PvPers, would you play full-time on a full loot, open world PvP dedicated server?

What you full loot/pvp advocates are missing is the fact that your game can still be fun for you and include people who are not interested in pvp themselves. In the same way a person not interested in pvp can still have fun in a game (on the same server) where pvp is allowable for those who want it and has certain influences in the game world.

Another side note that you are missing is the idea that those who are not interested in pvp cannot really enjoy a world which has fully open pvp and full loot. I can tell you for a fact that you will lose many wonderful additions to your world by ignoring this fact.

 

I love the game as it is, however, if there were two different servers I am heading to the full PVP one. I have played tons of MMO's and the ones that get most of my money are the hardcore ones (eve, darkfall, dayz, etc) just because it is more fun losing gear and having to replace it than it is to get full gear and have nothing else to do.

 

Well said.

I'm surprised everyone is jumping on this "it will divide the population" excuse. Question seems like having one server be full pvp full loot among the list of servers. If there are, for example, 5 servers on release to handle a large population, what is wrong with one of them having this rule set? Is the argument seriously, dont force people into pvp and full loot... force them into flag pvp and purples that are bound to you? Seems obvious it would be a whole different thread if it was asking to split the population into two servers only. But honestly I'm impressed at the responses. From what I've seen of the community, the full pvp one would be more populated IMO.

 

I see alot of arguments for not having a pvp server and the people saying that are also saying that the majority wouldn't want that... Yet... Look at the poll.

It is clear a majority of people do infact want that same tenseness they got from UO.

I see no reason in getting offended by people asking for this. If anything it could be a separate pledge that would solely put money into maintaining that server and the coding changes required to do it.

Just because you might not want to play there or cant see why it is worth it. I point you back towards the many topics and votes showing otherwise and also the downfall in player base and atmosphere and over all gameplay that resulted from the same mind set you people that are against it are throwing around.

 

Meh, define "full time". I play when I can, and usually am experiencing several games at the same time (not literally, but you know)... So, maybe, no? Or yes? Not sure.

 

Heh 21 votes...the majority has spoken. Anyone not into full pvp was asked not to vote.

Those advocating have one set of 5 servers as a pvp server haven't been keeping up with info...there won't be 5 different servers....there will be one.

 

For me I think moonshadow said it perfectly. I do not want to see the community split. I hate the us or them mentality so many seem to show on this topic. I think the Devs are on the right track with the way PvP is being implemented. I have already said what points could be tweaked and from my understanding what I have said is pretty much on par with what the devs have planned...

 

Umm there is but one world.. Not sure what you want but everyone open pvp like pre tram uo won't exist. I suggest you go to seige perilous on UO, there you will find your nirvana.

 

I'm not hating on the way you guys want it at all.I would play both to interact with different people. You could even have it where you cant do open world full loot pvp till after you reach max level and then you can choose to bring your character over or something or other in that way shape or form.

Or you could have it that when you reach max level there would be one more level that you would be prompted to accept or deny (and later accept if you choose to) and at that point you would be permanently flagged for that style of play along with everyone else willing and ready to take the plunge.

People seem to get salty when they realize most people want the full pvp full loot. I think its like they realize "They dont want to play with me they want to kill me and take my loot" which is not entirely true. In Fact several groups will band together some being good some being bad.

Some guilds would serve only to protect and thus add much gameplay to the game. It has been proved in the past. Also this really hits home with the whole virtue system and the idea behind it as Richard Garriott himself has gone on record during several interviews describing how you can do all these things that are bad but that you are still the avatar and at the end of the day you have to decide what choice to make and how people in the game world (npcs and characters alike) would view and treat you and how you make a name for yourself in one way or another.

It is far more impactful on the whole gameplay experince and game world atmosphere that brings far more immersive than just a good game economy in game and set co op tasks. It also frees up alot of time for devs to add more content with such an open end game structure. It also brings a whole new depth to the strategies you can think of on how to deal with any single occurrence in any environment. Life is a puzzle and to solve it is to not die. Or die a lot and learn like Dark Souls.

The best part about my idea is that it does NOT divide the server at all and would be COMPLETELY optional! There is NO down side to this.

I`m sorry but the game would be much more intense if you had to be on your toes at all times looking out for danger.

That would honestly make for a great "mmo" "end game" in addition for whatever else they have planned.

 

A majority on a fixed poll

 

Good stuff.

 

And now you are the only one that sounds like they have a hidden agenda or an issue with letting people get the extra experince that they want when it could possibly come at no cost whatsoever to you at all.

Why so much hate for a proven money maker and successful experince that people crave and have craved FOR YEARS.

I leave you with this... The amazingly beautiful music that let you know you were in a fully realized "world" where anything could happen(No one has done this since even tho they have tried and failed) Sure this song brings great memories of happy times but it was also scary... Leaving town setting out into the world being amazed but at the same time knowing at any moment death was upon you and not from some scripted enemies but from a well thought out strategy or a battle hardened foe bloodthirsty and loot hungry.


To this day no one has been able to do what Richard Garriott did. So why, when everyone has their chance to convey such feelings (To the man himself while he is actually doing something different than everyone else and LISTENING and communicating) do you feel the need to shoot it down? I say this becasue what I am talking about would have no negative impact on anyone at all and would actually add hundreds of hours and possibly far more end game mmo players from the major games out on the market now.You are hampering something even more amazing than what it already is which is going to be amazing.

 

It is a dire concern of mine when you split the population of a game to cater to rules, rather than server capacity. I would love nothing more than for everyone to see the value of full loot and the impact it holds on all dynamics the game presents. Regardless of which side of the fence you're on, it's easy to have a narrow sight of the kind of environment full loot creates.

For this I voted yes on a PvP server, but not to separate 2 playstyles, because isolating PvP to specific areas within the content; instances; or any form of consent, diminishes the overall emotions that drove UO to be such a great game. I would add that to date no other game has yet to recapture. Bonds were made between players, to survive against those out to kill them. Dungeons were crawled with exit strategies, counter ganks, and incredible 3 way battles between blues, reds, and mobs/traps. Bonds were also made between those who sought to best unsuspecting opponents against insurmountable odds. Even when reaching the sanctuary of guard protection there were no feelings of safety with possible thieves around, until those Vanqs were actually banked up. The unpredictable nature of other players encouraged others to use precious skillpoints into protecting their goods with non-combat skills like hiding, spirit speak to find out where reds are; from their fallen victims, or practicing seemingly arbitrary habits of invis and wis quas before standing still for even a few seconds. The piles of cloth and robes to cover bags inside of bags, trapped pouches and chests to sound the "you're being snooped" alarm; to the upgraded and more precautionary locked chest. Every moment in UO pre-2000 were troublesome times.

Whether it was you who were finding a mark, setting a trap, looking for that rush of overcoming a hunting party that outnumbers you 3:1, or the NPK who wanted to right the wrongs of other players: you cannot tell me if you played during those 3 years that there has been any other game that has offered as many butt clenching moments as UO did. It was two defining mechanics that set the precedent, a total accidental side effect, that emotionally enthralled every player. Be it joy, anger, confusion, sadness.. whatever it was. Full loot and the inability to globally communicate brought people together in ways no other game has reproduced.

What seals the deal on my yes vote to PvP server was the stream the other day. Lord British himself suggested the idea of an indoctrination award to Chaos, quickly to follow was the question (paraphrasing); Is creating Chaos something we really want to reward? There were no quick responses of "Of course", just silence and moving on. Interaction between players is an MMO's greatest asset, especially when the players are creating these interactions. The cause and effect produces more content driven by players and motivates them to do whatever it is in response to what just happened. Players creating chaos, are in turn giving the players abiding by or attempting to keep order, something to do. For these sentiments not to have been voiced from 1 person on the panel displayed to me, that according to the voices being listened to; there is no genuine benefit to disturbing another players agenda for the night. If something you wanted to do is delayed another day, that's another day of playing, with a happy obstacle in between.

So full circle, back to my first statement in my post. I do understand the time that you log into a PvP server it is entering a consent based environment. This means the server will most likely be full of wolves, and no lamb for the slaughter. Yes, it will be a much less fulfilling or interesting environment than if both populations were combined. It is more apparent how unlikely it is that this will be applied to "the server" if there is only 1 server. Maybe it would be better just to give the game over to a population who only wants to caress nostalgia, peacefully, and leave the game alone in a state of a graphical chat room. From what I've played so far, the game at its base has a lot of promise, and I feel it would be a shame to not maximize the possibilities.

 

Actually, because of the "selective multiplayer" framework, there's absolutely no need to create a new server. You'd just make it so OPEN pvp players only see other OPEN pvp players.

It would accomplish the same thing the OP is talking about, and the economy would include everyone. Of course, you wouldn't be able to talk to non-open pvp players so the population would "feel" just like it would on a separate server - dead.

I'd much rather find ways to encourage people to try pvp, even if they're not open to being OPEN to it full time.

 

It takes away the ability to hit the on/off switch. I thought that point was made pretty clear.

 

There's always an on/off switch...it's a game.

I'm not trying to play semantics with you. I'm trying to use reality as the basis for this discussion. The idea that we're going to spend money creating and maintaining a separate server that we don't need based on a playing style that either forces people to "join us or die!!!!1" or stay on the other server...that's not a very wise decision.

I understand the spirit of it. But the world doesn't work that way. The developers have said that they will try to find ways to encourage players to try PVP. What pvp supporters should be doing is trying to help create new channels that make PVE players more inclined to try it out. Instead, people waste their time asking for separate servers, talking about how trammel ruined UO, and making polls about full loot.

 

PvP won actually...

 

(by a lot)

 

My way would solve this problem

 

The only way I will play this game is with some kind of pk / criminal system.