PVP & Death: Current Thinking Megapost

I will never be... as you say... "Butthurt" over needing to avoid a PvP zone. As long as it's clearly marked, I've no problem with that.
All I've ever asked is the ability to not participate in PvP. I've no opinion on how PvP should be run. I'm fully cognizant of the Developer's intention to have PvP free-for-all zones, and Consensual World Wide PvP and I not only do not object to it, I support it... fully.

 

And many, like myself, have come to SotA on the promise of what UO should have been from the beginning instead of what it became.

The developers disagree... They wish there to be PvP, and are building a number of options for PvP into the game.
They are being Inclusive of many playstyles, rather than attempting to restrict their audience to one particular playstyle.
I fully support that idea and their designs to date.

 

There are many diehard RG fans, I am one of them. UO wasn't my favorite game of his.

Wow. You honestly believe all that? We are getting the singleplayer game because that was what was sold to us in the kickstarter. I don't have to be part of another players playstyle, if that playstyle requires me to be the unwilling victim then it is a non self sustaining playstyle. I have no issues with the PVP modes they have set up...people who are in it not to PK and grief other players shouldn't either. The thing it takes is that person who has no interest in it.

That doesn't mean I think they should go away or what not...I think they should play in the style they like. But your post above makes it sound like we should shut up and be willing to be a victim to give those that enjoy that a good time. No thanks.

 

Lol any post that agrees with you 0r increases your position is a good post.
A fake PVPer posts support for your rules that no PVPer would ever really support and that is a good post.
Your a riot!

 

They are not being inclusive.
PVErs are being catered to and PVP players are getting crumbs. Ideas that have proven failure over and over again.

 

I haven't posted in this contentious morass of nonsense in weeks. I don't appreciate your random, passive-aggressive attack.

Also, I don't "own" riot. If you find it amusing you need to use the contraction "you're."

 

So...what would be your solution...make the world PVP and if the players who have no interest in pvp can stat in towns? Don't go into any dungeons because then they are free unwilling targets?

At the moment if you want to put yourself n fully open pvp you can...and all the like minded people can. If there are enough people interested in that mode then you will have people playing that way.

 

How would World Wide Non-Consensual PvP be inclusive?

If you consider allowing those that don't wish to be involved in PvP a place in the game as 'being catered to,' then yes... But that is and has been a core tenet of the design of this game since its inception.
Setting the bar at "Everything must be PvP all the time" allows for no compromise.

And, let's take your beloved OU as an example... Why was Trammel implemented? If the world wide, non-consensual PvP that existed prior to the introduction of Trammel was how the game was supposed to be, and how the designer intended it to be, and had a healthy, thriving and growing player population, what would move them to implement such a drastic change?

 

LOL Grammar lesson?
Do not worry.
This game will have few PVPers anywhere under these rules.
I and most other players already own wow.

 

Evocare - to boost short term enrollment pushed this into existence.
It catered to casual players who flocked to the game... stayed and then left in droves.
Sadly most of the dedicated players had already left.

Trammel was no the savior of UO, it was the stake in the heart.

Mod Edited.

 

I guess the thought of only facing people interested in PVP isn't as interesting to you as an unwilling victim. This game just won't have that if that is what you are looking for...


So far, no solutions from you and a whole lot of bickering. Sound strangely like another poster I haven't seen in a bit.

 

Lol. I had a similar thought.

 

All Of This Has Happened Before And Will Happen Again.

 

I didn't say that you're getting a single player game because you're lobbying for it, your (plural) interest in the single player game seems to imply that anything that could enrich the multiplayer game will ruin your experience. You tell those PvPers that this will not be UO2 and seem to take perverse glee in reminding them that the devs had said so. I can now remind some of you that this isn't U7. I find it funny how some folks in the single player thread are lamenting that "it just doesn't feel like Ultima." It must suck to have the words that you threw at the PvPers reflected back at you when you have to realize that "spiritual successor" isn't an exact copy and what your idea of an Ultima game really matters not and that it's going to be a spiritual successor in someone's opinion that is not yours. Sucks doesn't it. How about having a little empathy for those who thought the game was going to be what they thought was best about UO or Ultima?
I posted in response to the person who was saying something along the lines of "You want UO2, it ain't gonna happen so thppppppt" as well as musing that people keep coming here and posting stuff like that. So it looks like the desire to shut people up is coming from your crowd.

 

I believe I was a bit more eloquent than that.

Would it be a kindness to let them go on believing their assumptions may be correct, or would it be better to educate them so that they might make a choice based on fact rather than conjecture?

 

Well, I think your oppinion on things is wrong. Sorry. Maybe if you realized that it was stated from the START that consensual pvp would be there then you would see why these outcries of why can't it be the other way is nonsense.

Like I posted I am happy there is a mode they can play and don't begrudge that at all. You seem to want to put words in the mouth of everyone and lump us all together as saying get out.

 

I agree, Non Consenual Pvp is great for the PvPer, not so great for his unwilling victim, mostly Newbies or Crafters who are unable to fight back (as alot of PvPers don't seem to like a fair fight). This is how I remember trying to PvE in UO pre Trammel http://www.imanewbie.com/imatoons/ima06.shtml

A lot of people are bleating about how 'Great' pre Trammel UO was.....but that's not how I remember it. Not being able to mine without getting griefed, leaving town as a newbie to explore and getting PKed by people out for Lulz. Im sure they had a great time...unfortunately I did'nt enjoy being their game content so they could have fun. Luckily I only had a month or so of that before Trammel started, otherwise I think I would have quit out of Frustration and Boredom of being cooped up in safe areas.

The PKing of Newbies by Idiots was the main reason imho that Trammel was introduced, and for people saying that Tram 'KILLED' UO, may I remind you Trammel UO is still going now, and obviously making enough cash that EA (not exactly known for their sentimentality) are still supporting it. This is even though its still subscription only when most other MMOs have failed with this model and gone F2P (eg SWTOR, LOTRO, STO, WoW etc)

I think Trammel killed UO for the PvPing griefer that got their jollies by ruining other players experience in the game and whose idea of a fair fight (which you get in CONSENUAL PvP) didn't exist.

 

I don't kill innocents and most PVP'ers are better than me (at least in UO where most of the time I was on dial up). But I still liked PvP because it brought me together with my friends and gave fun role play situations.

If skills were rewarded for winning at PvP...(I liked doing it even if I didn't win and I grew the skin to accept jerk type playeres). If trophies given out with my name so PK's could gloat. I'd be discouraged from allowing myself to be subjected to it. Also, rewarding them for kills just promotes senseless PK'ing for no role play reason.

What reason would I have to flag on if none of the other non-elite people did? Or if it'll just sort me into felucca (that's basically what sorted instances by PvP is) away from people that have more my play style?

I was thinking of the workaround for myself of finding a group of people (ally guilds and enemy guilds who treated each other respectfully in open pvp) I used to enjoy Siege Perilous with and we just play on a friend only server. So turning PVP off for friend servers wouldn't be good for that idea.

 

I know not all PvPers were in for the easy kills and the grief, unfortunately like alot of things in life, a few bad apples spoilt it for everyone else who werent killing Newbies and actually did enjoy the thrill of a good fight with another like minded player.

I do hope and support SoTA getting a rich PvP system, with full loot, thieving, being able to Flag your guild PvP and fight other like minded guilds etc. Seige Perilous I thought was another awesome idea by UO, which which gave people the choice to play on server with full PvP. In the end its all a matter of choice. Im quite happy for PvPers to steal, kill, full loot each other until the cows come home as they've chosen this path and its what they want to do. Trophies, full loot,specific PvP only craftable gear,specific PvP quest lines, extra resources in PvP zones, all these ideas allow those people who have chosen the PvP experience to have more fun.

What I dont support however is non consenual PvP where the strong can bully and grief the weak and drive newer players or players who prefer crafting, gathering, PvE away from the game.

 

I wasn't done and it sent anyway. I'll finish this message when I get home but I'll more likely put you on ignore or something.