Want more funding? Add real PvP.

* WoW is class based where everyone has the same exact build for their class that is min/maxxed
* WoW is level based.
* WoW has content that is level gated. You go from this level zone to another level zone
* WoW is completely linear because of the level gates
* WoW had bind on pickup gear, killing the player economy
* WoW is quite literally pay to win now that you can pay a fee to skip to max level
* WoW doesn't have a deep story.
* WoW doesn't have an offline mode
* WoW doesn't have everyone on one server
* WoW doesn't have friend's lists to select who you want in your instances
* WoW doesn't have player towns and non-instanced houses
* WoW doesn't allow you to loot anything when you kill someone
* WoW has immersion breaking PvP battleground that you poof to and from
* WoW is utterly faction based
* WoW has no crowd sourced assets
* WoW doesn't have player performance spaces to encourage roleplay
* WoW is a gear treadmill
* WoW has rote combat where you perform the exact same combat rotation
* WoW has more UI than visible screen space
* WoW only lets you craft gear to cater more to the gear treadmill
* WoW doesn't have ghosts or a neat death system
* WoW doesn't integrate PvP into lore and quest (like the Oracle questline)

 

Not sure that these points are true at all.

 

<--- FOR This Utopia World.

They can make another game after this one is done, but I would first like the game I paid for which is what they are currently building.

They have said sharding is an option if things don't work out, but these features aren't built let alone tested yet.

 

And Ender's list is grossly exaggerated and biased.

 

The whole "this is just another WoW clone" whine is getting tedious. Can't we get a "this is just another Everquest" or "this is just another City of Heroes" or something for a change of pace? You can pretty much pick any MMO you like and it will remain just as true; i.e. it's not true at all.

 

This is just another Ultima?

 

Pfft. This is just another "Meridian 59".

(Edit: Drat ninja'd, and Ristra's is better. )

 

I want a game where every type of gamer can find a niche they enjoy. That is what makes a very strong economy because everyone is at least connected to that part. It also lets you try a part of the game you never thought you liked when you get bored of your little world. Breaking the game into servers with different rule sets just means they didn't have a strong enough game concept.

 

You forgot the "Don't Lawyer Me" disclaimer after every statement from the Dev team. WoW doesn't have that either.

 

How so?

Mind you, I actively play a WoW-clone (SWTOR) so I'm both quite familiar with the merits and pitfalls of such a game.

 

I didn't get the game i pledged for.

I pledged for a game that in PvP would give me the option to go as hardcore as full loot. Consensual with full loot. A risk vs reward game.

That was what i expected the game to have with the slider options.

Everyone would get the game they prefered to play and would be matched with like minded.

 

I have to interject, and add a bit to this statement.

Yes SotA is going to have consensual PvP. However, Trammel & Felucca was not a good example of consensual PvP. It separated people from eachother. If you wanted to buy goods half of the people or more left and went to Trammel. So PvP people were kind of lost between two worlds.

In Shroud of the Avatar PvP is a choice, but there is only one world. If you flag for PvP then PvP exists throughout the whole world. This is superior to the Trammel/Felucca situation. One world for everybody, but some people experience the world with a little bit more danger than others do. However, they can still walk into the same Owl's head, and the same Kingsport, instead of having Fel-Moonglow, and Tram-Moonglow being two different places all together.

 

First, what evidence do you have that a majority of players want the PvP system you want? The poll at the top of the thread would seem to show otherwise. Sales and subscription figures for full loot games compared to those nasty old theme parks also indicate otherwise.

Second, if gear is cheap, interchangeable, and easily replaceable, how exactly is getting to take it any kind of reward? Doesn't that effectively make full-looting a minor financial penalty... which is already being planned for inclusion in a different way? And doesn't that make crafting an even more tedious chore than it needs to be when every single person uses the same sets of interchangeable armor, meaning that crafters can only pump out the same thing over and over and over for eternity?

 

What evidence do you have to support your stance. These other games you are mentioning were also quite dull if you ask me. That's why most of the people who pledged for sota did. They wanted something different than, click on the exclaimation point and follow the quest log. However World of War craft made lots of money even though the game play was quite dull.

I liked UO much better than any other game I've played online. It was just like Ara described. That was the most fun. Also That form of PvP was awesome. So I don't think money earned is a good indicator of what is best. We should therefore promote what we enjoyed. Ara did that.

 

If the game was promised to have full loot then you didn't get what you were promised.

However, there may still be hope for you (even though I think what you're asking for is bad for PvP).

Lord British did say in an interview (again, disclaimer "don't lawyer me, bro") that he imagined in a duel that the two parties would be able to set full loot rules if they wanted. Not sure if he was spitballing or if that is definitely part of the plan.

Even without that, there is still the ransom rule, so the winner is getting rewarded and there is some level of risk in PvP as planned.

 

My stance is this: show me the evidence. I'm not disputing that you and Ara want what you want; I'm disputing whether the majority want that as well. Hell, I'm not even really disputing that in the sense that I'm claiming Ara is wrong. I'm simply asking for proof, which shouldn't be difficult to provide if they're making the claim. I'm being generous by assuming that they wouldn't make a factual claim without having any actual facts.

 

I read in some thread about crafting where Richard liked the idea that crafters should make the just about best gear and that way create a market for crafted gears. GM crafted gear (old UO) was not the best you could get in the game but was good enough for successfully taking part in PvP. It was far from throw away gear.

 

Polls here on SotA forums about wether the game should have full loot in PvP or not informed us that a majority of the PvP interested players wanted full loot in the game.

 

I havent voted in this poll since it tell me nothing. What is hardcore PvP?

I want consensual PvP with full loot and on that there is/was a majority for full loot in the polls i seen.

 

Do you want HARDCORE PvP?
Yes 13 vote(s) 26.5%
No 36 vote(s) 73.5%

Simply saying that your (unlinked) polls are the truth and this one isn't is just cherry-picking. That leads me to believe that you're not actually interested in the truth of the matter.