What PvP Players can look forward to

What i never understood that the main argument to change to a Trammel - Feluccia World was the players leaving.


But if i look at the chart you show as other ones , i could never find this down movement anywhere.

As we will never be able to see what would have happend if they would have left only Feluccia Version, not much to discuss anyhow.

P.S. I belonged to the ones who left because Trammel came.

But lets stop PvP talking.... to late....we have set up another platform for it... panic.

 

We don't know.

But if there's no karma system in PvP, then it's nothing at all like Felucca. I expect PvP to look more like factions than karma, but again, we don't know.

 

This would likely be internal knowledge. They get people canceling memberships and putting a reason as: I hate being PK'd they can calculate how much monthly profit they are losing that way. They certainly had new people coming in trying it for the first time giving them continued growth. So they wanted to find a way to keep the players who didn't want to PvP around, and the way to keep the PKers around. These were still the early days of MMOs and so they may have bungled the execution of satisfying as many people as possible, as that was likely their goal with trammel.

It's still a very difficult thing, pleasing everybody simply can't happen, so most companies want to please the most players. Part of that is for profit, the other part is you want your game to be a success, even games that don't make money (most MUDs) the creators want as many people as possible to enjoy their creations(and some MUDs are designed just to cater to certain groups of players, which is fine too). WoW certainly pleased the most players. Part of that success was giving players options on what they participated in. You never have to raid, just PvP all the time, you can do both, you can do world pvp or just craft/gather all the time. I enjoyed wow, played on an open pvp server, WoTLK was the last expansion I really enjoyed. The new addition people are all excited for is player-owned strongholds. (PvP is also changing).

 

From what I remember of karma and pvp you could be a Glorious Lord and be red if you killed enough evil things. I was a Dread Lord and I was a blue.. It meant absolutely nothing. Karma had no bearing on my game from what I could tell. (Keeping dread was hard though, and I eventually gave it up as I liked killing arctic ogre lords too much)

 

Yeah, my assertion is that most people feel this way. I played lineage2 for many years which was an open PvP / karma system. And we were a top PvP guild, holding the big castles, winning the fights to do the big raids, etc.

But given the choice, even among these PvPers, everyone opts out of PvP when it means getting ganked while questiong, and chooses PvP when there's some point to it. Whether it's playing LoL or going after a castle or whatever. The random ganking is generally only interesting to teenagers with infinite free time.

 

That's not my point. In UO you could kill your best friend, party member, guild mate - correct? But you'd go red and be declared a criminal. (That's how it worked in L2.) This is the opposite of WoW, where you couldn't kill people on your own "side" but suffered no penalties (and, in fact got rewarded for) openly killing the other side.

Faction means the game prevents you from killing friends. Karma means you can, but you pay for it later.

 

I like how you put that "freedom". I've know RG for his free open worlds. So when he used a phrase like "Spiritual Successor", I was supprised at the direction the game is going. This game is not one as currently outlined.

Definatly love freedom to RP the way people want. Always been a black smith myself, but if someone wants to attack me, I want to experience that story-line... dare I say that quest; that they brough on me. So sad close mindedness to non-consentual ideas won by dev and open-mindedness to things that are not done in games these days like open PvP lost. Spiritual Successor... not.

I think he found the correct place... looking at the title of the forum it reads PvP on my browser. Maybe your browser is broken?

 

Well as I understand what is written, SOTA is the spiritual successor of the ultima series of games. Then at the end it says with UO style combat.

 

RG said he specifically didn't like that toxic behavior of non-consenual pvp. There is nothing quest or storyline like about someone running up to you, killing you and taking your stuff, followed by the PK saying the obligatory "Noob". Then never or rarely seeing them again (as was frequently the case in UO).

 

I am an old school UO player and played up until AoS. I also enjoyed the Ultima series. I've played EQ, EQ2, DAOC, Shadowbane, and WoW. There has to be a reason why my most fond memories and best stories come from Ultima Online. I mean the graphics are no comparison to any of the later games and questing? I think Wow has that one down as well. So what is it about UO that sticks out for me and many others?

I think is has to be the unique freedom that the game gave to players. People spoke about the "karma system", but I think that as Mishri mentioned has nothing to do with it. Instead, it's the REAL LIFE dilemma that UO put upon us. We COULD attack basically anyone we wanted, however, we had to also think about these questions:

-Do I want to take a murder count and potentially go red, allowing myself to be attacked by anti-pks and not able to set foot in most towns?
-Am I more skilled than this guy I'm about to attack?
-With the gear/loot I have on me, is it worth attacking another player?
-How will my reputation as a player suffer if I commit murder without cause?

And on top of that. We could truly role-play a hero to the community by running an anti-pk guild and protecting the crafters/new players/casual players/pvers.

Whether your style was good, evil, opportunistic, or a griever, you were subject to the consequences of cause and effect. I believe this type of "freedom of play style" is what manifested some of the best experiences for a lot of people. And by the way, some of my top moments were not necessarily me crushing somebody. Even the "bad" moment made good memories.

Will this be achievable through consent pvp? It's hard to tell right now. I do agree with PrimeRib that this may be closer to Factions in UO. From my experience in Factions, that was not that great because you always fought the same sub-set of people and it was pointless. No moral dilemmas when you see an orange.. You fight or flight.

I am still very optimistic about SoTA regardless, and I hope we can have a system where in 5-10 years we can still refer back to this game when geeking out with other gamer friends.

 

I wasn't around at that time in the mmo community, but according to this graphic, everquest was a greater success than UO. Does anyone remember how everquest worked? I'm not saying it should be copied, but if the argument to be made is number of subscribers, than the only benefit UO had was being the first MMO, the question is why couldn't it keep being better than the others

 

It should also be noted, that this only includes games which never hit 1 million subs.

http://users.telenet.be/mmodata/Charts/Subs-1.png
http://users.telenet.be/mmodata/Charts/Subs-2.png

It's also important to note that SotA wouldn't show on any of these because there's no monthly payment. That's what's getting tracked. Games get bumped off the list when they no longer have subs. This is why you don't see GuildWars / gw2.

 

You nailed it.

 

EverQuest had a flag-based PvP system, with separate servers to support open PvP. It was mostly successful because it was the first MMO to offer a relatively modern 3D experience. It was an incredibly brutal game on the PvE front, though. Even everyday solo activities were rather difficult, and dying carried a very stiff penalty. Its success and the role that played in UO's demise can't be attributed to PvP partly for these reasons, and also because the argument surrounding PvP for this game simply did not exist back then. EQ was just as much an experiment as UO, and the types of players that played both games, by large, were different from the types that play modern games, and in addition, the two games were very different in just about every way you can probably imagine.

 

It's also worth noting that many games never release official numbers, for example. Square-Enix has never released official player count numbers for FFXI, the only thing I know is it has been the most profitable game the company ever made. For example, if you check wikipedia on FFXI you'll see they quote player counts from sources, but if you click on the source that information isn't in there.

 

Luna has never been in Trammel......ever. Luna is in Malas, with the necro city of Umbra, both red and blue players can visit, outside the city is basically Fel rules

 

-They make alts for that
-Doesn't matter when all you are looking for is soft targets like gatherers
-Gear was easily replaced
-They make alts for that

Now from the SotA perspective:
-We do not know if there will be a murder count or "red" status, but if you are able to attack you are already open to attack
-Good question, you will have to use some skills of observation or you will be blindly attacking someone
-Death now carries the penalty via a decay system, gear is at risk of decay no matter what quality it may be
-1 character per account gives this thought much more weight.

 

Interesting.
But to be honest, I wonder if a pvp only server could make the pvp crowd happy, but i don't think it stops there. A full loot pvp would require a lot of balancing to make it interesting, and that would collide with the main game. But from my understanding, the problem with felluca/trammel was that you could travel from one world to the other, meaning you gear up in one and pvp in the other - I would agree that this is bad for a pvp experience (especially for a full-loot one). But what is off the table is that you can't include every player in the pvp pool without their consent. That was not what was prommissed for this game

To be completely honest though, I kind of wish to play a merciless pvp experience, but with mature people. Problem is this kind of rulesets, you tend to attract a lot of teenagers and immature guys - im not saying that pvp people are immature, problem is a lot of immature people enjoy pvp for the griefing aspect

 

Having a PvP-only server isn't really any different from having flagged PvP, and anyway, as far as we know, Portalarium wants to have only one server anyway.

As for the whole PvP argument, I no longer want any part in it. Both sides have made their positions amply clear, and I see absolutely no reason, for my part, to keep beating my head against the proverbial brick wall. I am following the discussion, however, and I wanted to explain that using the introduction as Trammel to explain UO's decline is absurd based on the chart provided. That's all. Statistics are often misunderstood and/or used irresponsibly, and, well, no me gustan (me no likey).

 

That's why consensual PVP will work for me. I can choose how and against whom. I don't have to deal with the Dennis The Menaces of PVP.