[Rant] A Generation Of Gamers That Dont Know What Role Play Is ? (Dev) Replied

UO was never king of the hill playground.
And I don't really care about the Ultimas. I care about UO.

 

Because most OWPvP is random and pointless. You are killed by the monster as you are working to succeed at something, usually a quest or search for. If most OWPvPers were good sports engaging in honorable and fair combat you may have a glimmer of a truth, but too often it is an annoying child looking to knock down your sandcastle while streaming grammatically-incomprehensible obscenities.

As I and many others have stated, if the game is not designed Day 1 to be full OWPvP, then it is a side option to give the children their own hill to play on.

 

While I encourage you to play SotA, you may be discouraged to learn it is much more next-gen Ultima than UO.

 

Thank you.

 

I think what you are really saying is you don't want to loose to another human being more than anything else. A wandering monster that happened to kill you has as much honor and pre-thought as your hypothetical leet dude.

We thus return to the paper thin sensibilities.

 

Nah, I have 4 children. No need to deal with the mentality in game. I myself often chose PvP servers but find little excitement. See the quest and the dragon is a goal, a goal I share with other players in a planned and organized adventure working at the heart of fantasy roleplaying game design from the beginning with D&D. (Most) OWPvP is no more rewording than a game of tag. If I want good PvP, give me tactics, strategy, keep sieges, territory claiming, objectives, but above all make it the heart of the game. "Me wantz ta gankzors!" is not a game design. OWPvP hardly ever has people drawing lines for territory, is random BS.

Luckily for me, SotA is being designed along my lines of thinking. I hope for some people sake there are "dark shards" restricted to those that are flagged for PvP as those sort of people can have their game. Hopefully they have more to them than ganking... TAG YOU'RE IT. lol

edit: I do not care who I lose too, so long as there is a) a point and b) good sportsmanship

 

It would seem the more kids you have, the more casual you become...sad...

P.S.
Then it feels like I have -(minus) 10 children. because I'd freaking ravage every single on of you kitties in one v one combat.
Boom.

 

And thus ends any hope of a good discussion. Good luck in finding a game to suit your taste.

 

I've said many times. There is no "discussion". Never was.
There are people with the right idea of how a MMO*RPG* should be handled. Not many but there are. I am one of them.

And there are people who want another WoW clone.
The point of my posts is not discussing anything. The point of my post is serving an Idea. It's love, love from first sight between me and a real MMORPG.
This forum is full of causals who don't appreciate what I think is real RPing? So? I am not going to shut up and go hide somewhere. "In joy and sorrow",heh. There's nothing to discuss. It's a battleground, or rather a jousting tournament where we are knights, and Lord Garriot and the team are the Lady we are trying to impress.
I stab you wth my lance. Parry now.

 

First, you should be aware that, for me at least, the whole purpose of roleplaying does not directly regard challenge, realism, etc; the purpose was always to create a story with the players, having as much fun as possible when doing it. The game master is not the players' opponent, but rather their partner in creating as much fun and engagement as possible.

Challenge has its place in creating fun, of course, but it's not the only tool available to the DM/GM/Storyteller/whatever. There's also mystery, exploration, comedy, self-discovery, and about every other tool at the disposal of a good writer to create an engaging story, modified of course to take into account the collaborative approach. Some of our best, and most memorable, RPG sessions didn't include a single combat; I actually see guiding the characters from combat to combat as a clumsy crutch that should be used only by inexperienced game masters, and only until they learn better (unless they are playing a wargame disguised as a RPG; it happens, and can be very fun).

BTW, as a game master, while I had to make sure the adventure kept going — which often meant the players could never be truly and permanently defeated, kinda like in a MMO, though the characters sure could die or be otherwise removed — I made sure to add consequences to their actions and failures. I would cheat to protect them from bad luck if I thought it appropriate (and many MMOs actually do this for combat-related RNG, including WoW), but the most I would do to protect them from bad decisions would be to offer them a path to recover — one that, usually, was harder and offered less rewards than if they had done the right thing the first time. It was not rare for my players to be defeated a few times before prevailing in the end.

(This might be the result of myself starting as a game master before I was a gamer per see; I went from reading books, and lots of books at that, to creating adventures. I have seen other game masters, who often started with competitive video games to then jump into RPGs, that have a different point of view, one that is more focused on winning or losing than on actually having fun together.)

 

You deflect and avoid lances, you do not parry them. And using " WoW clone" is too cliche, and shows lack of history. See people are looking for an online experience taking them back decades, not years. Online fulfills the current pace of life. Something a generation of gamers lack. You gain no richness, no depth, no purpose, no meaning to non-objective, kiddie, OWPvP.

As there is no mass bases for pointless, non-retributible murder; how is that role-playing? You even know what role are you playing in what grand scheme? Once again, your RP is the equivalent and depth of TAG.

 

Hard to argue that there are many more things to RPing besides killing and looting.
But I've always said, in a MMORPG, death is the backbone, the red thread that goes trough ALL the aspect of a game, putting it all together.

Without death and the risks associated with it, the whole becomes fractured and we got numerous weak and worthless instances of "roleplay".
Here Joe and his guild of Dragon killers (cause what else is there to do in the game without thieves and killers?) is killing dragons. it isnt hard, because monsters are not hard in any game. And even if they are, an optimal way to kill them fast is discovered soon. Nobody asks to join the party, cause there is no need for it. There is no arch-dragon. No epic battle against the forces of the Black Drake. And Joe's wife is also using scripts to farm faster.

There Roger and his guild of Random Dudes who Speak In Victorian English are drinking beer in the tavern. Nobody really joins them because it's not really interesting. The party is boring, cause there are no *epic* stories to tell. Stories about how Roger cleaned a dungeon in 20 minutes and got 3kk worth of loot are simply boring.

And so on. There's nothing to put all those scattered groups together. No betrayal. No hate. No murder. No theft.
No black dot in the white half of the ying-yang symbol. No black half either, it's all white, pure white, like the Omniscient light of God. Blinding light.
And after you're done doing the storyline, done killing all the dragons in all the dungeons, there will be nothing to remember in the end. It was a good game, but you could have played it alone like a single-player adventure.

The symbolism here is huge. Look up the ying-yang symbol. White half, black half. White dot in the black part, black dot in the white part.
It's fundamental, it's a matter of basic laws of nature.
NPCs can't play the role of the black dot in the white field. Only people can. And to do so, these people must be able to kill, steal, and loot. Without this, it's some single player game for boring people.

I'm strivng real hard, while writing my post I have to overcome my stupidity as well as my poor knowledge of your language in an attempt to convey a point so important and dear that it forces me to stay awake at 01:14 at night writing this post.

 

O'B, if I'm in Open PVP and my hex instances show only open pvp players (a possibility) then it is effectively open pvp for flagged players. So the answer is possibly in some hex instances (ie hex instances for flagged pvp players).

Fav, and the same agreement can be turned around on a pve player if a pvp flagged player encounters them... they ruin the immersion of the pvp player.

Doomgrin, we are going to have to get PETA in here cause the PVE people keep ganking and griefing Dragons! For Shame! UO was Ultima literally ONLINE, how are you separating them? This is more like a hybrid between an Ultima RPG and Ultima Online due to the different game modes, a spiritual successor to the whole brand. It will be a story for those who want it and a play ground for those that want it.

 

For you.

Why is it so difficult to accept that there are those that disagree with you?

 

For me AND many others.
And if the game is not made for ME and my kind of folks...why am I even here?
Of course I pursue my goal. What th ehll you want me to do, say "ohh, Rufus you're right, Im wrong" and change my views to match yours?

 

Damn fine question.

No... Say "Oh, Rufus. We can both be right, and I see no need why we can't both find things in this game that we will both enjoy." That is what I'm doing. I don't enjoy what you enjoy. I want there to be something in this game for both of us.
If you can not... If there is nothing in this game that you can enjoy because you cannot attack for any reason or no reason at all any Avatar that you come across... then there is no middle ground in which we can both exist and one of us must leave disappointed.

 

From a mechanical point of view, perhaps. Mostly because it's fairly hard to do other challenges in a good way. Though some games do manage to have meaningful mechanics that don't involve combat, in some cases not even requiring players to fight in order to evolve. Heck, I have played a MMO in the past (unfortunately one that closed down) that didn't even have combat, and there is one another such MMO that is quite old and still ongoing (A Tale in the Desert).

1. "Weak" and "Worthless" are in the eye of the beholder. It's subjective. For me, what is "weak" and "worthless" is roleplay tied to any kind of non-consensual PvP; it's "roleplay" that can't stand by itself, that was so "worthless" it had to be forced on one or more of the participants instead of everyone accepting it willingly.

2. You assume that danger can only happen in PvP. That is only the case if either the game is intended to be far too easy (which can be the case), or else the devs are either incompetent or don't have enough resources to spend time tuning the game.

3. On top of the above, you assume that all PvP (or perhaps it would be all challenging PvP?) is non-consensual.

For the most part I find non-consensual PvP to not be challenging at all; instead, almost every time the result is decided before the fight even starts, which means that non-consensual PvP is either far too easy or impossible to win, decided on a per combat basis.

You mistake player consent for character consent.

If I'm controlling a dragon that is trying to eat alive the rogue that a player is controlling, you can bet that the rogue never gave consent for the dragon to eat him, but the player gave me the consent to unleash the dragon on his rogue.

 

Well, last I checked mechanics were a large part of the game. Just like your body provides "mechanics" for your immortal soul =)

UO did not require combat to progress in most skills...you could play a character for months and years without *ever* having to fight...
Don't you find it beautiful? I could be *anything* from a cook to a smith without ever having to kill anything, yet I would live in the same world as all other players.

I remember that one time when I tried to study orcish. My new small house was unfortunately (or fortunately) placed on the territory controlled and patrolled by an ORC guild. I was a tinker. No fighting skills at all.
Well, it worked so I earned the right to pass freely trough their lands in exchange for goodies I crafted for them. Earrings, necklaces, rings, and tons of other tiny stuff.
See? It wouldn't be half the fun if those were some NPC orcs.

Maybe you prefer to think that I've got a murderboner and I run around senseless killing anyone until white foam starts coming our of my mouth, but most of the time this is oh so far from the truth..

Well, without a beholder everything is even more worthless.

PvE can be fun. Even challenging.

This only means that you (if you ever played UO) never took the time and the effort to prepare. Almost anyone had a way of escaping if they at least tried.
Hiding, stealth, recall, Invisibility spell...begging for mercy...


@Rufus

Well. C'est la vie.

Also, I've said it a billion of times. You guys miss on a very huge thing.
UO's map was *tiny*. Really. There were far too many players.
In a game that has a lot of space with roughly the same (or even double) amount of players encounters with random people would be rare...which means less PKs.
If your precious PvE is done right, all dungeons will be useful, not only a couple for high level players.

 

This is exactly why I am concerned that PvP might be worthless in this game.

 

I know I'm late to the party, and this issue has been discussed to death, but I totally agree about the 'profession' thing! This is why I prefer Warhammer FRP to D&D, and I have the same problem with WoW. The fact that your character is simply a combatant, with no other purpose, tends to kill immersion for me, as I much prefer to see my character as a person with a history, a life, and a place in the world.

However, I'm not quite sure how OWPVP is going to help this...if anything, it'll do the opposite, since it'll force people to focus entirely on combat effectiveness, since there will always be that crowd who regards PVP as the fun thing to do. I'd be in favour of it if I trusted the gaming community to be reasonable and mature about it, and treat it as something that would happen logically depending on circumstances, rather than a thing to strive for simply because it's "fun". Sadly, I don't - and this isn't a reflection of this forum's community, but one of the gaming community in general.

In real life, towns aren't full of people killing each other just for the sake of it, because they know that they'll respawn if they lose the fight (albeit with some minor repercussions). Whenever there is a fight/killing/whatever, there is always a motivation of some sort (even if it is as simple as "he's a Catholic! Kill him!"), and there are usually considerable repercussions. It's generally considered a big deal when somebody gets murdered - medieval Europe might be less so, but that doesn't mean the whole world was a mass free-for-all. If people want to fight, they can enter combat tournaments and fight in controlled environments, or join the army. Unless an RPG environment reflects this appropriately, then I don't think open PVP is a good idea, tbh.