The Glass is Half Empty - A look inside why people are opposed to Open PvP and Full Loot

Thank you very much for putting it like that. Yes, we want all players to feel like the game has the exact options they like in a multiplayer game !

 

I'm going to take a wild guess without even clicking on the link and assume that it is the article by Lum?

...posting that is becoming such a cop out, IMO.

 

Yeah that article is pretty much irrelavent considering UO still existed with Everquest for a long time, so people did have options (after 1999). And for a great deal of my UO career, Everquest was available if I wanted to play a game like Candyland.

Like I said, I'm not a griefer and I think it's pretty immature. But, you should learn how to deal with them.

Have fun kiddos.

 

It is relevant considering that UO had player retention issues, with what I've seen described as a fairly high player churn.

You will get the option to engage in "open PvP" with everyone that also opted into that, and perhaps even with full loot, though. It's just that players that don't want to take part in the PvP will be allowed to avoid it, likely without having to give up on any PvE content or sacrifice character progression in order to avoid PvP.

 

I like open world pvp and full loot. I agree there will be griefers and gankers and the such, but the players have to learn to deal with it. Which thats what causes the problems nowadays. Gamers want things given to them, they want to be safe, because they cant handle there stuff. They feel like a video game should be a fluffy win button. I personally do not fall under that catagory. There are always ways to avoid griefers and gankers. Form a group up and hunt them down together, but wait that means interacting with other people and you might form a friendship. Better scratch that idea. You can go hunt in a different area, oh wait that means you have to try something you didnt want to do and that means you dont get you way.

Mod edited for content against forum rules.

 

Ahmen brotha.

I see the same 9 people that are anti-PvP and against Open Role Play that involves other players playign a style they want controlled with a dictatorship rule; are posting in here.

Same few people ranting and ranting like its a thousand, hoping that Open Role Play will not be a mode. Hevean forbid there is a mode that ORP players can all go into and play the way they want, but because its not your way, you dont want to go in it... thus, it shouldnt exist.

Seriously irked at these anti-PvPers. They already KNOW they have at least 2 modes. They want them all. Its just like, get over yourselves.

 

As currently described by the devs, PvE players have 3 modes: Single Player Online, Friends Play Online while not flagged for PvP, and Open Play Online while not flagged for PvP.

PvP players have two: Friends Play Online while flagged for PvP (likely very useful for duels and for waging wars without outside interference), and Open Play Online while flagged for PvP (the equivalent to open PvP). Single Player mode, for very obvious reasons, can't support PvP.

The PvE players, in all threads I've seen, merely want to keep the modes as already described by the devs, which BTW includes keeping the two PvP modes. You want the PvE version of Open Play Online removed, depriving PvE players from the chance of ever meeting players from outside their friends list while outside towns.

Sincerely, wanting a multiplayer mode to completely exclude a play style is utterly selfish when the mode can actually handle more than one thanks to instancing and matching. The only mode to exclude a play style should be single player, and even then only because, to the best of my knowledge, no one has found a way to have PvP in a single player game

 

Really, Tim, nobody has EVER said they want Open World PvP mode removed from the game. Ever. What they said is they don't want to be stuck in it. However, I've had enough of trying to reconcile these camps.

There's a fork coming up in the river, one path leads towards the game that is going to be released, and one leads to "wah-wah" waterfall, where the players who don't get their way will quit. When we reach that fork, we'll find out which rafts full of these equally vocal potential players will chose to go play the game, however it works, and which rafts will choose the falls.

From what Portalarium has posted, I suspect the raft I'm on will be sticking with it and playing the game. I sincerely hope that most of those I've seen posting on these forums will be there with me. For any that choose the other route, "Hey, more power to you and I hope you find what you are looking for."

 

In the same breathe you pay out open world PvP yet say you love the immersion of RP

Open world PvP, like in original UO, created so many RP events its not funny.

You had griefers yes, but you had PKers who ENJOYED being hunted down, hell ive seen them actually RP after finally getting done in.

You had Pkers, PK Hunters, anything you can think of. All these things increase the interaction. Look at EVE, fantastically cruel but creates soem of the best events - RP and not

I dont get all butt hurt when I get pked, or killed or whatever. Yeah its annoying but its really not hard to learn how to pay attention, learn to fight back or even to make yourself a hard target.

 

It's not about if PvP will be in the game or not, it is more about what kind of PvP. Will it be felucca light with slowpaced unskilled PvP, no full loot, no risk vs reward and consequences or will developers create the PvP game many oldschool UO players been longing for since AoS destroyed UO february 2003.

Less PvP players will bring less total players and a less successful game. I will definetly not play felucca light. I will not play if i cant get a house ingame without paying 500$.

I sadly also believe your right that your raft will be the one developers choose to support which is kinda sad since i prefer to play fantasy MMO games. My guess now is that i will be playing Star Citizen instead.

 

We dont want the game to go over the waterfall. The path of game that created a non-open PvP world like so many that exist today. Our only hope is that the creators go down the path of being the spiritual successor to game before it.

Games before this point all have non-open PvP worlds. So we can only hope they dont choose that path over the waterfall. That they challenge the norm. Players are won by showing them the greatness of a game, not earned by giving them a 'safe switch'. Many dead MMOs that are still hanging on by a thread have found this out the hard way. You cant do another non-open PvP game like WoW... hell players are so sick of the WoW remakes, WoW wouldnt even last against itself.

So lets pray to the Avatar that they dont go over the waterfall of mundanity.

 

See, it's people like this that I don't particulary want to spend my LEISURE TIME interacting with. It's the spare few hours each week that I'm not working or doing other RL things, and I, shockingly, want to enjoy my down time. Sometimes, that even means competing with other people! But it *NEVER* means dealing with jerks.

This is why you can't convince very many PvE players to try PvP - there are too many on your side of the debate that not only view PvE'ers as lesser people, they treat them like it too.

Mod Edit For Content

 

Dont worry i'm pretty sure you will have your way and players like Zerrin will have to look elsewhere. Seems i will also have to look for the next game.

 

This right here. I'm all for living on the PvP end of SotA, but I can't stand the elitism harbored there. The aristocratic idea that PvEers are below us PvP advocates and need to suck it up, deal with it, and "handle their ****" is ridiculous. Their playstyle is just as valid as the PvP one, and they're going to leave over being subjected to second-class citizenship.

 

I dont see risk vs reward and consequences in PvP as immature. Just another playstyle.

Can you explain what is immature with risk vs reward and consequences?

 

Read the language he used to express his thoughts; that has nothing to do with 'risk vs reward' and has everything to do with derision and disrespect. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

 

Explain to me why the as i see it way more hardcore PvP game Star Citizen have 19,5 million in pledging and SotA soon to have 2,5? Why do i as a lover of PvP in fantasy games more and more see Star Citizen and not SotA as my next game?

My guess is that the "elite" PvE crowd i see in all threads like these will successfully manage to alienate the PvP players with there suggestions of a PvP game that fit them and not the PvP players like a glove.

 

Meh, it doesn't matter. The hardcore PvP crowd will accept nothing less than unwilling participants to kill and the PvE crowd will accept nothing less than not being forced to participate in PvP.

 

If you see your Avatar being killed and looted in a PvP game as something disrespectful i cant help you.

He talks (i agree it isnt that polished and i can understand it is provocing) about risk vs reward and consequences. Being ganked and looted yes it is a risk in PvP games with those features in the game. Reward can be good rescources cause you might be in an area with just that and that is why you have this severe competition.

He says players want to be safe which is the same as a game without risk vs reward.

He even had some suggestions, form a party and hunt the gankers down or move to another less occupied that might not have as good rescources but be safer.

 

This potentially can make everyone happy. The question we need an answer to is what can be done to want to encourage PvE players into taking risk of flagging themselves for open PVP as well as what can be done to curb players from just wanting to openly kill others.

To the PvE players what can be done to encourage you to click that pvp flag every now and then?

Of course on the other side of the coin what would discourage a PK from wanton in game murder.

I don't think one side can really answer for the other since we play with different motivations but I do think we can find a middle ground espcially with the selective multiplayer (the more you pvp, the more pvpers youll be grouped with, and vice versa) Personally before pvp is handled I think we need to find out what the death penalty is going to be and move from there.