PvP Should Be Like This:

Your post is very common among new posters. Selective Multiplayer eliminates the need for servers. The world will be dual scale with a travel map and locations you enter as hexes. Each hex will be instanced and filled with people based on a matchmaking filter. There is no need for servers to separate PVE and PVP people as this will be done when you enter a hex. The difference is when servers or shards are used a PVE player is locked into that server and can never leave, but with SOTA's system they can decide they are willing to be involved in PVP and can enter it.

This means we can all play together or apart based on our decisions rather than being forced to a particular server. So you will be able to play how you want, and to you it will be just like you were playing on a PVP server. The difference is there is the possibility for someone in PVE to decide to make the jump which would mean people being added to your pool of PVP players. Otherwise, they would just stick to the server they were attached to and you would never have the opportunity to see them.

The Devs have a great system and this is what was promised to us all during Kickstarter. I would rather this concept be refined than going back to the standard silos that the gaming market has today. All your other points could be possible for the mode of play you want to play in. We just don't know enough yet.

 

Only if you choose your play style once and stick with it.

People hopping in and out of safe mode will ruin the game for pvpers.

It takes away the whole risk v reward.

I can only see this working if the two modes are not interchangeable.

 

You guy's must not have experience with UO and DFO.

I understand what you all say. But it will ruin the game worlds economy.

People that can farm and craft 100% safely will over flood the markets.

Also. When allowing people to go back and fourth. It forces us pvpers to do the same. We will take advantage of getting rich 100% un-hindered.

Then the 3rd issue. ALLLLLL items will be soooooo over flooding the market that pvp than becomes pointless.

PvPers pvp for loot. But if we can get it in solo mode than we dont have to pvp for it.

It wont work like you guys think it will. But it wont matter to you non pvp types because it wont affect you other than your trading. Because I assure you the game economy will be over inflated.

 

I don't have a problem with choosing 1 or the other and sticking with it as I will not be changing my mind in the game. I'm not sure if they are planning this tho...Plus, if I wanted to have 2 accounts, I could just make 1 pvp and 1 pve if I wanted both experienced...So really, we will have to wait and see what the plan is on that aspect.

 

Oh you like shinnies not PvP itself ... blasphemy

 

People will take ADVANTAGE of farming in 100% safety.

This opens a whole new can of worms for the gold sellers.

You guy's aren't understanding this.

It devalues the pvp experience for us PVPers because we can than CHEAT in our minds and farm items and gold 100% freely and than click WAR mode and fight someone with the same loot we already have that being the best loot in the game and if we win or lose it, it wont make a difference because we can easily get it in single player mode.

 

I Agree! Thanks for understanding.

 

Only if you believe PvP should control the economy.

And it looks like you do.

PvP centric economy was the UO model, it does not need to be this way. There are plenty of systems that can control the influx of gold and materials into the economy.

SotA has many fundamental changes that completely skew everything from fitting into the UO model. Gatherers will now be able to have combat skills, separate experience systems, so those gatherers now have teeth and can fight back.

 

PvP = Item Usage.

PvE = Inflammation of Items Not Being Used.

I love how you guys think in a world of everyone having EVERYTHING will = a good economy.

If 100% of the player base is rich and have large amounts of everything they could ever want = a dead game after about 6 months.

You need us PvPers to buy and use your weapons and armors.

If we PvPers can farm in 100% safety than we don't need you guys. Nobody needs anyone.

 

@aparks,

Ecomonies exist without PVP. I can understand this model is difficult to understand and many competitive PVP folks might not like the idea. However, these Devs are no chumps and until there are more details I am not going to scream about the sky falling. If all you are worried about is looting other players then I can see your concerns, but I think a rich PVP experience is more than that.

I have faith the Devs will deliver what they promise, but I can understand why others may not have that same certainty. I just want the game they promised us and that includes the multiplayer system.

 

We understand you enjoy UO and have hopes for UO improved. This is SotA, a game being built from the ground up, applying lessons learned from passed endeavors, both good and bad.

 

UO is still the leading open world pvp game in its genre after about 20 years. (Population easily outnumbers Mortal Online and Darkfall Online and other similar games.)

You speak of UO as a bad lesson learned.

It also made Richard filthy RICH.

I have played enough games to tell you this style they are going will be their downfall.

All games that offer safety in quests and crafting = a dead game in 6 months, than every major content patch will be a 1 month population surge and than death again.

Games that are WIN-ABLE have a shelf life.

Essentially when you all become Lords in 6 months and have 6 billion gold and a castle and finished every quest you will have won the game.

PvP adds that end-game experience.

And I assure you people wont stay around for dueling arena style.

They have League of Legends for that style of pvp.

You guys think you are helping by agreeing with their views on pvp. But really you are killing their company before they even know it.

Everyone wants role playing games until they get bored with them 6 months later and we pvpers are like ya I saw that coming. If you only listened.

 

I will put my trust in Richard Garriott's insight on what the direction of the game should be. Not random anecdotal experiences thrown around on forums.

 

@Ristra Are there specifics on item durability yet? It seems like most games have some variation of it, and it doesn't do much to curb any inflation.

I think it's unlikely to happen as it goes against kick starter, but I'm starting to lean in favor of the two separate servers as well due to the gate hopping and exploitation examples mentioned above and in other threads. I don't see how splitting the population will have much of an effect, since they are likely a cross section that a lot of you would never see due to the slider system.

Failing that, putting heavy controls on toggling between PvP and PvE modes for the same reasons.

I think the OP does have some valid points here.

 

As far as durability goes, it was stated that items will lose durability with use, and death. They can be repaired but in doing so the "cost" (undefined) to repair will increase. At some people the player will get hit with the choice to repair at a very painful cost, vendor, bank, or desplay in the house.

Items will wear out over time, basically.

For the splitting the PvP and PvE servers as a permanent choice, let's not go there and get the limited housing pro/con debate fired up. I don't want to imagine the forum rage when someone finds out the only way they can get a house is buy one on the PvP server when they hate PvP. (If you can't see my point, it's to illistrate there are systems that a persistent across all modes that would be greatly impacted by splitting PvP and PvE)

 

Yep I see your point and I often overlook that side of the coin as I will never be a home-owner myself. Makes sense!

 

To quote Richard Garriott:" UO was copmpletely open PvP, the great joy was that it was completely open PvP, the great tragedy was that it was a completely open PvP" So I guess he learned some bad lessons to, at least if you go from what he says.
You can hear Richard Garriott him self talk more about it here.

 

Your house comment actually backfired on you.

By making a second server for pvpers it free's up essentially 50% of the house slots on the pve server making it easier for both server to find house that will still be hard to find.

 

But the devs have stated that what they are making is NOT "an updated UO".

I don't think you do understand the devs goal and direction for the game or you'd realize they were making a game for ALL Ultima fans, not ONLY UO fans.

 

You would think it was a backfire, but in fact, it was a well calculated statement.

This is the why I added "(If you can't see my point, it's to illistrate there are systems that a persistent across all modes that would be greatly impacted by splitting PvP and PvE)"

How each system that is impacted was weighed and decided (or will be). This case, housing is being limited for a reason. You want that reason, ask Richard Garriott, this is a hot topic on the forums.