Things from livestreams: April 30th: "Dungeon Tartarus"

I'm sure the real PvPers can give you a long list of things that they have been requesting over and over again but never been listened to. Antrax posted one in another thread lately.

For me and a few other borderline PvPers, a real guild wars system is the number one thing. Please please please give us the game mechanics to do UO-style guild wars (but better! with an "allies" status!).

 

My that's an ugly little (big) bast**d

 

@FrostII @Antrax Artek as much as I like a good forum fight but I think it's enough. Go back to the 8 page bandwagon. No need to fill every topic with the PvP discussion.

 

I ain't tryin' to fight with Antrax, it was an honest question - and if you'd care to notice, it was directed at Antrax - not you Earl.
And this thread is already about PvP if you haven't noticed.
Castle sieges and guild wars, is that what we need to make PvP meaningful in SotA ?
Honest question .

 

This 100% ! The current guild war system is ridiculous and not fit for purpose.

It's adding things like this, that is to say proper game mechanics, that will give a chance of more people joining/rejoining the game .

And that goes for improved game mechanics for PVE as well.

 

It's a start. The current system to have guild wars is a joke. If you try to go to war with another guild, it automatically makes everyone in the guilds open pvp so that everyone in the game can attack both sides. I think most of us thought it was a placeholder at the time it was implemented, but that was a long time ago.

Just allowing certain guilds to declare war on each other and set ransom rules, would help pvp quite a bit. And it probably wouldn't take much manpower to implement.

 

I like the idea of putting PVP content inside of normal scenes rather than putting normal content inside PVP scenes. Instead of "Open PVP" there should be an op-in - like you kill a cyclops, cut out his heart, and put it on an altar to open the door to the PVP part or something.

In my imagination, a very cool scene would be completely normal except for a large ruined castle with lots of speed traps, two ruined towers on opposite sides, and a soul stone that groups of players could touch, choose a team, and play capture the flag!

To make it more fun, include a buy-in. Winning team shares the pot.

PVP with a purpose would be more popular, I think.

A similar idea using the same technology: King of the hill (player control point).

Perhaps there could be some fun (cosmetic) items for frequent winners amd achievements for teams that often play together.

 

I wasn't arguing with @FrostII , i was just replying to the Merlota's statement.
Low pvp population is not the cause of the problem, but on the contrary it's the effect of a poor and penalizing PVP system.

 

I have some concerns about mixing open pvp with non-pvp in the same scene. If done correctly this could be be interesting, but are a lot of ways it can be done wrong.

In order to work there would need to be a very clear visual line to cross between these two type of areas and the pvp-zone popup would need to work to warn those of us that have no desire to enter a pvp zone. There should be no way to accidentally enter because I was running from a mob that spawned right near the transition point, or because I was clumsy and fell off a bridge, cliff or into a hole in the floor. Also if there is boss area that is not open-pvp then there should be a way to get there that does not go through ANY pvp area. People might disagree with me on that but if you have to go pvp areas then that boss can't really be called non-pvp though many will claim it is, seems like a good way to create sore feelings on all sides. If there is not a clear marking between areas the main zone should be marked pvp.

Even though I do not want to set foot in any open pvp area (its just not for me, don't bother trying to change my mind) I do support adding new pvp areas and features for those that enjoy them. But do not try to trick me into entering a pvp area if I do not want to. I felt that way on the main quest when my compass and journal entries pointed me directly in to a pvp zone and if I hadn't already known there was a non-pvp way I might have quit the game at that point. Hopefully changes have been made since I did the main quest over a year ago, but while it is perfectly fine to have a short easier pvp way and a longer harder non pvp way, the compass/journal should either point to the non-pvp way or show both ways as choices since it is the main quest.

 

Hey Frost. I think we need a bit more mechanics than Castle sieges and guild wars. It was very painful to turn down someone one day who wanted to join our group who didn't know his guild was at war with the group I was fighting with. So while guild wars may be fun for some I feel it does depend on the mechanics that are chosen for this game. And before any of this we must have the raid system badly, timed event tech (which I did request from @Chris, quests, ransom removed and rewards of trophies, achievements, titles with bonuses, pvp quests, faction system, perhaps a justice system. All of this to replace our lack luster ransom system in this game. We can do much better. Please remove it @Chris. We have too much going on in this game to lose lot deeds and the kind of things multi -taskers carry. People just won't do it if it is such a huge effort to prepare for pvp. Plus pvp is not worth it or fun atm. Not enough reasons to do it.

 

Loot deeds shouldn't be lootable like every item from Crown shop, btw i disagree to remove ransom if we don't have a rewarding pvp system, ransoms are the only reward atm. I do agree on having both: zones with ransom and zones without it.

 

I listed many rewards for pvp instead of. And much more fun than ransom but as always the battle stops progress. It has been that way since 2013 when I got here.

 

You and Many other listed lot of good rewards for pvp, and i like it, but removing ransom should be the last pass: first add rewards, then remove ransoms, removing ransom without adding other rewards is not good.
Personaly i like play in ransom zone, this make me feel the risk, i can die over and over without it and this is not fun.
I would prefer to have both option in different zone, you can't have high reward without risk.

 

I PvP in Overwatch regularly. Never have looted anything from my enemies, but the experience is very rewarding. Far more rewarding than losing all my stuff in Shroud.

Just saying, maybe loot isn't the only way to have battle be rewarding.

 

I see your point, but Shroud and Overwatch are 2 different games, Overwatch is mostly a moba FPS, Shroud should be a sandbox RPG, so while in Overwatch you join a match with a determinate number of players which ends at a certain point, in SOTA there is also a open world PVP part, which need rewards mostly related to sandbox mechanics.

So i totaly support having BG, Arenas, Battle royals modes, without any ransom ( like the match of Overwatch) but do it without ruining the open world PVP experience which a sandbox should grant.

Every sandbox game i played, had full loot and boosted drop in PVP zone ( high risk and high rewards), Sota is not done for full loot, since builds are mostly based on gear, and gear is realy realy expensive and hard to get with the current crafting mechanics, so i think ransoms are a good compromise for maintain the risk vs rewards balance.

At the same time ransoms shouldn't be gamable adding lot of **** in your inventory and reducing 80% of the ransoms under 1k, because this ruin the total sense and point of the ransom system, which is a risk you are going to run for having better rewards.

 

@Dhanas I understand everything you are saying.

However I came in game this weekend to go to the Cabalist battle, and then logged out when I found out it's in a ransom town.

Why?

Because psychologically every loss of items, even junk, is negative. It's a psychological fact.

I didn't want to have ten or twenty negative events piling up on me at the start of the day. However many were coming until I quit in frustration.

Give a monkey an apple, it's happy. Give a monkey two apples, then take one away, and it freaks out.

So just an FYI.

Personally I think getting PvP points is a better idea than taking things from other people.

 

Why can't we have it all? No-ransom zones, ransom zones, and even full loot zones? So everyone finds a piece of SotA that appeals to them. And we will see what is most popular. In Germany we have a saying: "People vote with their feet."

 

This! Having this should please everyone.
@Vladamir Begemot I think the intent was to make all those RP PVP battles ransom Free, but Luna city doesn't want to be a Free ransom pot overall so i guess spinok asked Chris to disable ransom for that day of the battle, probably it was late and needed more time so the battle had ransom, most of the pvpers btw didn't loot ransoms. I didn't lost anything and i died a lot, same my guildmates, but i can understand your worries. Having an option to make events ransom Free should be useful

 

Chris addressed the ransom issue as part of his stream that day, while they were gearing up for the battle. Paraphrasing his comments, he said tha ransom is uses both client and server side code so it can’t be turned off without a major undertaking. As a result he couldn’t do anything about the ransom in the pot.

 

Nooooo ransom please, none at all. It keeps us from making other things. Lets scrap it.