Want more funding? Add real PvP.

This ^
--------------------------------------------

Can't vote when we don't know what you mean. By the insane caps usage I'm leaning towards that you mean some illogical permadeath/full loot/free for all that wouldn't work at all in an MMO in 2014 - then I vote a huge resounding NO!

But I agree they would get a LOT more funding if they spoke more openly about their exact plans for PvP, and focused on it more in upcoming releases.

 

I don't like PvP but have no problems with it if I am able to avoid it. I believe SotA is a mixture of a spirituell successor of Ultima (the story part) and UO (the online thing, housing, PvP and so on). And so SotA has two fan bases. To get enough money to develop this game, Portalarium has to please both directions. No place for any hardcore stuff. There are enough hardcore PvP games on the market, I guess

 

I think the issue of PVP is divided enough to make a point that funding is lost either way. At least continuing on a plan they advertised from the beginning will not erode its current based of funders. "Hardcore" PVP is defined as a niche feature because its "hardcore" which has been in decline in the gaming market for a long time.

In fact, even MMOs only account for 11% of online play.
http://www.geekquality.com/average-gamer-myth/

There will be games that specialize in hardcore market; however, SOTA was never advertised as one of those. Its niche was targeted to be the fantasy RPG market.

 

I'm not sure I understand the poll so I'm not going to vote. I mostly can't wait for the PvP to be started so I don't have to see 9 million there is no PvP threads. When they do start the PvP sprints I hope the daily looks like this...

ARTISTS
Alyssa Reuter: PvP shaders
Andy Cortez: PvP Items
Bob Cooksey: PvP Castles & Keeps
Bren Wilson: Female PvP anim
Jay Reichman: PvP clothes
Kevin Wells: PvP update assets
Melissa Soest: PvP anims
Niall Farrell: Skinning PvP dog
Scott Jones: PvP update assets

DESIGN
Bill Kirkman: PvP deco & screens, PvP prototyping
Brandon Cotton: PvP instructions in-game
Finn Staber: R11 tasks, PvP FX
Gina Dionne: PvP FAQ, CS, community, short story
Joseph Toschlog: Toasting to PvP
Scott Jennings: NPC chat about PvP

TECH
Erik Touve: AI's and interacting with PvP
Joaquin Del Canto: Secure trade during PvP
Ken Pfile: PvP Player Town Permissions
Tassilo Phillipp: PvP Store
Zack Sheppard: Nav mesh block volumes, AI PvP improvements (The PvP AI is behaving really crazy!!!!!!)

QA
Aaron Holden: CS, PvP prep
James Cousar: PvP Asset pack, Bug regression

PROD/MGMT/OTHER
Chris Spears: Overworld PvP
Dallas Snell: Update all about PvP
Michael Hutchison: Row house PvP (Window to Window & Fighting through the walls when neighbors are too loud)
Richard Garriott: PvP Story
Starr Long: PvP Forums

 

Hardcore PvP, by which I assume you mean anytime/anywhere is as much a fantasy as the game itself. A world in which people are liable to attack and death at all times would devolve into chaos and not have stable centers of civilization. I prefer a rational game world that can actually make sense.

 

This game was always advertised as a game where PvP would be by consent only, and many backers had that as the reason for backing the game in the first place or for increasing their pledges. Going back on that would, sincerely, be a bad idea.

Plus, I guess the OP is falling into the old trap of extrapolating from the players he is friend with or otherwise know better into the whole of the player base. Persons with similar preferences tend to group together, something that throws askew the perception of how common one's own playstyle is. And, judging by how many games without hardcore PvP are able to remain played and profitable for long time periods, and how few games with such hardcore PvP are able to remain profitable and grow, I believe the analysis in the start is simply wrong.

(I'm assuming that, by hardcore PvP, he means non-consensual PvP with player looting, BTW; disregard this post if that was not what the OP had in mind.)

 

Some of the most popular games today do have full loot and non-consensual PvP, Day-Z is a good example. 1.7 million play that game. Rust is another one. Day-Z is a online game where players PvP against each other. It is not a UO fantasy game but that was not the issue here as i see it.

So there is a demand and market for full loot and it is interesting that the polls over here resulted in a majority for the players that actually wanted full loot in the game.

Risk vs reward and consequences as full loot are popular in many games. It all depends on what game you look at. A failure kickstarter game does'nt prove your point since there is games out there that prove you wrong.

And since entering PvP will be consensual i see no reason whatsoever not giving the majority of the PvP interested players what they want, full loot (i doubt they are in majority today though after reading the so called PvP compromize). Why add a insurance system that as i see it only arrived to this game to please the less PvP interested PvE players. Why please the ones that isnt particulary interested in taking part in PvP. Why not please the ones that actually have an interest in taking part? Did all the PvP players proposals reach deaf developer ears? It sure seems so when reading this so called PvP compromize.

https://shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/pvp-death-current-thinking-megapost.8247/

 

http://store.steampowered.com/stats/?snr=1_steam_4__110

Last I checked, Day-Z had 10,000 daily players. However, it looks like it is up to 20,000 at peak. Not quite the 1.7 million you mentioned.

Rust has been ripped by everyone I know who touched it as a cesspool of griefers and cheaters. I've heard it referred to as the single worst online game community on the planet.

So, yeah. We should totally emulate those, and not the ones that get millions.

Only if you pretend 10,000-20,000 is really 1.7 million.

As I've said before, the biggest problem is that PvP is entertaining when you have other people to fight. If no one is engaging in PvP, then it isn't fun for people who want to. The market has spoken and no one is interested in full loot, which would mean you wouldn't have anyone to fight.

Even worse, if you did have someone to fight and you kill them, they lose everything and they can't just reenter battle in a few minutes. Then the game is over for the two of you.


The most popular PvP games on the planet let people reengage each other with no penalties so players can spend time in combat like they want to. Removing players from the battlefield by removing all their gear doesn't make PvP more enjoyable. It kills PvP.

 

There are always room for hardcore games like DayZ, but in many ways those communities are different. My son plays DayZ with a passion, but even he comes and goes on the game based upon how frustrated he has gotten with the hardcore mechanics. This is almost like playing a hardcore game in a casual way.

I think most players play these types of games like this, which is completely unlike MMOs or traditional RPGs which tend to get more constant game play. Would be some interesting statistics, but getting the proper sampling would be hard.

 

Cause it would be kinda ridiculous to have a full loot system alongside well built PvE and not at least crafting aspects. Spend ages farming for and crafting a good weapon - go out and lose it first time you die in PvP - never play that game again

Crafting or PvE-looting anything better than standard gear would become totally useless and boring.

Ppl who like to PvP don't necessarily ONLY like to PvP.. if that's all they want to do all day long, there are plenty of other game models that would fit them better than a MMO

 

Hey I definitely want more consequences, like full loot, but this post seems a bit trollish.

This is not a post that is worth fighting over. Don't feed trolls.

 

I do not want "hardcore" PvP, never ever. Sorry to dissappoint you. There are other games that do that much better than SotA could ever do it. Some might be here for something else... it is called roleplay and style.
There is no disucssion that "full loot" ot non-consensual PvP will enter the game as far as I know and that is good.

 

I dont pretend anything.


I took the information from their website which inform me they actually have + 1,7 million players - http://dayzmod.com/ So full loot dont destroy PvP since many want that risk vs reward, they like consequences and i am 100% sure SotA would have alor more pledgers for the game if they had went for full loot and a risk vs reward game. And of course removed the cardgame combat for a skillful combat system.

All of them dont play the game today and definetly not all at the same time. But they have a market that seem to be bigger then this one. So again the market is there or why should the game still stay on the top list of selling games over at Steam after so many months, it is quite unique you know. Most games fall of that list quite fast. And why is Rust still there if it is such a unenjoyable game? My answer is that it is in the eye of the beholder. It isnt your game type but many other players seem to enjoy the game and it's features

The market have spoken? Developers of SotA went as i see it against the majority of the players taking part in polls about full loot. A majority wanted full loot. So yes the market for full loot in SotA was there but instead of listening to all suggestions from the PvP interested players i feel SotA developers went ahead and constructed a PvP compromize that was a compromize tailored for the PvE players, the ones that isnt very interested in PvP. Isnt that kinda odd? How can that happen? I asked myself this many times and i have no answer for it. Why go against your own player base?

 

I am in favor of consensual PvP.

Why isnt full loot a good choice when the majority of the PvP interested players wanted just that?

And why do you think there is no discussion about full loot? Have you asked yourself why that discussion ended quite fast after the so called PvP compromize developers presented?

Could it be that many of the PvP interested players isnt arround on the forums anymore?

 

There are 1.7 million accounts.

There are 20,000 active players at peak.

So of the 1.7 million people who downloaded and tried the game, only 20,000 are still playing. What does that tell you?

 

When it doesn't fit the model they wish to deliver?

 

I answered that above. If I kill you and you lose everything, you're removed from PvP play. You can't try to exact revenge right away. And then I'm removed from PvP play as well as I don't have an opponent.

Allowing us to go back and forth in PvP is what makes PvP fun. When you remove people from the battlefield and stop the action, then the game isn't fun. It is a chore with no opponents and empty battlefields.

 

What model?

Super rare gear that would be a mess to loose?

If so why go for super rare gear instead of easily replacable gear as in that old UO game, before AoS.

Best gear should be created by crafters and should be easy to create. And that way make it easy restocking your lost gear.

 

True I did not make myself clear, if they have consensual PvP (which they plan to have) I do not care if they have full loot (or not) - though in the linked article there is a huge and good explanation of why it will very likely not be.

 

If gear is as easy to replace as it was in old UO i can be back in PvP in less then 5 minutes. Full loot give a reward for well played and that should be in the game.

It should also be a risk entering PvP or it will become dull real fast, PvP alone is not reward enough.

If they make gear hard to replace then i wont.