Emergent gameplay and "system" rules

@Lord_Darkmoon

"I believe that a true game economy can only work if the game is either full-PvE or full-PvP. If the PvP affects the PvE, the economy doesn?t work anymore, the same is true the other way around."

I agree 100% with you on this. One solution is to have two separate persistent worlds, or possibly allow people to switch to the "more open" world if they see fit at a later time, and take their character items there. This is why i believe you shouldn't be able to just switch back and forth. I don't see this as costing Portalarium much more in maintenance, as they just need to maintain two separate databases of the persistent data. Everything else is instanced anyway.

"Another thing we have to consider is: During the Kickstarter-phase it has never been said that there would be open-PvP or full loot or territorial control by PvP-players. "

It was never said to have open PvP, but many ideas came out regarding PvP territory and quests. Richard also talked about ideas regarding integrating PvP into the story, and incentivizing it. However, Because of a vocal group of individuals, these ideas are starting to be revoked. My idea was to find some way to create another options for players like myself, and create some in game governance rules to make it more immersive and safe. This way both groups can enjoy the game. Otherwise what we get is a post second age Ultima.

Unfortunately cognitive dissonance gets in the way of progress for some individuals, and FUD spreads pretty quickly.

 

@Rayne
I would not have any problem with a seperate server for open-PvP with territory control, full loot, PK etc. If Portalarium would be willing to do this. This way we could avoid the whole argument.
But I doubt that they will do this as they want every player to play in the same world (which in itself is a bit paradox as you don't see every player in the game). Maybe it even is not possible technically...

Just what I NOT want is PvP integrated in a way that affects PvE-players, so that they cannot enter some areas or not be able to gather ressources etc.

 

@Lord_Darkmoon

I doubt this as well. However, I think it needs to be done as these are two very large group of players. They won't be able to satisfy everyone on one instance, even if they try.

 

The devs have already stated there will not be separate 'shards' or servers - it will be a single world that we all experience with the match-making system providing the ability to isolate types of players and playstyles together seamlessly.

They can of course change their minds on anything, but I believe some things like a single world, a dual-scale map, etc. are already locked in and unlikely to change.

 

I hope that they do not change their minds on fundamental elements of the game. Otherwise this would no longer be the game I bought.

The probelm is that the development is not like other game developments because they already got a lot of money from us. So they have to stick to what they said during the Kickstarter-campaign at least in the fundamental parts of the game. You cannot charge money from someone, promising him something he gets excited about and is willing to pay for and suddenly you change it drastically after you got his money.

 

@Lord_Darkmoon


That might be one criticism I have of the kickstarter campaign. They never had a concrete plan, and things changed as ideas got thrown around. I can reference many videos where they did mention they were thinking about many of the ideas such as territories, PvP related quests, incetivized PvP, unique resources, etc.

SO unfortunately in many ways for some of us it already isn't the same game. I still have hopes though.

However, if I had to do it again, I don't know. To be honest, a lot of games have moral choices. Fable did, and I owned a house. I might not have pledged as high as I did (and I pledged pretty high) if I thought this was going to turn into a run of the mill single player RPG. Having Tracy Hickman on board is awesome, but Skyrim had a pretty good story too. Fable had moral chocies that affected the world. What I like about Ultima is the sandbox feeling of the world. The more restricted this game becomes, the less excited I become in return.

 

@Rayne, all those things you mentioned, "territories, PvP related quests, incetivized PvP, unique resources" are still, to my knowledge, in the game. How is it not the same game as earlier advertised?

 

@rschultzy80
Why would I be a swordsman if I could never beat a mage? That doesn't make sense. Obviously one will be situationally better and it's up to the players and tactics to try to find their advantage. The rest of what you said does make sense. It's about tactics and situational awareness. Again that's the point of tactical PvP. If you have a rock/paper/scissors advantage, you look for a 1v1...otherwise you may abandon another objective and double team, etc.

This isn't a button mashing arena contest. Where you just stand in front of each other. If you're not out thinking the other team, it might as well be PvE.

@Rayne
No one disagrees at all that player created content is what propels a game after you blow though the "pve content". There simply isn't someone sitting around dreaming up new riddles every day. It needs to be crowdsourced. PvP is the best way to do that. (If I didn't agree with this, then I wouldn't care what you thought of PvP.)

Every game has some place where people engage in gate hopping. There's safe zones or a way to run. I can abuse the flagging rules if they exist. It might be fun for 10 or even 20 minutes. And then you can back to something important because it's pointless. You're not really securing an important resource. You seem to be proposing a whole game of gatehopping.

"Battleground" behavior is PvP for the sake of PvP. But it should be balanced. And there should be a bigger objective than just killing. Otherwise you take away most of the tactics and it gets back to people facing eachother and mashing buttons.
Strategic PvP should be something with a goal where individual kills don't matter at all. You have to make decisions like "if push comes to shove, what castle do I really want?", "how much loss can I afford to take?", "what am I willing to give up to negotiate for this alliance against a common enemy?" You only get this with a siege castle, control resource element.

 

@Primerib "@rschultzy80 Why would I be a swordsman if I could never beat a mage? That doesn?t make sense."

What? Listen, all I'm saying is certain classes are stronger versus some than others, it should be very difficult for a swordsman to even get near a mage to cause him harm. Obviously skill and tactics come into play. It's not equal, ever.

"This isn?t a button mashing arena contest. Where you just stand in front of each other. If you?re not out thinking the other team, it might as well be PvE."

And just Lolz and whatever point you're trying to make here. When l did I ever say anything about button mashing? All my posts talk about making the game provoke thought and the use of skill.

 

What? Conan never beat a mage? News to me.

 

If you want to have certain SKILL TYPES (as there are no classes in this game) that are strong against certain other skill types and weak against certain other skill types, that's fine.

Nobody should ever be at an extremely obvious, steep advantage to anyone else, though. Remember this game is multiplayer,

 

One thing I'm concerned about is that people might complain about never being able to kill mages when it is only "CERTAIN" mages they cannot kill.

I would hate for the dev team to nerf mages after a few months of play because people are crying they are too powerful. When in fact you can kill most mages rather fast, but people get mad about the FEW mages that are highly skilled.

I think that happened with UO. I thought that game was really balanced. I could kill mages just fine with my macer but there was a different tactic to it. Also I had to deal with the fact there just were some people I could not kill or might just be better than me.

*********************
DEVs please think hard before nerfing mages or anything in the game just because a group of people start crying their eyes out. Being a mage is a highly skilled character no matter what game it is. If you're bad you will lose but if you're good you deserve to be rewarded by winning combats period. That doesn't mean there is an imbalance.
*********************

 

Mages also have to be able to kill you fast or they will be killed fast (they wear no armor). So if you fight a good mage run up and hit them and keep hitting them if you miss run. Just don't cry your eyes out because you find someone who beats you a few times.

 

If you are a mage, don't get cocky. Remember Saruman and Grima Wormtounge.

 

It?s a very difficult balance to be sure, but if you?re going to have a PvP ?flagging? system then you need to make sure that it's done right. I can already see the person who will use it to their advantage. Just imagine the scenario, you?re about to kill a rare mob and a player is watching and at the last minute they switch on their PvP ?flag? kill you and take the mob. When you come back for some revenge they have unflagged PvP and there?s nothing you can do. Obviously this scenario is assuming you?re flagged to begin with, but this scenario is a real possibility.

 

@Tyrael That scenario may not be as likely as you think. If you are playing OPO and flagged full PvP you might not run into many people who aren't. Also if you are flagged full PvP then you should always be on guard. So I doubt a veteran PvPer would find much of a problem with that scenario.

 

@Isaiah "Also if you are flagged full PvP then you should always be on guard. So I doubt a veteran PvPer would find much of a problem with that scenario."

I disagree. I can't imagine very many PvPers who wouldn't have a problem with the above scenario. If you gank someone, you should have to suffer the consequences. You shouldn't be able to hide behind a broken PvP flagging system. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying SotA's PvP system will be broken. I am just saying that they need to be very careful when they are hammering out the details and implementing it in game. It?s a very difficult balance.

 

@Tyrael, I would think that if you weren't flagged for PvP, you'd only be in an instance with someone who also was not flagged for PvP. If you then change your flag, the server should remove you from that instance, create a new one, and drop you into that. I don't think it will be easy/possible to 'grief' someone in the way you describe.

@Isaiah, if you are flagged for full PvP, I thing the ONLY players outside of town that you will see will be other fully flagged players.

 

@lord darkmoon i've not seen any statements post-kickstarter which contradict the information presented during kickstarter, so i don't think there's any need to worry.

 

It sounds to me like Lord Darkmoon is pretty one sided and obviously a PVE player. I think PVP should be open in many areas, I honestly don't care if it affects PVE players. If they enter an area that is OBVIOUSLY contested then that's their own damn fault.