PvP servers and NON-PvP servers

Please don't make the mistake of making this a free for all PvP title. If you're going to have PvP please make it faction based (separate from those who hate PvP even) instead of the nightmare a certain other game was in it's early days. Perhaps making a PvP only server? At any rate, I won't donate until I know for sure if the game play is going to forced PvP, flagged PvP (factions) and/or server based.

Thanks.

 

You must be a noob that was constantly pked and never learned to fight back.

that's not what UO was mate.

If they do as you ask in this game, you can say bye bye in a couple of years.

Why do you UO is lasting this long? because people who still play on Atlantic shard enjoy PVP, everything else can be done on other games

 

Big + to Rostic

 

Actually the faction combat when they introduced it to UO was pretty darn fun. But of course so was the freedom to attack anyone at any time.

 

This is the last thing I want to see in this game.

What killed UO was the introduction of Trammel and it is absolutely no different than having PvP and PvE servers. This whole idea represents the bastardization and oversimplification of computer games today and honestly I am a bit disgruntled at its mention here in the SotA forums. I felt that everyone here has had their fill of brain-dead care-bear games.

Please, do not introduce PvP "flags" or servers. There are betters ways to control and reward behavior than to simply forbid it through the code of a game.

 

I couldn't agree more... If you're saying you're not gonna donate until you're sure that you can roll a char on a PVE server, or have some kind of PVE flag that makes you immune to other players attacking you, than why are you even considering donating at all? This is not what Ultima Online was about at all, and I personally believe that you would have no place in a game like this.

There are plenty of other games out already, and plenty more scheduled to be released that do exactly what you're asking for. So please... Go play one of those games and don't start playing SotA with the intention of complaining and trying to get the very features that make this game unique removed from the game...

 

Guys, if you think this game is going to be anything like a second UO you are in for heartbreak.

UO was lightning in a bottle and will be nearly impossible to recreate.

This game seems like it's trying to be too many things at once, and I fear it will be a jack of all trades and master of none.

I'd love to be proven wrong though, and as more information comes out perhaps my outlook will improve.

But the fact that you can play offline alone, the fact that you won't see everyone when your playing in open mode....it just won't be UO.

I believe they have mentioned PVP flags in a few updates, yeah nothing is final but it seems like it's already planned.

You guys are saying people who don't want PVP in this game will have no place, your mistaken period. This won't be a second UO.

 

I posted this on another PVP thread. This is just a hot topic but I think its worth stating in all the conversations:

<blockquote cite="Umbrae">There is an interview with Stratics where LB states he does not want open pvp and does not like flags, so it sounds like PVP will be enabled between 2 people on a quest type basis.

I.E. You get quest to transport illegal products which flags you open for PVP. At the same time, another player gets a quest that someone is transporting illegal goods and must be stopped.

I think this idea is good to help transition players that normally don?t PVP into PVP, but I would like to see an option for those that want more PVP. This might work if there is a LOT of content quests for PVP, but I think we all need to understand LB vision and desires for the game and find ideas that mesh and have the greatest ability to make everyone happy.

Although, LB doesn?t like flags I think that a flag in the filter is the greatest middle ground. Just because PVP filter is off; doesn?t mean player won?t find themselves forced into via a quest.

Can?t wait to get more information.</blockquote>

 

I enjoy PVP when its done right. But people seem to always take advantage of the system if it's not done right and that just leads to unhappy customers.

 

Sounds like the game will rely on heavy instancing, but that's not a bad thing because potentially there is huge potential for pvp.
There will have to be clever instancing.... Maybe there can be a method for a group of players to control a certain instance, a kind of available pvp map that is continuous...

 

Im up for put all Non-pvplayers in the same server. I dont wanna see non-players in the open world. Make no sense for me to see guy i cant fight him if i feel for.

 

While I disagree with original poster, I also disagree with most of the responses made herein.

I earnestly do not believe there should be split servers that divides the player base. I believe we should all be in one world.

At the same time, I most strongly believe half the player base shouldn't be the victims living in constant fear of the other half who have no sense of restraint or personal respect for other players.

As Umbrae posted from the other thread, flags aren't ideal, but they do the trick. Or a quest based system that let's a player <i>choose</i> to PvP works.

What many of you are describing is the ability to PK. You feel the ability to PK is noble for some reason. You are using reasoning that suggests that you like PvP, but you aren't describing acts of PvP, you are describing acts of terrorism. You say "I feel I should have the right to attack anyone I want any time I want". That's like saying in real life I should have the right to walk around a Camp Ground and shoot someone I find there in the face and steal their wallet. Don't deflect and say it's not the exact same thing, because it is.

That said, there is a flip side, that I agree that if you did want to walk around a Camp Ground and shoot people in the face and steal their wallets, then you <i>could</i>, that you are physically able to. Fact is if you <i>could</i> do it in real life, you should be able to in a role-playing game. But there is no equal level of accountability to balance against those actions, and the number of people doing it gets out of control. Since there is no good way to hold a player accountable to those actions, then you must restrict the actions.

So in summary, I would say that I am against splitting servers. That is not providing balance, that is just separating the masses. But I do think there should be PvP in the world. But also there must be a way to limit it so PvP doesn't cause too much grief to the ones that have no interest in it. In many games, flags do the trick. But even if there are no flags, there must be some measure that allows a player not at all interested in PvP to have a game experience without it.

And let me add one more thing:

To those of you that think you are a majority wanting Open World PvP, I suggest you take a better look at your numbers. In most every game that has PvP, there is a place where there is Open PvP. A territory that is contested, a region of land that is lawless, or whatever reason the devs give, they made an area where there is Open PvP. And in almost every case those are empty. Even if there are rewards or gains to being in that area, most players never go there. They just aren't interested.

Trammel vs. Felucca is prime example of this. In UO, you could travel between Trammel and Felucca. When people went to Felucca, they were making a conscious player's choice to enter Open PvP. They added rewards for going to Felucca, like better materials, better rewards, better drops, but still Trammel was heavily crowded, Felucca was almost completely empty. No one went to Felucca unless they had a specific reason to. The Open PvP area was vacant.

I believe in my heart of hearts that most people don't like (or even hate) Open PvP. They play the game to play the game, to role-play, not to play against other players. Even those that like to play against other players...prefer to choose where and when, not have it constant.

 

Sarizaddi, we want open PvP/open loot, but not to force it on everyone. I, for one, have been suggesting an additional mode separate from SPO/FPO/OPO, and like single player off line, this PvP char couldn't go to the other online modes. Full PvP, Full loot, as on UO: Siege Perilous, to recreate the PK/Anti-PK wars, and not affect other players at all.

 

We need True PVP shard and Lady's and ********'s shard.
I wish PvP shard only exist but it seems RG really want to take money from slow handed people who lack of will to comepete.

 

@system32: Without the money from those "slow handed people who lack of will to comepete", as you put it, I doubt the game would ever be funded. In fact, those same people are most likely bringing more money to the game than the PvPers.

Which is why not only most MMOs, but most games, try to cater to them. Any game that focuses only on the segment of competitive and skilled players end up as a niche game at best, a closed down commercial failure at worst.

I'm not sure a PvP and a PvE shards are a good idea because it forces players to choose. What would you do if you wanted to play PvP but most of your friends wouldn't accept playing in the PvP shard? Or perhaps your significant one? I was stuck playing in a PvP server in WoW for half a decade because I have friends that flat out refuse to play on PvE servers, and hated every single time I got caught in an open world PvP fight, even though there is basically no death penalty for PvP deaths in WoW (even the item durability hit is disabled for PvP deaths in WoW).

If it can work, the idea of having PvP influence the player filters in OPO should solve this issue, though. PvP-enabled players should only see other PvP-enabled players, and likewise with players that are not PvP-enabled. The only potential "downsides" are that PvP and PvE players will influence the economy for each other, and that PvP players will be able to change to PvE when not in the mood to fight other players, though I see neither as actual downsides; more players in the economy should help stabilize it, and a way to flee PvP for a while should help stave off burnout for less enthusiastic PvPers.

 

I think it ll be easy to create a safe server for non-PvPlayers. Put them all into this server and they ll be happy.

 

"If you?re saying you?re not gonna donate until you?re sure that you can roll a char on a PVE server, or have some kind of PVE flag that makes you immune to other players attacking you, than why are you even considering donating at all?"

The devs have stated a number of times that you will have to opt-in for PvP. The OP should feel free to donate to the game because he can absolutely 100% play the game without ever worrying about getting involved in PvP (he might not access certain PvP regions or do PvP missions though). Considering that RG gave very detailed reasons why the UO model did NOT work, the probability of SotA being a forced open world pvp full loot game is 0%.