info about pvp

Well my fun is ruined by not being able to freely choose how i interact wth other players but then again my gameplay style isnt as important, whats not fun for you is for others and vice versa but that doest make it okay to destroy one players fun for the sake of another.


Maybe for pve hand holding rpers its ok. Have you ever consider how it completely ruins rping for ppl that want to be bad or evil? What your stuck with is an inauthentic world where only the people who choose to be good can have an authentic roleplay experience. And this whole system is ruined by the implimentation of their ideas for wth no evil there is no good. Whats the point or being a high and mighty crusader for good when there is no evil to vanquish. Looks like theyd be out of a job.

Again your assumig someone will come and grief you and ruin your game. What makes you think yur so special? Ive gone days in UO without encountering any time of griefing or pking so you are taking a worst case scenario and implying its the norm rather than the exception. Your experience isnt equal to everyone elses yet somehow to portholeatrium its the only true playstyle or one that matters

 

Thars because most everyone on my side has seen the futility in arguing their point and given up for greener pastures. Jist because there arent a ton of pvpers raising hell doesnt mean they didnt care it just means they gave up and left and all your left with is those that dont give in to the oppression

Ive tried ignoring people it doesnt stop people from replying with personal attacks or the thread getting shut down.
There is a major imbalance of importance being artifically placed on pve when the pvpers habe just given up it doesnt mean they werent at one time active it means theyve seen the futility of arguing for something that will never happen.

There are hundreds of pve games with the same exact pvp lite implimentation this game will have. Do we really need more of the same. Its kinda funny RG talks about how stale and stagnant the genre has become and instead of moving it forward with pvp they choose to fall back on the status quo so essentially he is becoming part of the problem he rails against. Not to mention the fact he doesnt want gear to have much significance and then touts the item system. Sure its unique but whats the point of having it if gear is supposed to be a non factor.

So i can have a sword with history. Doesnt really matter to me all i want is a strong sword. Likely its history will be too weak for the owner to survive an encounter so he sold it

 

The unfortunate result of taking the "high-road" and gracefully bowing out is that your ideas will be swept away and never thought of again. Your opponents will rejoice and glowt that they shut you up and drove you away.
This is a serious problem for anyone who is polite, compromising and willing to hear out the views of others without resorting to namecalling, insults and personally singling out people who they don't agree with.

This has already taken a toll on the community here and it will only get worse.

 

On the gear - those are good points but that is part of making the game ... if there are no items for people to make or care about - the game may have no purpose for an economy

It would be the equivalent of making League of Legends ... only battle, no economy ... thats a non-gear game

Games that want to have aspects of a dynamic online community "need" reasons to engage the world ... crafting is a big one

Yes - PvP gets the shaft in basically all games ... but SoTA is not one of those games - part of what is being developed here is creating an RPG from the single player perspective

Balancing that between RPG / Online / Group content is not easy

I can tell you that I'm as concerned for the single player portion of this game as you are with the PvP

 

Isn't that what is happening already when folks are self-opting out by refusing to comment on the threads?

Change is never accomplished through absenteeism ... that also does not mean you can't get a little rowdy now and again ...

A little anarchy never hurt anyone - its all about how one exerts pressure ideally not like Gracekain ... thats obvious antagonistic behavior ... why not get a moderator to moderate her

 

This isn't the thread to complain about thing that hasn't been implemented yet? my mistake....

 

Well if it was beig developed as a singlle player type story driven game he should habe never mentioned it being a spiritual sccessor to UO it was likely a ploy to draw in those gamers and quite misleading if his purpose was what it turned out to be all along

As far as the economy i agree i enjoy crafting but after stating that gear will be sewhat insignificant whats the point of spending all your time to craft a sword of mediocrity

 

Nothing. I'm merely a pessimist.

Why play a game where there is a risk of my fun being ruined by other players if I can avoid the risk altogether?

If it was like in 1997, where UO was the only game in town, I might grit up and play. Perhaps. But it's not, so I don't have to worry about that when I can just go play another game.

And the devs, of course, know this.

Actually, it's your playstyle — or, at least, your requests that no player shall be free from PvP — that makes my own impossible. Thus, it's players like you that force Portalarium to choose, either you guys or players like me; because there seems to be no way, at all, to bring both camps into the game.

Simply put, for a player like me, PvP being by consent only is absolutely, utterly non-negotiable, due to a simple reason: if non-consensual PvP is in the game, then the game is simply not worth playing, at all.

And Portalarium did choose. Before they even started their Kickstart. PvP was always going to be by consent only, that one was repeated in about every single situation the question was explicitly asked, and some devs — like Chris — even made it a point to specify that before further delving into any PvP-related answer.

Your request, that everyone should be forced into PvP, was never even on the table. You are basically coming into the game as a player that was not catered for (since you seem to be saying that, without non-consensual PvP forced unto everyone, you won't play) and asking Portalarium to change their early plans, ditch a large part of their player base, to please you. I don't think it will happen.

Little hint: the days of UO won't come back because there is now competition. You will only find players open to PvP that actually want to engage in PvP — because, even if the game attempts to force them into PvP, if they don't want to engage in PvP they have a huge number of other games to choose, so they just leave.

By forcing everyone into PvP you wouldn't be getting more targets; you would just be ridding the game of those players and leaving behind just the ones that crave for a PvP fight, which is nearly the exact same result you would get from the flag, just with a far smaller budget to keep running the game.

It's not even a new phenomena, BTW. There are research papers on how this exact thing happened in MUDs before UO even launched; force everyone into PvP and, before long, only the PKers, anti-PKers, and the non-PvP players that enjoy the risk and would have flagged themselves anyway will remain. This usually killed the MUDs, though, because when most other players have already fled the PKers would then leave due to lack of targets.

Of course, if my preference was so rare, it wouldn't be catered for, at all. But think about who is developing SotA; some of the very devs that handled UO and had access to the business info, such as the reasons why players were unsubscribing, what players complained about, etc. You and I talk about things based on incomplete data and gut feeling; the devs look at this from the point of view of veterans in the industry that previously handled the very game you want this one to imitate. They have way more info than you or I to decide what worked for it, and what didn't.

Another Little hint: allowing players the freedom to directly chase another player out of the game? Portalarium apparently sees this as a very bad idea, something that didn't work right for UO at all.

 

Sincerely, it's far more misleading to insist that UO is defined by the PvP. More so because the open PvP you describe only really existed in UO for the first two years of a game that is nearing two decades.

 

I've said this elsewhere, LG loves to talk ... and because this game is being crowdsourced ... things are probably more fluid than other projects ...

I can't speak on him misleading anyone - he's the only one that knows what intentions he had - but making any "spiritual successor games" is always a dicey situation

You run the risk of alienating some if not all segments of your following ... just take a look at the 2k X-Com remake ... up to the release and after it was still mayhem

 

Issiah, please take a moment to read the above qoutation. You mentioned it's the hive mentality of the PVEr people(I simplified this) that are bashing down all PVPers....do you agree with the above statement?

Many of your arguements that it is a players choice to join in PVP I agree with. I'm not against PVP at all just forced PVP. The above qoute wants forced PVP. That is a samilar post to many just like it in many and I mean MANY other topics dictating the same thing.

I think there is a middle ground, but there will never be forced PVP.

 

Theres no such thing as forced pvp unless you cant move. Even with ffa pvp you can run away and they can implemt mechanics which have been discussed at length to avoid griefing. So stop trying to pit is against each other. Everyone has their own opinions.

 

Uo was defined by player interaction and pvp was the most glaring example so by far it was the core of it. Im not the head of the company that has people hanging on my words so i can afford to voice my opinion freely and not have to temper it with what the community thinks
Name a single more definitive aspect of uO than pvp then

 

Well why should i have my playstyle made irrelevant because of you? Just like you dont want my playstyle to bleed into yours. By incorporating my playstyle in no way makes your playstyle as irrelevant as does yours will hamper my playstyle. You are free to pve all you want with ffa pvp and can avoid griefing. I however am not free to play as i wish like yu are when they impliment your choices.

There can be open pvp and still prevent griefing. However there cannot be consensual pvp without ruining my gameplay experience so why is it oka for you to ruin my gameplay but i cannot even get my gameplay implimented when your gameplay can be preserved. I have to go thru the headache of playing someone elses style because there is a chance that something may happen that theu dont like. Well guess what implimenting the current plan is guaranteed to ruin my gameplay style

If you think pvpers are chasing your kind away then why is it ok for pkers to be chased away? Do you know how many people have been already chased away because of pve refusal to allow open pvp?

Just as its our decision it is yours too. Nobody is being chased away. But it is in no way fair to forgo one segment of the populous for the sake of another. Its not that we are chasing anyone away. Like i said numerous times there are many ways to have open pvp and prevent griefing but thats not what pvers want. They dont want pvpers in their game period or they would be willing to accept the facts

First you can habe pvp and still prevent griefing
Second grieifing is a small portion of encounters yet are painted as the norm. So wh does your side constantly skew the facts to seem like victims to get their way.

There can be hardcoded mechanisms to avoid griefing
You can fight back
You can run.

You act as if every pvper is a gAnker and thats all that happens. Id like to think this community is a bit beyter than that. Your statements just arent evidenced by facts.

You claim studies that gamers are driven of by pvpers yet provide no evidence. Yet all i habe to do is point to pvp forum participation to show that pvers are driving away pvpers

 

There is such a thing as forced pvp....if you have to participate in it to play, it is forced. That is not what they are doing here.

I'm not trying to pit anyone against anyone. This isn't one side vs the other. This isn't a hivemind. We are all fans of the same game ala playing on the same game so we are all on the same side. Many of us have donated a lot to have this game made and have some strong opinions.

I just don't agree with yours.

 

+1

Now, Isaiah, please convince mmjarec that this is a good thing.

 

You dont have to participate in it. You can escape. Or not put yourself in bad situations. Why should i habe to be forced into pve? Ive played games that let me do nothing but pvp

 

If it is constant in the world if I leave a city, in order to play the game I would have to participate in it. That is forced. Why should you be forced to PVE? Um, because it's a story based rpg? Why fight monsters? why do quests? I'm sure if you never wanted to PVE you wouldn't have to, would totally blow your arguements about realism etc out of the water though.

 

You aren't forgoing anything you want because I'm sure that you will flag pvp and get to deal with anyone who wants to play your way.

I'm not sure questing peoples bravery has anything to do with it. I just don't have constant interest in it like you seem to. I want a challenge from the game in that the devlopers provide challeng to me ala games like Ultima 7.

 

How is it insulting it does remind me of bubble boy because he is sheltered from things just as you are. I dodnt make any jidgement calls all i did was ask what is so scary that makes someone so anti risk and pvp.

And no i dont get to play the way i want i am forgoing the freedom to decide who i can attack when i can attack them and where i can attack them as well as completely being restricted from roleaying various forms of bad people. Why are u so quicj to take offense to an observation made by a complete stranger. If one chooses to be offended by such miniscule things the. I feear life in general will be extroardinarily traumatic.

This isnt about you or me so since you are so quick to be offended by a simple question then it shuts down an acenue of conversation.

Like i said there are many ways to have full pvp and still be protected if yu wish to avoid it but this line of thinking is instantly dismissed so all i can do is assume that people are afraid of something since they are so ardently against someone elses chosen playstyle.

You dont see us seeking to restrict your gameplay freedoms so why must you ours ? We e given ample evidence to discredit assumptions about ganking. Given numerous examples how to avoid griefig and maintain open pvp and yet your group refuses to hear it let alone compromise. Its more like this is the way it is so deal with it. So pardon me for trying to learn why people are seemingly petrified by another person that may or may not decide to attack.

A game going for fun is only that in writing as only one sides fun is considered valid. Im not questioning anyones bravery but what do you call someone that refuses to engage in a fight?