Wurm offers PvE only servers. A Tale in the Desert is pure PvE goodness. Of the sandbox crafting MMO those are your options for PvE right now.

[EnderWiggin]

First of all, please, read Developer thoughts on PvP. Yes, this is regarding Haven and Hearth, but devs are same guys and whole game idea is basicaly same.
Lets assume non-PvP server opened - you can't attack anyone and can't steal anything from claims. Then how would you protect your resources from griefing? What could you do to stop someone to chop all trees near you, or claim lime/clay nodes or just surround your base with his claims? You need ability to resolve conflicts for resources between players in a game about gathering those resources.

[Kaol]

Too much work to police. Honestly, try playing the game first and you will find it is not too hard to avoid 99% of pvp actions.

[ShadeKynth]

First of all, please, read Developer thoughts on PvP. Yes, this is regarding Haven and Hearth, but devs are same guys and whole game idea is basicaly same.
Lets assume non-PvP server opened - you can't attack anyone and can't steal anything from claims. Then how would you protect your resources from griefing? What could you do to stop someone to chop all trees near you, or claim lime/clay nodes or just surround your base with his claims? You need ability to resolve conflicts for resources between players in a game about gathering those resources.

I don't think that this is a very sound argument either for or against PvP. You will have griefers - and by this I mean people that work within whatever system you implement to the detriment of other players simply for their own amusement or enjoyment - regardless of the system that you implement. If you say that you can not attack other players, they will find ways to impede or cause grief to other players other than attacking them. If you say that you can attack other players, they will use that as a means to harass others as well. PvP is not a means of settling the issue of there being griefers - it's simply an aspect of the game - a set of actions that you either are or are not allowed to perform on another player's characters, items, or holdings. What it comes down to is that anything a griefer does can fall under a single banner, and it's one thing which they are not allowed to do in real life due to law, so they act it out online - harassment.

The real world has solutions for how we deal with harassment - it falls to the judicial branch of the government to ascertain the legitimacy of harassment claims, and act accordingly with what the law states. Most games also have a solution for harassment - suspension, bans, or other penalties within the game, after an investigation, and usually being kicked off by a report from a fellow player of the harassment activity. One of the reasons that punishments like this work, both in real life and in many games, is that they are not something you can "escape" for free. In real life you cannot simply change characters to escape jail. In many games the user's account is targeted in place of simply a character, impacting their entire experience with the game as opposed to one character they may have created as a throwaway simply to harass someone. With a free-to-play game targeting the account of a user is not quite as effective, as the user could simply create a new account and start over, so that might not be effective either.

I'm not claiming that I have a quick and easy answer to any of these questions, but let's return to your original scenario about using PvP to deal with someone surrounding your claim.

In a PvP scenario, could this individual not create a wall that faces inward? If they had the resources, could they not simply surround your compound with a tripple thick wall, include braziers, and effectively make it impossible for you to leave your claim? If this was their action, would you not then be forced to attack their compound to "escape" and make effective use of your own claim again? This being the case, what stops everyone from seeing you as the aggressor? After all, you attacked their claim, not the other way around.

PvP doesn't seem to me like an answer to griefing, it's just a mechanic. So, why not have an option to be a part of a server that doesn't allow it?

[Yes]

a solution for harassment - suspension, bans, or other penalties within the game

Ban for cutting trees?
The last question was answered above.

[ShadeKynth]

a solution for harassment - suspension, bans, or other penalties within the game

Ban for cutting trees?
The last question was answered above.

No, a ban for deliberate, verifiable harassment. If someone cuts down trees or takes resources or whatever that happens to be near you that's just competition, not necessarily harassment. Now, if they go out of their way to deliberately impede your progress in the game in a way that violates terms of use or something else, that's another matter.

My point was simply that the argument for PvP as a solution to griefers falls flat. It doesn't reduce (or increase) the griefers, it just changes what they can do.

[ShadeKynth]

The last question was answered above.

I do understand, having read the devs' post on the subject, that they have no intention of implementing a PvE-style server. I'm sad that this is the case, but obviously it's their game, they can build it how they like. That won't stop me from trying to convince them, or the community, or both, that a PvE option is something to be considered that would broaden the audience the game can appeal to (and thereby the potential revenue or benefit of producing the game).

[milonti]

In a PvP scenario, could this individual not create a wall that faces inward? If they had the resources, could they not simply surround your compound with a tripple thick wall, include braziers, and effectively make it impossible for you to leave your claim? If this was their action, would you not then be forced to attack their compound to "escape" and make effective use of your own claim again? This being the case, what stops everyone from seeing you as the aggressor? After all, you attacked their claim, not the other way around.

PvP doesn't seem to me like an answer to griefing, it's just a mechanic. So, why not have an option to be a part of a server that doesn't allow it?

The problem is literally this example. On the PvP server, if someone does grief you in this manner (resources costs aside, ick) then you still have a choice of keeping your base. You can break those walls, most likely they wont even be easily claimed since your claim should be in the way.

On a PvE server, however, there is no way to deal with this problem. If someone cages you in, you're screwed. This is what people used to do in HnH if you left a wall partially built. They would finish the gate, pocket the key, and leave you to starve in your own base. It'd be even worse in a PvE Salem. You'd be required to start a completely new settlement.

It goes back to the dev thoughts on PvP. Any and all actions in a mutable, sandbox world are possibly offensive. Someone already mentioned cutting down trees. Whether you realized it or not, thats actually a major griefing tactic; it's resource deprivation. If someone just destroys all the forest around you in a couple screen radius, you now have to travel even farther to gather wood. A lot of times the griefers wont actually use the wood, they'll only destroy it.

PvP does offer some sense of defense from a griefer. You become your own judge, jury, and executioner. While yes, people can grief with PvP as well, its a much better defense than being able to do absolutely nothing. You can invoke your own form of banning or suspension by killing or knocking out another character.

Another important point is that this is a finite world. There are finite resources and finite space. If there is no competition, the game becomes stagnant. Someone needs a reason to keep increasing humors, to make better tools than his rivals. And you need a way to gather more resources. If theres no room left, how do new players get started? How do you keep progressing if theres no metal remaining in the world? Why bother even having a monetary system? The best tools and weapons will never be lost; the greatest craftsman will never lose his skill. Once everyone has a house and windmill, they'll leave because there's nothing left to do. PvP provides constant competition and an endgame goal - protect your wealth.

[staxjax]

This is not going to happen. It might seem like a good idea but it won't work. The game is meant to police itself, not for admins/GMs to have to monitor and punish griefers or wat have you. We've had this discussion crop up many many times over the past 8 months, and I can garauntee you that this is never going to happen.