PVP & Death: Current Thinking Megapost

It's looking like the whole Founder and Royal Founder was/is Hype
Just a business ploy "Hurry up before April 7th"
Hurry up before ...
Hurry up get 10% off
There's going to be a lot of Hurry Hurry $$$
FADE Fade fade...

 

I'm for invoking privilege tiers of response... especially for the restriction of non pledgers "just visiting"...
This is because of the disruptions they bring into creative posts where pledge members need to have their input less restricted by trolls, yet also the ill informed that need training/reading before posting argument. We need new people, yet we need new pledge members to gain more from our combined efforts in information distribution. An place where visitors can come would be a great place for FAQs and such greeting posts where "we the pledge members of all tier groups could become the game's better salesmen and limit trolls that are only here for trolling or promoting their game.
~Time Lord~

 

As an old school UO player, and avid MMO PvP player, I like the systems and mechanics proposed in the OP.

There is a free to play game called Runes of Magic, which has a similar single item drop mechanic, but you couldn't pay a ransom to get it back. It really hurt when you died, especially if the item you lost was a set item. I think the system penalizes the victim enough that they will avoid getting killed pointlessly, but does not cause so much grief, that they would want to quit the game. Plus having the option to pay some gold to get the item back makes it even more fair.

I also like the idea of a Notoriety system which Ravenclaw has been talking about. Nothing was more fearful than facing a Dread Lord in UO (I was anti pk).

The only other thing I would like to put in my 2 cents about: Toward the end of my UO days, I played on the Siege Perilous server. It had some pretty hard core rules, but it made the game much more challenging and rewarding. The one thing I would take away from that experience, and like to see implemented in Shroud of the Avatar, is some form of the Hero / Evil system. It provided a way for players to enjoy PvP on a different scale. Even if you were a solo player, you had other 'Heroes' on your side which would fight against 'Evils' and vise verse. You weren't tied down to a 'guild', certain zones, etc. As long as they were from the opposing faction, they were free game. You also were able to use unique powers by evoking your powers of good / evil. Using certain conjured items became a testament of how good a player was, because you earned points to spend on these powers by killing players from the opposing factions.

Anyway, great job so far, I can't wait to try out PvP, so hurry and get it implemented

 

just wanted to be your first LIKE lol

 

I dont understand why there is so many complaining about this pvp? I think that it should be only safe in town, but still possible to kill in town (Just like good old UO)

There is a thousand games out there where you can avoid pking and hardcore pvp. The only game that ever had this feature was good ol' UO.

Everytime i see a dev video on youtube, it always seem like everyone wants to hardcore pking/pvp environment, but there is like one guys who is like "i don't want to worry about getting killed all the time" and the rest just really tries to please him. Thats wrong! You want to play, and don't have any thread, go play WoW or any other game.

Lets please make this like old UO! Full loot, never safe and hardcore! - Lets get the thrills back!

 

Talk to the Oracle, flag for open PvP, there ya go you have your wish.

 

Gee yes! Let's make a copy of a 17 year old game! Why make something new when we can make something really old!

This game needs to be innovative and new and exciting and a bunch of other things that will never be accomplished by copying UO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The game was announced back during its Kickstart as a game where players would only engage in PvP if they wanted. Without that promise a large number of backers would have never put any money on this game, myself included.

So, no. You want a game where every single player has to face PvP and the risk of full loot, go look for one where this was promised from the start. SotA not only never made that promise, it made an early strong commitment that precludes that.

That being said, the game will have open PvP if you opt into that. This should be enough for any player whose interest lies in legitimate, non-griefing PvP; you get to fight anyone that actually wants to feel that risk, that excitement you crave for, while players that just want to play PvE, or otherwise want to control when and how they engage in PvP, get to do that.

Full loot is another discussion, though. If you want that changed, you will likely have to convince the devs to change the whole gearing model, since they currently seem to want to go with a gearing model they don't see as compatible with full loot. I'm not against that, as long as it does not negatively affect my PvE experience, which — given the fact I will never, ever, engage in any kind of PvP with looting — seems to be the only thing I will play in this game.

 

That's what dev+ is for. Founders only get to see the developers blog. They can't discuss anything there, only watch. LoL

 

This topic reminds me a bit of Minecraft. I played Minecraft with my kids a while back, and at first, I HATED it when I died. I would get to level 40-50, be feeling like a hot shot, then some dumb accident would happen, and I would lose all my gear. Most of the time, I wouldn't be able to get it back.

I would feel very defeated, and would think of rage quitting, kicking the dog, throwing my monitor, etc. Then I had an epiphany.

If I want to play the game, I need to accept the rules for what they are. I need to live out my existence in Minecraft, knowing that at any moment, a Creeper could sneak up on me and blow my ass up. I could accidentally fall into lava, get swarmed by mobs, or one of my kids could do something that causes me to die (even on co-op buckets of lava on the head hurt!).

The point is, the rules are the rules. We as players decide if we are willing to suffer through the bad, to enjoy the good.

In the end, it is impossible to make 100% of people happy. Even if we came up with a perfect PvP situation, someone will hate the game because of the way the character walks or jumps.

If the team creating Shroud of the Avatar can come up with a 'good enough' system, where there is actually PvP(is my definition of PvP the same as yours?), where there is both a risk and reward for participating in it, isn't that worth trying out before we complain too much? I think I would really dig duels with the option to place bets or 'ante up' a reward for whoever wins. I would argue that the only type of person the OP mechanics doesn't live up to are griefers, and I don't think ANY game would intentionally cater to the griefing population.

Will the mechanics proposed on the OP live up to our expectations? Will it both be fun and fair? We can debate about it until we are are all blue in the face, but we won't know until we actually try it out. After reading and re-reading it a few times, I think it is a pretty solid system. I would like to see more 'randomness' thrown in, but I'm willing to test what we have, and give solid, credible feedback if it doesn't suit my taste.

 

I agree with @bunzaga , and if SOTA evolves into a happy community where PVErs, PVPers and PVE-PVPers can co-exist and thrive then this game will have achieved what very few before it have.

 

Making a copy of the 17 year old UO will be more original than any other games like this out there! Making a new game, that gives you the opportunity to always stay "Safe" and rewards people with good gear over people with skills - There is nothing innovative about that.

Making Sota like this, will simply be copying WoW, and putting in some features from UO = NOT innovative!

Also the spell system of old UO - even the way you moved your character = That gave the game some aspects that you will never find in any other games!

 

I just dont get it tho - WHY would you want to play a game where you are just killing NPC monsters with no risk of anything unexpected?

I dont get that mentality! Why dont you want the challenge that PKing would bring? That you always had to be on your toes and ready to recall out.

 

It doesn't matter. You may never understand why others enjoy what they enjoy, nor why they do not enjoy what you enjoy. Likewise, I will never understand why you enjoy playing the way you say you do. I just don't get that mentality. In the end it just plain doesn't matter why. The fact remains that we all enjoy different things, and this game is not going to cater to any one play style. No amount of trying to tell others what they should enjoy is ever going to change that. You can't tell people they're wrong because they don't like the same things you do.

 

Right.... It's a copy of WoW! That's the standard argument, but it's not true. Even if it was true, that would make it a better game than UO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It's not a challenge it's an annoyance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Not true. It is a challenge, you just choose to see it as an annoyance. Its an aspect of the game, that forces you to use ur brain and pay attention at all times.

 

That does not make sense? Would you care to explain what you are telling me here?

 

I am not saying that the way you like it is wrong - i am just saying there is a thousand games out there that meets those criterias.

There is no games out there that gives you the thrills that UO gave you. A game with no PKing or unexpected danger + that fact that dieing actually meant more than just running back to my corps will never bring the emotions that UO gave you back in the days.

 

What is good for you is not necessarily good for others. Its fine for you to state your own opinions just as well as others to have theirs. *bubble hearth out*!