info about pvp

People hear what they wish to hear to support their own version of reality.

 

Story wise if you don't choose to do the PvP elements then you will have alternate ways to continue. The meteor strikes will be OPO PvP only content, and if you were to enter the same hex in offline it would be different content. I have heard them state that even the possibility of player town hexes could decide to be PvP enabled if they choose to do so, which would mean more hexes of content that requires you to flag for PvP. I personally would support any player town that flagged themselves this way with time, land ownership and top notch vendors.

Bottom line is that the FULL experience of SotA will be when you are PvP enabled. You can choose to not participate, but it has been stated over and over that PvP will be more and more enticing for players to at least give it a try....which includes content that you would not get otherwise. This is a good thing!

 

The experience of walking through a PvP enabled player town vs a non PvP enabled player town isn't my idea of content. That's like saying I haven't experienced all that Detroit has to offer if I haven't been mugged and left for dead. Technically true, but just because the mugging IS within Detroit's capabilities doesn't mean it should be considered a vital part of the Detroit experience.

Saying that people will "miss out on a fair amount of content" is clouding the issue. In truth, all they will miss by not participating in PvP, is PvP.

 

I love that line.

 

Not counting anything else that I have read or watched in all forms of media or in person and just pulling from the current thinking of the PvP megapost you get the following content:

"Guild Warfare can include attacking / defending structures (think of a Castle Defense map for guilds).

PVP Zones: Volcanic eruptions and meteoric strikes on the map will create a mix of predefined areas and random areas that will be flagged as open PVP, meaning anyone entering that zone is flagged as PVP.

PVP specific quests, including the quest from the Oracle which flags the player as open PVP."

So there will be permanent hexes for PvP along with the random hexes that will popup along with PvP specific questing on top of any further ideas that have came up with which does include possible player towns that are pvp only create their own content. As a fan of all aspects of the game including PvP which many of us are, that will be the only way to get the FULL content experience.

 

I just wanted to quote this because I hope this sinks in with everybody who's bothered. What Malak said here about only missing out on PvP is the whole point.

 

Actually, it was explicitly said that it would not be part of the main story. Rather, there will be PvP quests, and there will be a story related to those quests, but a completely optional story that PvE players never need to take part in.

As long as that content the PvE player wouldn't get otherwise is just PvP content, then yeah, it's a good thing.

I'm not interested in the full experience; just in what, for me, is the positive experience. Which includes all the PvE, but absolutely excludes all PvP that is either non-consensual or has player looting of any kind, even the restricted looting from the megathread.

I don't care about missing the PvP. In fact, the way the PvP has been described up to now, I want to miss the PvP, which will result in a better and more satisfying experience for me. And I want it enough that I would rather completely miss all the multiplayer aspect of the game than take part in the PvP; in other words, with the PvP as currently described, no enticement will ever get me to even try the PvP, because I would rather play exclusively offline (where I will be able to mod the game, or cheat, to get anything that would otherwise be an enticement for trying PvP) than even try PvP with looting.

 

I just want to echo the desire for good combat mechanics. I'm a long time uo player and I've played free shards as recently as a few months ago. I'm one of the people that heard about sota through lord British visiting free shards. I'm open minded about the multi/single player, instances version of ultima. I think that it'd be pretty fun and it's of course great that it's free to play. Good combat mechanics would go a long way for a lot of us. Good as in, dueling/1v1 is fun and skill based. In uo the best players would win a high percentage of their duels. Skill was greater than character, items, or class.

That's all that I, and many others are hoping for. There will be pvp, that we know, so make the pvp fun. Not class/item based random winners automated boredom. Pvp is the ultimate end game for many players. I'll enjoy crafting, questing, and exploring just as much as anyone else. What will really keep me logging on is pvp that can be taken to a high level of competitive skill based combat!

Even if it was uo pvp in 3d with automated swings I'd be happy. What really matters to me as far as pvp goes is my feeling like practicing pvp/doing it a lot will increase your personal non-avatar human skill. I don't want to feel like pvp is random and pointless to compete with. Be it fps style pvp, uo style pvp, whatever's. Just as long as it's good.

As many people have said - we don't really know what mechanics will be in place. I just wanted to share my opinion and hopes for the game. Since pvp will be entirely consensual I don't see any reason for objections to skill based pvp.

 

Okay. Maybe its time to comment on this post. If theres anything to comment on.

It seems you dont even understand what are qwe talking about.
Highly interactive environment is good and adds to the immersion.
Free PvP and full loot are parts of highly interactive enrinonment.
Action->reaction. Cause and effect. Feedback from the environment as opposed to an endless silly loop of pve grind in a game, that has nothing other than pve grind.
In UO I could put on a jester hat and tell silly jokes over the bodies of the people I kill.
In WoW I couldn't .
In UO I could kill a lot and become dread. I could steal keys, I could rob someone's house and leave a note there "ha-ha pwnt". In WoW I couldn't.
I want this game to be like UO. Not like WoW.
You want this game to be like WoW. And not like UO. Which means you do not want real roleplaying.
Cause real roleplaying is impossible without total immersion.
Sitting on chairs. Chopping off heads of corpses. Drinking tea. brewing tea. Poisoning someone's tea. Stealing their stuff. This is full immersion. This is full Roleplaying. A game so immersive that even a guy named L33t_Kill3r who goes around cursing and killing looks like he is RPING TOO, because the game itself is built that way.
Can you not understand?


Won't comment on the rest cause I haven't read it yet. No time.
Later, tho.

 

Well, all those things could easily be griefing to those that don't enjoy people dictating how they should play the game. Without strong rules to discourage a lot of those behaviours the game quickly becomes fun for those that have been there the longest.

I think staying away from accusing players of wanting WoW might make your arguements more valid. That gets really old really quick.

 

A game that allows that is a game that I don't want to play in any shape or way. And that is not roleplaying, specially not with a name like that.

What I can understand is that you want the kind of behaviors and happenings that, in my experience, completely ruin the game, to be possible. I don't find complete freedom fun, because complete freedom includes the freedom to completely ruin the game for everyone else. I would rather have limits that prevent others from ruining the game for me; in fact, since I always assume that, if it's possible for someone to ruin the game for me, that someone will make a willful attempt at that, I don't play games without those limits and safeguards in place.

Unless the players that attempt to ruin the game for others are banned in an efficient way. Which is what we (myself and my friends that played pen and paper RPG) did in our groups; do something, anything, to intentionally ruin an adventure and you would be expelled from the group, likely forever, and anything your character did would be undone by the GM. But then, it would not be complete freedom anymore, but rather relative freedom regulated by an intelligent being.

Also, as I said before, I never consider non-consensual interaction to be roleplaying. I use other, harsher, words to describe non-consensual interaction disguised as RP, and will to the best of my ability avoid playing with anyone that does that, to the point of leaving the game if I can't completely ignore that player. I never consider anyone that doesn't take into account whether the other player is having fun a roleplayer.

 

If this was a pure sandbox game then I would completely agree.

 

I have read pretty much this entire thread. I think the instancing aspect of the game is being overlooked. If I flag for PvP, would I not find myself in instances which had nothing but other PvP'rs? At least I bet that is how it will start out. The PvP player could attack anyone they saw. There would not be people visible who could not be attacked.

However, if this is indeed the first sort in forming instances, I bet it wouldn't be long before the PvP guys would complain that there were not enough "targets" and start arguing for universal consent to rectify the reality that not enough PvP'rs are playing in their instance.

RG does not want separate shards, but the reality is that he will probably create them by segregating players into instances. PvP people in one group and PvE in the other groups. It's just a shard by another name.

 

I believe that is a bad assumption.
We don't know what the match formula is, or how PvP is weighted.
It will necessarily be very complex, and I doubt the PvP flag or lack thereof will be the #1 priority.
Then there is the matter of instancing hexes. If there are 2 people in a hex on the map, and one of them is PvP Flagged and the other isn't. I seriously doubt they're going to spend the bandwidth to spawn separate instances of that hex for those two players.

 

Unfortunately I think this is not the way it's going for some reason. It seems to make sense though doesn't it? However they did mention something about towns being a mix of pvp and non pvp people in them at the same time. You can fight in town but the guards will try to do something (if they can).

 

I don't think it's going to be a hard fast segregation. This filter is going to be a hot issue for sure. Tons of areas to debate.

 

I'd be open to hearing some cleaver new system, but tbh faction systems simply work much, much better than karma systems. I lose the "freedom" to kill my friends / guild mates / party members but everything else in the game simply works smoother. I played lineage2 for many years which effectively had both systems, with sieges and clan wars being factions and there was simply no comparison.

While I have issues with WoW PvP, they're really due to the following:
1) Gear gaps (or levels or skills or whatever)
2) Lack of open world objectives
3) Lack of purpose for guilds

The flagging / engagement mechanics are very clean, and well implemented. There's a reason why just about every game (MMO or otherwise) uses teams / factions. It's simply cleaner in every way.

 

RG has stated time and time again that he doesn't want segregation. He has also stated time and time again that he wants to pull people out of their shell and have an open mind about the game he is trying to create. He has also stated time and time again that he is basically going to try and force the PvE players to have an open mind and try some of the things he wants to "explore" as far as how certain features could possibly work in a game. Instead of complaining about things you clearly have no idea of, why not see what he has to offer? He has also stated time and time again that if it doesn't work out in trial he can easily segregate the community. Do any of you even bother to read the forums or watch any of his videos? Or do you just complain the moment you think you might have to maybe possibly experience something new?

 

Too early to know, and we simply don't have the info.

I wouldn't concern myself too much yet because, in theory, changing how the filter works shouldn't be hard. Portalarium should be able to iterate on it during the upcoming betas to find something acceptable.

My own preference is a "hard" segregation between PvP-enabled and PvP-disabled players. As in, they don't even see one another, unless they both go either someplace where PvP is completely disabled or someplace where PvP is mandatory, though enabling and disabling PvP is possible with a few restrictions to prevent exploiting. Grouping with players that have a different preference can be done by using the friend list/social pane/whatever is added to make it easier to talk to other players.

 

In UO they had the champ spawns and other events you could only better your character. Those where some of my favorite memories having a guild hold off attackers why you try to take down the champs and get the scrolls. It was PVE and PVP at the same time. The PVPers got what they wanted and the PVEers helped take the boss and whatever else they could do. it added elements of both. Which PVPers don't mind, but PVEers say it isn't good enough.