Cabalist Sieges for Pvp - ers

Toxidity is in the eye of the beholder. Did you also find FrostII's negative and exclusionary statements toxic? Just curious.

 

What negative and exclusionary statement? All he said was:

 

Negative - 'um, no thanks', no by nature is a negative, but his intended sarcasm is clear, irrespective of that

Exclusionary -'our small team has much better things to do ' - exclusionary, as he wants to exclude pvp'ers and pvp content from the game, as he has made clear in multiple posts, as he tries to make the claim that pvp was never intended in SotA, which is patently false, just as Greywolf's statement that only pve'ers built the game is also patently false.

Considering that the past 2-3 years of development have totally ignored pvp player's desire for content, please someone tell me, how are pvp'ers holding back this game?

Considering that the past 2-3 years of development have totally focused on pve content, please someone tell me, why can't this game attract and keep new players and has less than 800 people login a day?

All the hate cast upon pvp'ers is totally misplaced. The drive to discriminate and eliminate has just about eliminated everyone. How low can it go?

 

All I can say is if you think any of the above is true (with the exception of the average player's dislike for the PvP community, thanks to those who end up getting lumped in with you (gankers, griefers, etc)), you haven't been here.

 

Probably due to all of the broken unfinished systems, constant balance issues, patch upon patch every release, no new story line, repeated boss/CP mechanics etc etc.

Do you really think that if they concentrate on pvp aspects that they would be much different than the current issues that are in the pve? Do you think that pvp mechanics would ever be complete? Look at the Obsidian Trials. Do you believe that pvp skills would be balanced?

Now don’t get me wrong, I enjoy PvP at times, but there are so many better games out there that get PvP right. There are also a few games in development that have the right team and experience that will make it great.

 

Every bit of it is true, and I have been here since basically day 1. All you have to do is look at the player base today, to see how productive the devs choices have been.

No, i'm just saying, thousands of players have left that were here for pvp aspects, and since the game is barely on life support and draining fast, did it really make sense to be exclusionary? PvP isn't going to save the game, but at this point, what is? More deco? More unfinished zones/mobs/etc? I like this game and want/wanted it to succeed, but it isn't pvp content that is holding back this game.

That is true, but I came to this game because of my history of Ultima games and UO and believed what was promised. I will indeed be playing New World when it comes out( already played the stress test), but that won't make me any less disappointed in this game's utter commercial failure.

 

An average gamer is a pvper. An average player does not dislike pvp. Look at the most popular games currently out today. If this game dies it will be because it ignored that and catered to a small niche of gamers that don't enjoy pvp.

If you're referring to the average sota player then that is just your opinion. If fun pvp systems were introduced early on the population and player demographics would be much different here now. After years of being ignored and alienated, of course most of the pvp players have gone elsewhere. But if systems were put in place a lot of them would come back to try it. Mainly because they have such a dislike for the vocal "pve only" players that in my opinion have ruined the current direction in the game.

 

If the average player is a PubG or Rust kind of PvPer (and the statistics pretty much support this) then no, I really DON'T want PvP in this game. If its more the team-style LoL/Overwatch/CoD PvP, then fine... no problem.

Where the falsehoods lie are in the claims that the PVEers have been vehemently against PVP in its entirety, and that nothing has been done in support of them basically since before the game "launched".

To make the claim that all the development in the last 2-3 years has been solely pve is patently false. There have been attempts, sad ones that quickly petered out, because it is obviously easier to fiddle with the numbers than create (or hell, RE-CREATE) proven, tried-and-true systems that can support fun and meaningful PvP, without giving the asshat-style of PvPer a single toe hold.

That is where the hate lies, that is where it has ALWAYS been: the kind of "PvPer" that is out there solely for the grief (their version of "fun") of it. You know the kind... they play Rust and love to make videos of themselves destroying what others try to create.

I cannot argue that the game could have retained much more support, especially when you look at statistics on which games are currently most popular. One would have to be blind to not see that PvP games, specifically the team vs team style, are topping those charts. And the developers missed a really low-hanging fruit in not building something from day one that supported guild systems, guild wars, and other thematic events that could affect the game world.

 

I love the concept of this, just trying to think how you'd work it out to be a fair match regardless of the level spread you got.
There are a lot of players who get absolutely walloped by a cabalist still who irregardless of whatever else is going on wouldn't be able to get that dead, particularly while simultaneously dealing with pvp elements. Then there's other players who can wallop a cabalist in about 8 seconds flat without it even getting into range and its completely trivial. And of course, it matters -which- cabalist we're talking about.

I like the idea of the defending team needing to "hold out" for a certain amount of time, and the attacking team needing to destroy a certain amount of things to achieve success. I think those are clearly defined positions and not that far afield from what we have now with sieges.

The issue I see happening is, you get a defending team with a couple of power players, they'll wipe cataputs and cabalist in a few minutes and then match over. There's potential for abuse with people just using this to farm catalysts and the "pvp" elements become completely lost.

I'm thinking tweak this slightly, to where killing random crap in the scene gives you some sort of currency that either team can use to spawn things:
Defenders can spawn camps of npc guards, stronger ones cost more of this currency
Attackers can spawn catapults, and cabalists cost more of this currency
The caveat is that if the other team kills those things, they also drop more of the currency, and harder/bigger things drop more of it.
This means both teams need to actively do stuff instead of just hide somewhere and wait.
The match could go on for a fixed amount of time and victory could be determined by a score, calculated weighting how many player kills, how many npc deployments, how many npc kills, etc.
This way it wouldn't matter as much which side you were on - it gives people who aren't "all about PvP" a reason to come in here and do stuff, as there are objectives that need completing that aren't just "kill folks" and it gives PvPers something too, where they can simply kill the players to keep them from being able to get the currency to do anything.
I've seen similar things be very successful in other games.

I think the biggest struggle we'll have is filling a full 5x5 or 10x10 unless we get some sort of 'queue and teleport when its full and about to begin' tech, though.

I think the rewards mentioned by Elrond need tweaking a wee bit tho. At the moment you can get 18 catalysts by clearing a siege alone in say, 5-10 minutes. For a 30 minute match, I'd probably say 100 winners / 50 losers is probably enough incentive, and lower the shop prices of the rewards accordingly. You'd also still pick up coin and wood and such - perhaps make the npc guards faction drop something interesting to compensate for siege engineer wood/pulp drops.

Make it so that gear takes no durability loss in this zone and you've definitely got my interest....

Just have to think how to make it so that people don't just queue their alts and go afk in here for the free loser payout or to game the system completely. Some sort of minimum participation required to get rewards, perhaps?

 

The falsehoods are in your clear missunderstanding of the hatred directed at pvp in sota, simply look at the forums, look at the history, look at the streams where they even clearly direct devs OFF pvp stuff to do useless other crap that only affects whales in the game. Look at the reality of the situation in its entirety.
You obviously dont pvp and have a completely skewed illusionnary perspective of pvp in sota... This is a roleplaying game, not a tower defense game (although it has been suggested countless time to have factions and tower defense instead of control points).
Nothing has been done to help pvp other than obsidian trials. But as I have posted elsewhere MANY MANY TIMES, pvp in this game has been slaughtered by 1000 cuts. These cuts are directly related to anti-pvp actions and hatred and the requirement of new content to be added (items, artifacts, etc).
The hatred direction to pvp isnt even based in fact. You are never forced to pvp, its a flagged system. Anyone who cries about griefing simply doesnt want to roleplay in a pvp setting. If you cannot handle YOUR version of greifing which has NOTHING to do with pvp in this game, then you should simply restrict yourself to non-pvp content, which is 99.9999999% of the game. Enjoy the dumpster fire.

p.s.: you cannot grief in this game, you see wisps of other players when you are dead and there are other ankhs to ress at and you have ress immunity when you do which allows you ALWAYS plenty of time to leave. Oh and dont forget there are multiple play modes, multi/party/private....

 

Hi Lord Tachy's, I appreciate your input here and don't want to see you get in any trouble. Please refrain from using that racist statement in future posts as to not cause any problems for your account. I personally did not take offense at your statement, but others might.

https://thespectator.info/2020/07/1...g-fruit-is-racist-reminds-blacks-of-lynching/

 

I know what the game is... I've been here since (nearly the beginning) and have been a part of many of the conversations about pvp, and even been a part of the hate that was directed at, as I said, the griefer "PVPer". I KNow it isn't a bloody tower defense game, I brought up the MOBAs simply because they ARE pvp games and their current popularity shows that the "average" player is a PvPer, so don't misconstrue what I said previously. I am under absolutely no illusions as to what the game is or is not.

There have been many decisions made during development that were intended to force pvp on those that did not wish it... the clear railroading of players trying to play through the stryline quests into PVP only zones is the most obvious of those.

What hasn't been heard by the devs, or at least understood by them, is what exactly constitutes meaningful PvP. I think they tried to address it with the obsidian trials, but like so much of what has been introduced into the game, they moved on to the new shiny thing and completely abandoned development of it. Hence FrostII's statement: There is simply so much more they need to fix before they bring ANYTHING new into the arena, so to speak.

And lets be honest with ourselves: the only reason there are so few ways to grief people in this game, is because the "poor whales" (some of which WERE PvPers) bitched up a shitstorm about the ways the very mechanics you mention were originally flawed in their implementation, which ALLOWED the griefing they now prevent.


To get back on the topic, hopefully, the idea is ok, Elrond, and I would love to participate, but the first part that needs to be addressed is there needs to be some counterbalance to the way your proposed system would work.

Firstly, I know it is a siege, but the entire premise of it is heavily skewed in favor of the players supporting the Cabal. Because it is a siege, the onus is on the defenders to move the entire scenario forward, while the players supporting the siege really only need to sit back and wait for their enemies to come to them.

Second, currently there is only one way for the siege to end: You break it. There should be a victory condition for the Cabal side that closes out the siege and maybe imposes a penalty for those entering the unsuccessfully defended city.

Third, and partially supporting the previous point, there needs to be a set of objectives for the Cabalists and a counterbalance for them. Something that the players supporting the city or town to move forward towards to summon that major defender and boster the city defenders in the same way the Cabalist bolsters the Ebon Hand.

Just my 2c, it is a good idea, but needs some fleshing out to make it truly great.

 

I appreciate the concern, but I said nothing racist. If they moderate the post, that is fine.

 

Well, unfortunately you don't get an opinion on what is racist and what isn't. That phrase has been determined by scholars to be considered racist and in this day of cancel culture, I would hate to see someone take offense at your casual use of the phrase. You need to understand better the effects it has on other people like us so that you approach it with the correct sensitivity.

Thank you for your consideration, i'm just looking out for you.

 

Thank you for yours, and I am looking into the matter. If I hear what you are claiming, I will cease its use.

 

I gave you the link, it's pretty obvious. I'm worried about Chris' constant use of it as well, I don't think he understands how his insensitivity could be excluding potential players who get turned off by people's casual use of racist phrases. We need everyone, not just people who look like him.

 

Not arguing the matter here. You gave me a link to a tiny article that says one professor is making that claim. I will get my information from the source... the people it would actually offend.
As I said, thank you for your consideration, and if it does offend people reading this forum, they can make use of the report button, and the moderators will do what they do. If I am banned for this, then I simply go do something else more productive with my time.

That being said, can we actually get back to the topic, rather than things that bear not one jot upon it?

 

Not trying to argue with you, I get enough of that from my wife

The problem is tho, it isn't just up to 'the people it would actually offend', once something has been determined as racist by scholars and professors, it really isn't up for debate anymore.

We can agree to disagree, and I will let it go at that, but it is indeed a racist comment, and as a just society, we must show no exception when it comes to racism. You are either on board, or you are a racist, there is no in between. I personally don't believe you are a racist, but I can only speak for me, not the entire populace. To my knowledge you have not exhibited racist statements prior to this, but not everyone will be so willing to understand your motives as benign as I am willing to do. As long as you prohibit your use of that phrase, i'm good with that

 

You call it pvp, I call it roleplaying the actual game as it was intended by the vision of Lord British where the player needed to "visit" obsidian zone which, by the LORE, stopped the oracle from protecting the avatars. This isnt pvp. This is lore and roleplaying which got destroyed by carebears and the ignorance of said vision. What you see is false and there is no hope to fix the illusion for you since you start off the bat already hated pvp and flag things as pvp due to your ignorance of the difference between pvp, griefing and roleplaying.

Trolls. The lot of them. Not true roleplayers. They warp the concept of griefing to fit what they want to get what they want; a dumbing down of roleplaying and to make the concept that we are playing a GAME irrelevant. Its a GAME. Saying you got griefed in a GAME should be laughed at and disregarded from the get-go. If you flag, you cannot be griefed because you accepted the removal of the oracle's protection, its a ROLEPLAYING MECHANIC, not a pvp mechanic. The failure to see this clearly is destroying this game.

Great ideas, would love to see this implemented too. Would definitely need this in the mix. But let's be honest, this sounds like a lot of work. But a easy way to have this would be to keep the mobs we have and simply add a form of Cabal side obsidian shards like they have in Upper Tears which buffs the mobs, and a counter balance where the be-sieged can opt to gain their own version of these that would not necessarily be obsidian shard but something new and similar. Just need to fix the fact that these shard buffs in Upper Tears also affect pets as well as the mobs and shouldnt unless it the one that if for your side of the fight.