PVP & Death: Current Thinking Megapost

Right now I can tell this isn't going to be the game I and many others were hoping for.

As a long time UO player 96-present (all pre-renaissance for all you old UOers out there) I was really looking forward into RGs new creation. The fact that he was doing it himself through kickstarter made me believe that he was making a game that would be different from the other cookie-cutter MMOs out there. Still, I wanted some to wait and see how the PvP mechanics were going to be addressed because I deep down knew this was going to happen.

First off, PVP is what keeps games alive and thriving for PVE and PVPers alike. I hate to relate to UO and I know this wasn't made to be UO2 but there hasn't been another mmo like it imo since. The PvP and full loot aspect of the game is what made it so exciting to play. The fact that you could lose everything on you at any given time meant that you had to acutally think and plan out trips ahead of time. You actually cared if you died or not instead of "Well I'll just respawn and head back *yawn*" When you got caught and pked you lost everything and it would sometimes enrage you but when you were able to enact revenge it made it equally if not more satisfying. The range of emotions this invoked IS what made that game so great. The adreneline from seeing pks and the possibility of losing everything you had just worked for in a dungeon and the split second of fight or flight reflex kept you on your toes. The same goes for when you were doing the pking only to find out others had organized a posse against you and your fellows. This ENCOURAGES people to play together for a cause.

Not to mention having full loot and "always ON" pvp is the best goldsink possible. It makes an actual need for blacksmiths and merchants. I don't know why they think people won't wear their good gear thats just nonsense. Sure you may lose it but that gives you incentive to keep playing the game and get more. Common people eventually you are going to be all decked out in good gear and then what? Just stand around in town? Everyone wearing the same thing doing the same quests or killing the same monsters over and over?

To develop passion for a game requires that you have risk involved. Plain and simple.

I read some of these posts and people seems to want another WoW, Rift, etc. Walk over to this NPC with an arrow over his head "Kill 5 rodents and come back for item" "Now go to that other NPC and do it again".........rinse and repeat...

I know a lot of these newer gamers have never played a game that involved risk so they think that it would be horrible to lose something. I bet if they tried it and saw all the other ways it made the game better they would stick around for longer than 3-12 months. I grew up with games that were hard as hell and in the end it was more gratifying. The graphics all sucked so they had to make up with it in storyline and content and in RGs case the first and best sandbox mmo.

Well, sorry for ranting to those that don't agree but it is just a colossal let down for me and a lot of others. I wish more people were willing to step out of their comfort zone and try something new instead of pushing for the same thing thats been on the market the last ten years.

 

I started playing video games with Pong. I've played many of the hardest, most challenging games of each console generation, and most of the truly challenging PC games. While I didn't play UO I did experience non-consensual PvP where the player loses everything on defeat in other games, most recently EVE.

And, sorry for the language, but non-consensual PvP and full loot sucks, for me at least. It's not lack of trying, it's not the fact I'm a new player, or that I only play easy games; I enjoy a good game of Dwarf Fortress 2, for what it's worth.

You will likely see many ex-UO players that share a similar opinion here. Chris Spears, one of the devs, once even said that PK was the #1 reason given by players for unsubscribing from UO, so I don't think it's a rare sentiment at all.

In short, don't assume that all players will enjoy non-consensual PvP with full loot if they only experience it, because that is not true. Well, for some it might be, but many people here on the forums had experience with that kind of game play and don't want to be stuck with it again.

BTW, I don't want a new WoW, Rift, whatever; I want the game RG said he is doing, one where interaction with the game world uses the old paradigm where exploration is important while allowing me to opt out of destructive interactions with other players.

 

Been there done that, before UO.
Yep, Meridian59. Non consensual PvP in 1996. MUDs before then, too.
Then played UO, non-consensual PvP in 1997-1999. Then a whole bunch of games since UO with non-consensual PvP.

Now that the option exists, players that don't want it, just leave. Not much you can do. Cater to a wider demographic, or enjoy your spot as a niche title. /shrug

The only one, imho, that had a shot to re-ignite the pvp genre was Warhammer Online, and it was just shut down. ( technical failures & shell-game mechanics )
Darkfall had to be rebooted, and is still struggling. Mortal Online is a buggy hackfest. Shadowbane is a ghost town.

Purely from a business perspective, that is, whether or not the expense, time & effort will net a profit, I personally see no value in pursuing a pure "ganking sheeple" style of title. There are enough failed examples that developers should have finally learned their lesson.

Finally, my sig link demonstrates that many of us are looking for something different, definitely not "the same thing that's been on the market the last ten years". Things like dynamic hex resource adjustment, indirect pvp, insulated pvp, puppet pvp, open skill design, unique character story/path/consumables/skills/crafting, guild alliances/outposts/fortresses, mixed pve & pvp guild structure attack and defense, completely dynamic combat (with a static combat UI), NPC bribery/corruption, world-affecting diplomacy/politics, tangible regional faction effects, player-dependent NPC infrastructure via harvesting/crafting, world-plot regional/resource control, and more.

There are more innovations to be made in the genre, and none of them have to be repeating the mistakes of UO.

 

Something to think about. Hardcore games are a finicky bunch. Their likes and dislikes are very specific. They will have hopes a game will fill that niche in their hearts, and many times that puzzle piece will not fit right. When that happens they usually loose interest. Add to that other problems like bugs and technical issues and they leave faster. This and the money to be gained by being popular outside the hardcore market tend to lead to few games that target this group and the rest struggling to survive. This can be hard to swallow especially for those that remember when the game market had nothing but hardcore gamers.

Non-consensual PVP and Full Loot are hardcore ideals. Like dying from thirst, hunger, disease, etc. These mechanics for non-hardcore gamers make the game punishing. If a game is punishing then people don't play it. This even relates to the hardcore gamer playing a game without that specific hardcore feature: The game is punishing from the lack of this feature and they leave. The difference is hardcore gamers take up a small portion of the market these days.

I am a hardcore gamer at heart. I love the stick, and I love getting beat with it hard. Very few games do that for me, but I also have another love: Story. As such, I can stick through and play games I don't like because I want the story. Many don't have that secondary crutch to stick with and even be surprised by games outside of their norm.

If you followed things from the beginning without preconceptions it would be clear that SOTA would not be catering to UO PVP hardcore gamers. In my opinion, they were upfront about this and this was represented in my early postings about PVP. That doesn't mean this game will suck for PVP lovers: just for those that can't handle less than the hardcore PVP experience UO delivered. However, I believe that if the hardcore can swallow their misgivings and stick with it I think one of two things will happen: 1. They may find that the way PVP is implements allow them to enjoy themselves; or 2. Portalarium pulls something out of their hat to give them more of what they want.

However, nothing happens at all if people just rage quit, hurls insults at the community and the Devs or just generally be negative forces in the community. Those types of things usually just get ignored in the ongoing conversation.

 

I think it is those of you who look down on PvP and name all of these other features that are going to set this game apart will probably be just as disappointed as those asking for open PvP and full loot if not more so.
You say "enjoy your time as a niche game." What do you think a game that has only drawn the interest of ~70k people (and only 35000 to put up money) 7 months before release is? And some of those people wanted a game reminiscent of UO so your slice of an already small pie is even smaller.

We are 7 months from release and none of those features that will make this game stand out are surfacing at all. We have a lot of work to do before the game can even catch up to the stuff that is already out there so you better hope that it works or you will have shelled out a lot of money to be safe and cozy by yourselves.

You would do well to make a real compromise with the PvP community. When numbers are already small to begin with you need as much help as you can get instead of repelling people.

sent from the future using my Coleco Adam

 

Spam accounts to reach that number. But still, SotA is a niche game.

 

I'd like to think that we'll make up some healthy ground on the player base after official release. I understand that may not be the case in the end. I guess we'll have to wait and see; it's nice that we've made it far enough already that we will eventually get that answer.

 

That being said, I think it's pretty good that we have that few proportionately! If we had a marketing budget we'd probably have more but I like to think we'd have more actual backers too.

 

That remains to be seen. You could consider SOTA a niche game. It has old school features from a game developer that has not made waves in the industry in a long time, but remember that UO PVP is a niche of that niche. UO PVP is polarizing and just as many people hated it as loved it.

However, you can't take its current interest to predict its reach. Many people unfamiliar with Ultima or LB did not join on because of the graphics during the Kickstarter, which we know were not even close to what the game will be. Also a vast majority of people don't know what KS is nor are they willing to buy a game they cannot play right now. Steam's Greenlight only does well because you get permanent access to play the game right away. With SOTA many things are not clear and you get a tiny window to play. It is also not in full marketing mode. Not sure how far Portalarium will take this, but they are not trying very hard to market the game right now.

These are all things that will change. Once the game is available and people can get straight-forward information on the available features will be the testing point. Trying to determine how niche a game SOTA may be now is really just speculative. It will be an Indy game for sure, but so was Minecraft which was around a while before it exploded. However, it was "playable" when that happened. Right now, I would not classify SOTA as playable even if you only consider that you have to wait for a specific weekend in the month to play it, but being an alpha I think you can find some other reasons to say that as well.

 

The listed feature would be able to create the illusion that all sides seem to want.

The extremes:
Full Open PvP - does not want to see a player they can not attack, ever.
No PvP - does not want to see PvP, ever. (does this player even exist?)

Everything in between:
Consensual PvP
Separate server

In towns may be the exception with larger populations per instance but if the filter system rates PvP status high on the list then PvPers will have scenes full of nothing but PvPers.

 

Yes! - and i consider myself to be one.

 

Yes doesn't give a lot to go on. So "Yes!" what?

Yes these players to exist or yes this is the type of player you are?

These type of players typically find other options, like stay in towns and become socialites or full time crafters. Or they don't bother ever playing online games.

This type of player is not represented on the forums because their personality type does not like person to person confrontation.

 

Not true.
I play solo. I never want to see PvP.
I will play the story line, and then I'll go out and see what adventure I can do solo.
I may craft what I need, or buy from a vendor, since I have the solo online option.

This was pitched as a game that could be played solo, and that it wasn't an MMO, and that's how I intend to play it. Solo. Perhaps FPO.

And, I'm pretty active in the forums, so we are represented.

 

/raises hand.

I don't actually hate person to person confrontation per see, only the non-consensual kind. Which is why I have no issue, at all, with posting on the forums, or taking part in fully consensual PvP (if the format and rules please me), but I will never take part in non-consensual PvP.

And, in the case of SotA, with the currently proposed PvP rules, there is a good chance I will avoid each and every kind of PvP, and thus be a PvE-only player. I'm not going to even get close to a PvP system where the loser can be looted, even if only for gold; for my own reasons I will also never take part in looting, even in fully consensual PvP.

 

After 99 pages I'm still non the wiser on what PvP will be.

All I can say is that the current loot proposal is horrible and I really hope that is addressed so that it is more meaningful. It does still feel like the PvP community is being ignored...all the non PvPers got their way over consent ..... It's time the PvPers had something go their way in terms of looting.

 

@Sir Frank and @ Silent Strider

My point is that people that have no interest in PvP will find their way to play how they like. I doubt any of you will ever ask PvPer to be forced to unflag for PvP because it keeps you from playing your style.

As long as you are not forced to PvP, the game has a place for you.

I agree, loot should be addressed. 100 pages with no dev rebuttal in this thread, it's time for some Dev feedback. (well after postmortem for R4 of course)

 

Whatever is decided, remember that Full Loot has a tendancy to spawn "who can make peopel wuit the game" constests amongst the worst the gamign community has to offer.

People playing this are likely looking for a game they can immerse themselves in, so happenings int he game will trigger both positive and negative emotional reactions that come with being immersed, and that should be taken into account.

It shouldnt be too light a penalty because it would be too boring, no adrenaline reactions. But it shouldnt be too harsh because the griefer population will be sure to try to make as many "immersed" people quit the game as possible.

 

So there are ways to make a system "full loot" to create choice and at the same time adding in mechanics that pretty much ensure that clean looting is unlikely to take place. This has been mentioned several times but probably lost and ignored in the 100 pages.

 

Negative response to negative actions doesn't go over as well as a positive activity keeping players positive.

Give players, PvP and PvE alike, a purpose, keep them entertained, and they don't fall back onto those tenancies (some will of course, but those should be dealt with separately). Rewards for success, loot or otherwise, are important. The problem we run into currently is all we know is what loot will be... kinda.

 

One thing I can say is that PVEers are far more vocal about PVP than PvPers. This is for a number of reasons but the point is there is a lot of people (including myself) who just read forums to see how the development is going. We are so used to games turning out in this fashion that we simply don't even bother in swaying the usual inevitable outcome. But don't assume thats what everyone wants because of this. Look at the new trend of all the survival games coming out. DayZ Standalone has around 1 million purchases and its in the Alpha stage of development. That game is a full loot perma-death concept.

Anyway it is written in stone right now that if you do not want to PVP then you absolutely don't have to. So those of you that have already posted in this thread condemning full loot don't have to worry about it. Those that want full loot and would actively participate in PVP should be heard from here on out.

Those that want to try PVP every now and then but mainly do not have an option as well. Don't bring your best gear to the fight and then don't worry about it. If you lose well then maybe you will bring better gear next time. The point is it is up to you so don't limit the playing styles of others when it will not affect you as much.

*I know my opinion holds no weight but here is what I would be interested in seeing. A different server with full loot and Pvp always active. It could be an exact duplicate of the other so those that wanted to come over were able to without sacrificing their housing options except for player vendors, gold, items, etc (vendors are an option right?). There is a way to make this work for all of us where we don't have to compromise. I believe this would attract more players and you could have everyone satisfied.*

On a side note please understand that all of us are not these *sheeply gankers* and douchebags. There are those types of players in every game whether they pvp or not. I tend to roleplay in an anti-pk role and enjoy helping others. Please, I would like to hear your guy's opinion on the separate server option and if it works for everyone than maybe we can all agree to ask for something like this and maybe they will listen.