So about forced multiplayer sieges...

Fair point. It would depend on who is making the claims.

If the community is indeed one of the best things about SoTA, then we shouldn't be suffering in silence about things like this.

My intention was for all to be informed about these individuals. Similar to how convicted child molesters in real life are identified so that they are known in the community.

 

i really don't get the logic of those two changes:

a: let's force the overworld multi so the game will look busy!
b: let's make scrolls that let people go exactly where they want to so they never show on the overworld!

it was deliberate.

 

Can you please clarify exactly? What exactly is "against the ELUA"?

 

Yeah, I intentionally have not called them out publicly, I'm not looking to start a big mess of drama over it. Rather, I point out the problem with the system that allows/encourages this behavior.

 

is the lost bmc ring on other trolls? I haven't heard of it dropping anywhere else.

 

I assume you do not understand much about how the market works )) if they're farmable over and over in multiplayer only is totally different than farming them over and over in solo mode ---
If they are farmable over and over in solo mode this will create an inflation of the cabalist artifacts with a consequent drop in price due to the high supply since everyone can farm them in their own instance )

Российская экономика

 

If changing these to open, is now only introducing griefing, that sounds like a bug. Them changing this is causing this to happen.

 

Erm. Actually, not really. The drop rates are pretty bad, either way, and if anything I've seen cabalist stuff prices come DOWN since this change went in, since the sieges don't seem to despawn now once cleared and can be farmed. Your logic would make sense in a world where we had thousands of players farming them privately, but that's not close to being the case here. Not to mention that farming them privately has been the case since sieges were implemented and they are some of the only artifacts that have retained their value because of the poor drop rates and need for an active siege to even fight the things.

I'm not a fan of forced multiplayer in general, since the core premise of the game was selective multiplayer. I can deal with it in town scenes, but the fact of the matter is that most adventure scenes simply aren't capable of supporting more than a handful of people before there's insufficient mob/resource density to be worthwhile. That's just how the game is designed. Sieges are no exception to this - consider that you need to loot ALL 18 engineers YOURSELF to turn in the daily quest. Another player comes in and wipes out a camp, well, now you have to go find another siege. Its not a big deal for folks who can clear a siege in a few minutes, but for folks who struggle with it, its really annoying. Its kinda like being in a mine and having players run ahead and clear all the nodes in your path. Or 1 shot monsters as you're running toward them. It just becomes a waste of your time to even try to do anything.

Selective multiplayer was a brilliant idea and the best of both worlds - get to play in a world with other players, buy and sell, make friends, etc. while avoiding the usual MMORPG idiots, harassment, and grief. If you want cabalist stuff, or like, the only viable daily quest in game, you need to do sieges, which means you get exposed to the 'bad aspects' of mmo - the griefing nonsense. If I'm being completely honest, our population is not robust enough to risk alienating players so a few bad eggs can have their laugh at someone else's expense.

 

You used to see it happen occasionally if you happened to be in a siege in open mode, but most players tend to be polite about it. Occasionally you'd team up to get it done, or more often, if you went in to a siege already underway, you'd lave them to it. And if it did happen no big deal, go on private mode, avoid the griefer. Problem solved. This was a good system.

Since they made this change, it has been getting slowly worse, to where this past couple of weeks literally half the time I enter a siege there are people coming in mid-way through and being, well, not polite. I start asking myself, should I stop being polite? If I enter a siege, its MINE, and who cares if there were people already in here? Shall I invite my friends and lets see who can KS who and get as nasty as possible about it? This sort of juvenile crap has no appeal whatsoever to me especially since we had a perfectly good system that prevented it from being an issue.

 

If only civilized non-greedy well-mannered polite kind honest people were allowed into this game. That would solve all problems.

 

A few minutes.. just did one and it took me the better part of an hour. lol (bagged my first cabalist btw.. cheap bleep didn't drop anything worth mentioning though)..

 

I hate forced multiplayer. It takes 2-3 times longer to log into every town now, and now there's a line to even try some things. I'm at the point where I'm kogglog in once a month to keep my home up, but playing offline.

I understand the change. It's good for new players to see others in the world. But we didn't buy a MMO, no matter how they want to spin it now. Been there, done that, not interested.

I said before, if they want to monetize it, I'll do two "reward program" subscriptions if they want to make a higher tier one that adds back in SPO.

 

Except that got undermined by the addition of teleport to Zone scrolls.

 

I meant in towns. And I still run most places, because I can't be arsed to make/buy scrolls.

 

Sieges and outskirts are open.

 

I was, and still am, for multiplayer in towns and the overworld because it has a positive psychological impact for players coming into SotA. However, I'm very much against any adventure zones being forced open (including outskirts). All new players start in Open mode and they have to figure out to change it to private.

 

One of the problems with these types of issues is that it is very subjective. One person views something as rude, while another may have a totally different agenda or playstyle. As a pvp'er, I like the sieges being open. It is one of the few things that recently has actually spurred spontaneous pvp in a fun way, with something of value to fight over.

I understand your wanting to do everything in the game without being exposed to 'rude obnoxious' people, but sadly, just like in real life, that is not a possibility, when 'rudeness', much like virtue, is in the eye of the beholder.

Question #1:
Does the first person into the scene own it? Is that how it works? I mean if we are going to call people names, assume their intentions and thoughts, and make judgements of their character, shouldn't there be a manual, or an agreed upon list?

Question #2:
If you and I are both on the world map and there is a siege nearby and you and I 'race' to get to it, is one of us rude and the other entitled?

Question #3:
If I need the troll toenails and go to the pass and there are 4 people camped there waiting on trolls because they want the ring? Are they rude and obnoxious for being where I want to be?

Question #4:
Can we ever have a discussion about differences of playstyle or opinion without implying that anyone that does anything different than 'me' is deservedly a dastardly low-life?

Question #5:
If Portalarium changes it back but instead puts in 4 new sieges with new cabalists and loots that are only available in open pvp mode, will you support it for the purposes of growing the pvp community? AND, if you don't support pvp playstyle, isn't that rude?

 

Agree. I'd go as far to say that every adventure scene should have the ability to go on private mode.
That is the game we were sold, and the game I backed - an "online game" with a single player/friends only mode to avoid all the nonsense and riffraff.

 

i've been having bad crashes all release in multi zones, including towns and the overworld. spo everywhere would be REALLY nice right now.

 

I appreciate the nuance here, but it really isn't that complicated.

1. While this isn't a "rule", most players show respect to someone who has already taken the time to clear half the scene to let them finish it, rather than rushing in and taking it. Its not a rule, its just decent behavior. I mean, compare it to walking up to someone eating a meal and stealing half of their food and eating it. There's not a law against it, you wont get arrested for it, but you certainly will be perceived as a rude individual for doing so. The online sphere brings out the worst in a lot of people, because there often are no social consequences for behaving poorly.

2. Splitting hairs. If you both see it, and both want it, and both want to take the time to "compete" and "fight over it" - that's your business. Easy enough to go find a siege elsewhere since you've not invested any time. Don't come in when someone's halfway through and take the spawned boss. That's different.

3. Different situation. Troll instance is private. If someone came in to YOUR instance while you were buffing and trying to kill the first troll, stole the kill, stole the other one, and left you with an empty instance, that's a more accurate comparison. A queue of 8 people waiting for an encounter isn't rude, its just poor design.

4. Certainly. But I'm not really sure how else to define this behavior other than rude and inconsiderate of fellow players. Its not just a question of "playstyle" when someone's preferred playstyle is contingent on harassing others who are minding their own business. I mean, we could probably get into a sematic debate about it. Quibble over some definitions if you like. We could even delve into some of the philosophical implications of life in society. The simple matter is that Player A feels they are entitled to something, and doesn't give a crap that they have to take it off player B or diminish their enjoyment / waste their time. I define that as rude/inconsiderate. Maybe you don't. You're entitled to your opinion.

5. If those theoretical cabalists dropped items that were only useful to PvP play, I would support it 100%. If they're putting PvE carrots into PvP scenes, its essentially making PvP mandatory, and no, I would not support this as it breaks fundamental promises.

I absolutely support PvP playstyle - among people who want to PvP. I support the implementation of meaningful PvP - not new gank opportunities - I don't support inflicting it on others or creating "victim" scenarios. If your game enjoyment is contingent on killing/fighting with other players, I have no problem with that, provided the players you engage with are of the same mindset. Think of it like any other activity - my nan likes knitting. And I am content to let her knit, and support her right to knit, but if she strapped me to a chair and duct taped knitting needles in my hand and wouldn't let me leave until I finished that darn sweater that's when I'd start to have an objection to it.

The unfortunate truth is that "some" (not all, but undeniably some) PvP-inclined players get some sort of satisfaction out of killing defenseless targets, stalking them through quest scenes, and being general nuisances simply because they can. If I was a serious PvP player who wanted to see PvP added to more of the core game, I'd be angry at those players, as their behavior is what causes a lot of people to not want to participate in ANY PvP because of the negative perception these griefers have created. And that's a shame, if you ask me. I think if we had less of the "roving gank squad" mentality and more guild vs. guild, faction vs. faction, capture the whatever, objective based PvP and PvP progression, we'd finally get somewhere with it.


All that aside, this is not a PvP-issue. This is a PvE scene. Nobody is flagged. People can play nice, or not. Not everyone's going to play nice. Guess what? Selective multiplayer means I can avoid them. This post is about the change made to siege mechanics which has resulted in what "some" players perceive as rude behavior. You don't think its rude? Your opinion. Some people don't think its rude to track muddy shoes into peoples houses or use the last of the toilet roll and not change it. I'm not trying to start a social movement here, just trying to address the game mechanics change by illustrating the negative repercussions it has and is causing.