To Those That Do Not Favor Non-Consensual Player Combat

Agreed, that was the downfall of the UO bounty system. They would need to deal with that issue for a bounty system to work. If they are tracking 'friends' and all that - they might be able to prevent it. If they combine a bounty system with other measures then perhaps a murderer wouldn't want even a friend to collect on them. What I would like to see, even if there isn't a monetary bounty..is a board that displays a murderer's last known location. Even without a bounty I'm sure there's a few people up to the challenge of taking down murderers.

 

I like the idea of punishing murderers using IG mechanics, in a way that'd be believable...if someone's a known murderer, they can't get resurrected by a priest in any civilised area, because they won't bring someone like that back from the dead. Instead, they have to find a dark priest who lives in some really remote underground location, and when he resurrects you, you have to make a pact with him and basically sell your soul, and you are now his minion and must do everything he says!

 

Why not introduce another mode? The Open World Open PvP mode? Players in this mode only see other players using this mode and they can attack everyone they see and loot and PK them at will.

This would not impact Open World mode as in this mode there would only be consensual PvP.

 

A smashing idea. Simply add a flag you can toggle on/off stating your intention to participate in PvP action.

Such has been noted in other threads as well, and has been considered by the dev team as a possibility.

 

About the only "consequence" I would accept for fully non-consensual PvP would be to retain the "PvP marker" and anyone who kills someone NOT set for PvP gets a permanent ban.

At which point, why not just make it impossible for them to attack people who don't want to play PvP in the first place?



Okay, so that's snarky and rather facetious. On a more serious note, though... No, I'm not a huge fan of PvP. But contrary to popular belief, I don't hate it, either, and will take part from time to time. But what I do hate, is the inability to choose when I want to PvP and when I don't. I won't play a game with completely non-consensual PvP. If they were to change that aspect of their design plan, I would be seeking a way to get a refund.

 

Horrible idea.

1) would ruin game economy - people farming in 100% safety = more items flooding the market
2) people would tab out real fast into safe mode if they are losing
3) this lowers situational awareness and risk v reward and the sense of open world.

The only way this could work is if yet another restriction is put into place to fix this restriction you want added to the game.
The restriction that would fix it would be you can only tab in and out of safe/war mode once every 24 hours or longer.

I would prefer a 1 time tab over into war mode:
People can farm and gain skills building a character and bank 100% safe like you guys want it and que to dueling arena.
but
when they decide to enter the pvp world they should always be subjected to pvp and can never go back into safe mode.


Or just give us hardcore pvpers our own server and you guys wont have to argue with us and you can have your pve server with safe pvp.

 

The only consequence I would accept: Perma-Death and no chance to get "clean" from murder

 

Not this again! This will not happen since SotA is a player run economy. This means if there is no demand for the goods you farm you will not get paid, so there can not be any flooding of the market. In UO and several other games there is a minimum amount you get from your wares but that is not the case in a player run economy.

 

lack of murder simply lead to mining macros! if you introduce flags believe in resource extraction must raise the flag of war!

 

How so? The current system is that when a hex is created, it is randomly seeded with a finite number of resources. At which point you’d have to run off and claim a node, and see how many resources you get before it runs dry. Unless you had a macro where it could randomly run around a zone, target nodes, move to said node, harvest said node, then leave the hex once it has been drained dry… I don’t see how that would be possible?

 

you underestimate the power of modern macro. I personally know macros bots for many of today's popular online role playing games. with their help people 24 hours a day mined values ​​and resources in the game

 

Good for them ? As I understand it, harvesting large quantities of raw materials can be downright boring in most games (my time harvesting in UO was spent killing mobs, which provided some needed excitement. I never bothered with mining for instance).

If a user wishes to ply their trade doing so, and then sell the material to needy crafters, at rock bottom prices, I see no problem in doing so.

I believe most concerns about macroing deal with maintaining balanced economics. However, it has been noted this game may follow the player-driven economy approach.

So, if there is so much material in the game that users have to essentially give it away to get rid of it, then there is no profit in mining it any longer, and users will move onto mining something else.

 

It has been pointed out repeatedly, 2 servers is not required with a meta server that matches players. So called "hardcore" players can all be filtered together by actions. Be "hardcore" get matched up with "hardcore."

1) This is a fallacy. You assume to know much about the economy. We know nothing so far, there is no reason to impose UO economy in place. Controls for the economy should exist with or without PvP, else players will exploit the player vs player imposed controls.
2) You think they don't do this on a PvP server?
3) Now you are just making stuff up.

How about we lay off calling people names, it does nothing to support your position.

 

No, but it does make a great basis for character & maturity assessment. As for non-consensual PvP getting shoehorned into this game I haven't really heard anything compelling supporting that position either.

 

I might be going out on a limb here but, because SotA has a focus on being story driven. And it looks like PvP will be handled with the story too, you will have to PvP to partake in some parts of the story.

 

Hmm... I gather you are not referring to the main quest ?

One will have difficulty doing so in the offline mode, meaning that quest would have to written to be different in some manner.

As well, relying on other players to be available to provide a foil to a certain section of the quest could prove difficult, unless there were incentives to sit at the critical hex and wait for questers to come along.

----

Other "end game" story elements though, which are scripted and announced beforehand I could definitely see being PvP enforced. Such has been suggested by the devs in the past.

 

I think that sums things up as we know them to date. To me those are consensual scenarios and have been part of the earliest game concepts. Might be a hangup for anti-PvP completionists.

 

I suspect this will be the case. You won't be forced to partake in that part of the story if you don't want, but there will be story quests that offer you the opportunity to go into dangerous, PvP areas for certain rewards.

 

RG gave examples, both from the Ultima series and from what he would like in SotA. The team creates situations and leave it open ended to allow for creativity. It's about options, some of those options may be PvP.

A city is under siege and your group wants to get into the city to lend aid. Their is a route through the sewers, you must go through a locked gate, unlocking the gate brings you into the sewers and sets PvP mode. In offline mode, the gate stays locked. You will have to find another way in. You don't want to PvP, battle your way though the front gate or scale the wall.

Story can drive the choice to PvP while giving the player options to avoid that PvP if they choose.

 

That writing was on the wall when it was stated PvP will be by consent during the Kickstarter.