Emergent gameplay and "system" rules

@Ultima Aficionado, since he was talking about changing flags, I don't think he was thinking an open PvP area. Either way, I don't think the scenario he suggested will be possible anyway.

 

Just to clarify, my previous example was only that...an example. I could give several examples of how a pvp flagging system could go wrong if it's not implemented correctly. I am just saying they need to be very careful on how they set it up.

 

Also it's not true that open-pvp was never mentioned etc. RG CLEARLY said, multiple times, that the system they are building WILL include the "extreme" open-pvp crowd.

So please get your facts straight before you spread wrong info. I for one pledged because it was said that open-pvp players will be accomodated in the same way as all other playstyles!

 

Worry not, based on the information available, people who are interested in the polar extremes of 'i must be able to PK anyone at any time' and 'all content must be available to me at maximum reward level playing solo with zero risk of ever being PKed' are the only people who should be disappointed with SOTA's stated aims. Listen to the dev chat from the 18th, 36:15 to 39:45 and 44:15 to 46:35 set out the position pretty thoroughly. There's a really big space in there to carve out meaningful gameplay.

 

And as well, those two extremes are pretty much the only implementations of pve/pvp/risk which could reasonably be described as falling outside the bounds of what was discussed over the course of the kickstarter.

 

Hello there.
OP said: "When you start to separate PVP and non-PVP players you do several things. For one, you ruin the exploratory aspect of the human experience. "

I say: let them. Trying to convince tons of carebears that the level of freedom that UO gave us and the dangers associated with it was something amazing is impossible. I'm an old UO player and I always enjoyed that freedom, wether I played a blue or a red character, but some people don't really want to understand.
So I say, let the devs separate those two kinds of players. Those who feel that a game, a world without real challenge is hollow and boring will eventually switch to the PvP mode, or whatever is it going to be in the release version of the game.
This is the kind of players I care about. The carebears never really contributed anything to UO and to my own gaming experience, as most of them prove to be absolutely boring people in-game.
Cheers.

 

Cake is better than pie.
Ninjas are better than pirates.
BBQ is better than pizza.
My playstyle is better than yours.

Chill out, people. It's a *game*. Let people play the way they want.

RG has a great idea about grouping people with similar playstyles together to emulate the kind of game you want to play. It's a *dead* issue.

 

One of the big problems in separating carebears from people who embrace the danger is that the "pvper world" will be filled mostly with acutal PvPers, and a very small amount of people who do not PvP but embrace the danger as a part of the game and their immersion.
The good thing about Ultima Online was that both those types of people lived in the same world. Anyone could get killed, anyone could be robbed, as well as anyone could try to protect themselves by travelling in groups and learning ways to escape combat like stealth, magic etc.

I understand the decision to separate those two groups, but I do not support it by no means.
I've played both types of characters, PKers and peaceful guys, but all my characters existed in the living, breathing, dangerous world of UO and I do not regret it.
I quit after the introduction of Trammel and never looked back. Ultima Online pre-Trammel was a game for ruthless killers and peaceful people alike. Post-trammel Ultima wasn't, so I was forced to play on free shards.
So..pretty much that's what I think on the issue.

 

@Templer Assassin I want sheep to kill or it really isn't fun...it isn't about the challenge, it is about the ability to force yourself on them.

Pker's aren't about the game itself they are about ruining someone esle's day because they have control issues in their own lives.

 

"The more you tighten your grip, Templar, the more carebears will slip through your fingers..."

 

rune_74
"Pker?s aren?t about the game itself they are about ruining someone esle?s day because they have control issues in their own lives."
Okay, how about this.
"Casual players aren't about the game itself they are about ruining someone else's day becuause they have controll isssues in theri own lives".
Hm?
@Dranack
I'm not declaring a holy war, a "jihad" on carebears. I'm not aggressive, unlike many of them, unfortunately
I'm trying to tell them, that being a ******** is not necessary. That immersion without risk is dull and fades quickly, leaving no remarkable memories whatsoever.
Can you accept (or at least listen to) what I have to say without unnecesary sarcasm?

 

People at either end of the spectrum, all PvP all the time for everyone, or no PvP at any time for anyone, are equally irrelevant, since the dev's will cater to neither extreme viewpoint. The only game you have is here in the forums.

I hope that is enough for both extremes, because neither side will be getting what they want.

 

@Rune74 "@Templer Assassin I want sheep to kill or it really isn?t fun?it isn?t about the challenge, it is about the ability to forceyourself on them.

Pker?s aren?t about the game itself they are about ruining someone esle?s day because they have control issues in their own lives."

Rune, unfortunately, you'll just never get it. Emergent gameplay has nothing to do with PKing. When you start tampering with the freedom of the world everything changes about the game.

?When you start to separate PVP and non-PVP players you do several things. For one, you ruin the exploratory aspect of the human experience. ?
I say: let them."

I agree, with everything being on "one server" there will be plenty of people who choose not to live the life of a ********. If people are that against experiencing emergent gameplay let them miss out. The whole arguement...

@Rune_74 and others make "Pker?s aren?t about the game itself they are about ruining someone esle?s day because they have control issues in their own lives."

Is just so ignorant. That comment is straight up BS. I'd say you were a troll but I've read your other posts. The ignorant masses.... it's just like the real world.

 

There is a saying that when two parties reach a compromise and both sides are unhappy then you know that you've really found the ideal solution. That's just something to keep in mind...

 

I have no issue with compromise, I take issue with Rune's ignorant attacks on people advocating PvP. As firelotus said, there will be no derogatory comments about other players.

"Pker?s aren?t about the game itself they are about ruining someone esle?s day because they have control issues in their own lives."

Calling every PvP advocate a PKer with real life psychopathic issues offers nothing to these boards and is the exact some thing as me making a broad statement saying every person who likes PvE is fking "meow". It shouldn't be on these boards and he has posts like this everywhere on these forums.

Can we please get Rune's fearmongering BS out of these threads.

 

"One of the big problems in separating carebears from people who embrace the danger is that the ?pvper world? will be filled mostly with acutal PvPers, and a very small amount of people who do not PvP but embrace the danger as a part of the game and their immersion."

This really touches the point I was trying to make. As I mentioned, I never attack other players. But there was an excitement and great feeling about playing in an open world where anything can happen. This was one of the reasons Ultima Online eventually died off and everyone left - the gameplay became more and more restricted.

I am not advocating allowing everyone to just kill anyone anywhere, I actually believe there should be consequences for doing so. However, when you create a system that instigates gameplay where people only PvP when they want to fight, and people PvP flag themselves to kill people with little consequence, you destroy the free flowing spirit of Ultima.

I hope the devs realize this, because as soon as the single player story is completed (around 40 hours) what will be left is the multiplayer gameplay. That will be their legacy. They can make a game reminiscent of Ultima Online in its glory days, or Ultima Online as it is now.

If they choose to restrict the game too much, carebears may support the game now, and enjoy it when a yearly episode release is out, but once the content is dried out, believe me, the game will become a either a graphical chat room for them, just like this website, and others will move on to something else. People will remember SOTA as a fun single player game, for when it lasted, but nothing more.

 

In Rune's defense, here is a direct quote from Templar, to whom he was replying. From this thread:

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/?topic=tram-killed-uo-is-tram-back&paged=19

"Aww, 19 pages in the thread. A hot topic for both ca..casual players and hardcore guys!
In my opinion ? yes, Tram and itemization killed UO.
Fel turned into a desert void of life not because all the PvPers too went to Tram. But because after all the ca..sual players gone, reds had nothing more to do. Fighting each other isn?t fun for Pkers. Hunting sheep is fun for them. What?s the satisfaction of killing someone who?s prepared to die? What?s the point if you can?t go to a dungeon and threaten someone with death if they don?t give you all their gold and gems?
Funny. If EA didnt make this stupid tram on EVERY server but instead made half of the servers PvP, and the other half ? non-PvP the game might have survived. but it died, nowadays its full of people who log in to refresh their houses and chat with other people about real-life affairs. Which is, simply put, pathetic."

I don't think Rune was calling out all pvpers, just Templar. Of course, I could be wrong. As far as I can tell, Rune isn't against pvp in general, he's against pk, which is a very different thing.

 

"I don?t think Rune was calling out all pvpers, just Templar. Of course, I could be wrong. As far as I can tell, Rune isn?t against pvp in general, he?s against pk, which is a very different thing."

If you let individuals' cognitive dissonance control our game design we will have a very run of the mill game indeed.

 

@Dranack, rune doesn't care for most PvP players. I've gone around with him a few times myself, but I think we have declared a truce at the moment, since I strongly approve of Single/RP/PvE play that is entirely separate from PvP.

I think rune is justified in pointing out the error of hardline non-consensual PvP advocates, particularly those who think they advance their cause by being abusive. I don't see how they think they are presenting a valid argument when they attack those they wish to convert. It it childish behavior, in my opinion.

 

@Dranack "I don?t think Rune was calling out all pvpers, just Templar. Of course, I could be wrong. As far as I can tell, Rune isn?t against pvp in general, he?s against pk, which is a very different thing."

Ahh I see, because he hates PKs (which was what maybe 2-4% of the people who played UO) there shouldn't be PvP?
Sorry maybe it's just me but other than repeatedly taking shots at PvPers I don't see what his posts have done to promote the discussion of emergent vs having system blocks everywhere.

He thinks the game should protect us, I think we should have to use our brains. Again, to me anyways, the "open-world" has nothing to do with PK-PvP-PvE, it has with what happens to the rest of the gameplay when you start placing system blocks to prevent something that maybe 5% of the community was doing.