Understanding OPEN PVP (Why?)

It being free has nothing to do with it.

 

And if her terms conflict with what the hardcore open PvP players want, should they just fold then and give up their gamestyle?

So your wife can have it her way?

A PvP game dictated by the casual PvP player that sometimes want to try out PvP is definetly a no go. Why should all the hardcore PvP players have to adapt to please the casual PvP player? I would never play that game.

Only way to solve this once and for all is 2 servers. 1 for the PvE players and 1 for the hardcore open PvP players that want risk vs reward and consequences.

 

Don't understand why all the "Consensual , Non-Pvpers" are upset or even complain. Open PvP / Full Loot is not being forced upon you. I'm coming at it from an opposite direction.

I do not want any Pro-Consensual / Non-Contact / Non-Pvp-Loot People ..... on my server.

If you prefer the typical multi-player game where all you worry about is when to dodge the aoe attack of that dragon or how long you want to mine, uninterrupted, then I don't want you to take up space on my server.

Strong words..yes, but just how I feel at this point. I see no reason for me to play multi-player at this point. Granted the PvP has not been discussed, but I'm leaning towards just playing single player offline.

The challenge of mastering more PvE content doesn't interest me anymore.

 

Uhhh, that's kind of stupid as I already said that *I* personally am for a very open version of what the PvP should be (once consented into) and as long as it is understood THAT is what PvP is and means, then my wife, and everyone else, can intelligently choose to particpate or not. NO ONE is asking for PvP to be watered down, MANY PvE PEOPLE are asking to not be forced into it, which face it, is exactly what the "Open PvP' supporters want - to remove the consensual part.

 

You are gonna be sad then, because there will be only one server. It's been stated again and again and again. Sorry!

 

I almost wish there was a way for the Devs to give the people asking for a 'hardcore full loot all-PvP-all-the-time' server their wish WITHOUT it costing the devs a single cent or a single minute of development time because I believe that the 'hardcore' server would be so empty as to be pointless within 6 months. With other fighters instead of victims I think many of the people asking for it would find PvP less fun then they remember.

 

Could change. Also, I won't be sad, i'll just a nice single player RPG to play , built from the foundations of ultima.

Umm, we don't want to force PvP onto anyone. At this point we are either looking a non-consensual server or a good Open PvP option to have enough people active in it.

 

I believe your are wrong. If I was asked to consult on the issue, I could advise a way to create an environment similar to UO early on, but with a bit more protection, not as hardcore.

Am I coping out of hardcore pvp? Wussing out? NO. I just think it shouldn't be all out PvP everywhere.

Towns Safe
Few Starter Dungeons Safe
Areas of Fluctuating Guard Protection (Maybe on-off via choke pts or world changes) Maybe a rich mining area falls under the protection of guards for a week and the next week its OPEN PvP Again !!

You don't want it too hardcore because, yes, it could hamper the overall numbers. But if the environment has some bend/flexibility to it, then you can really get a thriving community.

 

I didn't make that statement, he did. My claim is simply that the weight of people pro-pvp, open world is not greater than the group that could really care less.

For numbers, or anecdotal, and even hard evidence, look to the last 15 years of gaming in the MMO space. Name me another game that is pro-pvp, pk and full loot that has more of the population playing that style? Hint: those that you will find are in a minimized market share.

Its why the hardcode PVPers are clamouring for this to be that game, one that echos the open world style of a game that did it over fifteen years ago.

You simply wont find them because the game companies would rather maintain an actual business income i.e. the numbers dont play out and favor Open World, PVP, Full Loot systems.

Welcome to money talks.

 

Great article. ? People just dont get how much full pvp adds to the game directly n indirectly from protection guilds to taking tolls on roads or else lol... even the economy benefits o0 from full pvp.. I also wanna right an article explaining to people who never played full pvp games free world style why its so fun.. I mean you get to write youre own story not buy a game that youre story has all ready been written by million other players.. I alsothink the few of you ppl agiasnst full pvp think its some kind of hell when in reality its rare to see a pk because theres soo many disadvantages to being one.. like never ever being able to bee in town.. it hard to buy stuff.. n u constantly have hunting parties after you and if you die u cant get resurrected like normal people. You few people who never played it are gonna end up loving it ..even if you dont get into pvp cuz customers will be buying youre best stuff all the time.. n relize its eazymto hire protection. N fun as hell.. theres whole guilds out there that mskr there livings on protecting you. N some including me who do it for free just to be in the thrilling situation. Give it a chance guys it sdds tons to a game..uo nevrr got boring because of this aspect byt wow gott sooo boring.. full pvp free world let us write are own story

 

Another way to approach the problem is to actualize the market for Open PvP - Full Loot; UO style - for Portalarium

1. How many players and revenue is needed to provide Portralarium enough capital/incentive to give you what you want? (we know Portalarium is not afraid to give you what you want if the money is there )

2. Real world commitment: real names; with real money contributions (not online threats of I'll leave if I don't get everything I want - which by the way, from a business perspective, hurts your goals)

3. Portalarium - agrees in principal to provide mode if there are x players with y dollars in their coffers by z date - then its a go.

4. What this takes is for the PvP community to organize and actualize "perceived" demand - by bringing the numbers and money (before the game is made - hence minimizing risk)

5. At worse you figure out that there is no interest, but you get what Portalarium is already offering - or you get what you want (money talks, bull!@#$ walks, just saying)

The idea is simple - ensure a captured audience (invested in the game with money)

---

Or provide ideas to get as close to the game play that you desire ... again just saying

 

This!

 

I think there are specific things that can be in place to make some areas more PVE friendly and others more PVP friendly.


Here is my problem with 2 servers. I would not refer to myself as a hard core PVE'er..I'm also not a hard core PVP'er. At least not in the sense that all I want to do is one or the other. I want a game with both. Two servers effectively becomes 2 different games, with each representing a part of what I want to see as a whole.

I think one of the greatest things about UO was the open world. I also think one of the greatest failures of UO was the inability of the dev team to curb griefing.

I honestly think that serious consequences for criminal behavior would work to establish a middle ground. However it needs to be to such a degree that it is undesirable to commit criminal acts. Only those really committed to the RP of killers/thieves or those few truly willing to accept the consequences would be PKs.

It has been my experience that the casual PK's are the griefers, dry looters, rez killers etc. I think they only did it because it was easy and had relatively weak consequences.

Even a hard core PVEer should be able to appreciate/tolerate the occasional PVP/PK exposure.

Ramp up the consequences for criminal behavior and only a few will walk that path. Most won't be that invested and will take a path of much lesser resistance.

 

Won't work here. Have you not seen the debate? lol. The only solution is 2 servers. ONLY !!! Its not 2 different games, its 2 different rule sets.

 

Yep, and i've given you the solution. From DAY 1. If they just said 2 servers, one for open pvp and one for consensual, things would have gone a lot smoother. Instead we have PvP slider, SPO, OPO, blah blah blah blah blah.

Ridiculous.

 

I think you may have missed the subtle/not so subtle joke. Extremes don't provide meaningful solutions. The grey in the middle is where we find true innovation.

Which is kind of ironic considering the slider mechanism you mentioned. One extreme == PVP as you want, the other is zero PVP, and the middle is a mix. Though that is reducing the actual problem to be only pvp or not pvp, when the actual issue is much more complex for things like looting, pk penalty, etc...

 

You're right, it's ridiculous that the dev team can't make the game the want to make, they way they want to make it, without you telling them it's wrong.

 

Clearly you haven't been listening. 2 servers doesn't need to happen. It's more than cost. Ever heard of server divergence?

There is a reason the built the model on the meta server.

 

We could do without the arrogance and assumptions. You are accusing me and everyone else of wanting to harrass and grief people simply because we do not want an easy game where we can run around without feeling a sense of danger which in essence removes the accomplishment and excitement. I do not understand why you have such animosity and anger toward those who want a full true experience that is not the same as every other MMO out there. Once the main portion of the game story is completed the only thing left to do is to PVP. And arena or constrained PVP is just not fun at all period.