Tram Killed UO is Tram back?

I do not think it is professional for a moderator to take part in arguments. If people are getting out of hand in discussions, by all means, remind them of the terms of service for this board.

I have made a post to this effect in the Forum Feedback area. I will accept whatever the official SotA administrators decide.

 

Players running around invincible to other players cheapens my world. How do you not get that? It maked my world unrealistic. It ruins the economy. I'm done. Seems like you just have some blind refusal to understand.

I understand where you are coming from. I just disagree.

 

I don't think open world pvp makes sense with what they're trying to do in this game. They could add it but it wouldn't be as simple as a toggle or server. You'd have to worry about making it meaningful, interesting, and not grief intensive. Also, you'd have to disable all of their social options which is the crux of their design philosophy to make it worthwhile.

Imho, the only way it could really be done is if it were a character creation option and play on a completely different server. Then you have no choice but to play in the online world and would have to nix the social options. Set the game up to where people can only see/interact with people roughly the same skill level. That would avoid any serious no win scenarios to actually make it a challenge. Also, would make people who want to grief, work for it rather than newbie camping which is common to every current open pvp system that I've seen.

Then you'd have to worry about items on people, The only way I can think of to make pvp meaningful is if they had corpse looting or permadeath. if they get everything on a person's corpse, the game would have to account for how a player can acquire gear to actually do anything in the world afterwards. Permadeath might solve this because the gear is useless to someone after they die. It would further amplify the whole risk/reward system and would seem the only meaningful option.

 

<blockquote>I do not think it is professional for a moderator to take part in arguments. If people are getting out of hand in discussions, by all means, remind them of the terms of service for this board.</blockquote>

How else am I to understand a way of thinking that is totally foreign to me, if not by engaging its proponents in discussion?

As I've said, I don't have a stake personally in this, because I won't be playing the game in FPO or OPO. My interest is simply to educate myself by process of inquiry. And this is a hard subject for me to grasp; I can't yet understand why anyone would want to violate and impose upon the gameplay experience of a non-consenting player, nor can I yet understand why not being able to violate another player's experience in this way would be such a game-breaking thing.

 

It is not your job as a moderator to understand the arguments. You enforce the Forum rules. Let the Devs handle questions on game issues.

 

I think Moderators should have an opinion and a voice in the forum, as should everyone.

 

<blockquote>It is not your job as a moderator to understand the arguments. You enforce the Forum rules. Let the Devs handle questions on game issues.</blockquote>

If I don't understand the argument, how can I tell the difference between someone who is making a legitimate argument, and someone who is trolling the thread? I mean, had I not stepped in and asked questions, I'd have been severely tempted to moderate the guy who flat-out stated that he wanted to be able to attack and kill other players with impunity, because my default assumption would be to treat that sort of talk as inappropriate.

So I at least learned that much by engaging. If you think that makes me a poorer moderator, then so be it, and if those in charge agree, I'll abide by that decision. But I, for one, think that engaging and inquiring was beneficial to my role.

 

@AvatarAcid I think the GTFO was probably a step too far there.

 

You can respond with what has been officially announced. It was inappropriate, for example, for you to argue with me over my suggestion. I am providing feedback to the devs on what I think should be in the game. It is not for you, as a moderator, to comment on that. If I say something about the game as the devs have commented on so far that is wrong, then yes, correct me. It would be incorrect for me to say, for example, there will be no single player option. But if I give a suggestion for the dev's to consider, it is no proper for you to argue with me about it.

If you don't like that restriction, you should not have accepted becoming a moderator.

 

Disregard. A decision has been rendered.

 

What is your feedback Owain? That PvPers should be able to attack everyone in OPO, period?

 

If my suggestion is accepted, yes. OPO would be full PvP, and FPO would be PvE. Otherwise, both modes would be identical.

 

Fine, your point has been made here and in MANY other areas. I do not believe you need to post this view again here or in any other thread, we all here know what you believe by now.

I'll bet they have a picture of your forum avatar posted on their wall with the words "wishes to attack everyone in OPO" right under it.

 

Dude, you asked a question, so I answered it. If you can't stand the answer, don't ask the question.

 

If we want to go by the official word from Portalarium that exists thus far:

<blockquote><strong>Friends Play Online (FPO)</strong>
In friends play online, you only see people you have flagged as friends in the game and only they can see you. Like single player, this is just a server side filter. For those who prefer the quieter game with friends or maybe for those who prefer a more focused role playing experience, this lets you enjoy a more limited online experience. You can switch to SPO or OPO modes whenever you like while in a city or in the overland map.

<strong>Open Play Online (OPO)</strong>
In OPO players will see everyone that the server thinks they should see. This will not necessarily be all people in the area but should be people you care the most about based on what we believe is their relevance to you.

For the most part, OPO will feel like an MMO. Lots of social interaction options with friends and other players. We are trying to distinguish ourselves from traditional MMOs only in that, unlike a normal MMO players are frequently connected directly to each other instead of all data flowing through our servers. We believe this will provide numerous advantages to both players and our service, but does differ from a traditional MMO in that the upper limit of players simultaneously on one map may be restricted.</blockquote>

So OPO is the mode for those who don't want Portalarium to touch their friends list, and/or who don't want to reveal even that much information to Portalarium's servers. Whether out of privacy concerns or because they want the dynamism, they instead opt to leave it up to Portalarium to determine, based solely on their gameplay, who to show to them and who to hide from them.

It is...conceivable, is it not, that this group of players would, on a Venn Diagram, not overlap 100% with the group of players who really think the game should include full-open PvP? But per your suggestion, it would also seem that such players as want the more dynamic OPO experience without the risk of PvP being forced upon them would be essentially out of luck.

Whereas, if you are in it purely for the risk factor (and not for the "I want to kill other players because they're there" factor), you should -- per statements from Richard Garriott -- nevertheless be able to find that (with suitable reward) in OPO as it is currently planned, even without open PvP.

So which is the more logical design choice, the one that better encompasses the larger number of players, even if it doesn't satisfy any one group's demands 100%?

 

"It is?conceivable, is it not, that this group of players would, on a Venn Diagram, not overlap 100% with the group of players who really think the game should include full-open PvP? But per your suggestion, it would also seem that such players as want the more dynamic OPO experience without the risk of PvP being forced upon them would be essentially out of luck."

No. I propose that the definition of FPO to be changed so that FPO and OPO are identical, except for PvP. This would require that the filter routine be player configurable. If an FPO player wants the filter to function in the manner described to date, they can elect to see only their friends. However, if they want to meet new friends, they can elect to open the filter up to permit them to see people they don't already know. Otherwise, how is an FPO player to meet new people, unless they change modes, which seems a bit clumsy to me. Better to allow them to select who they see in their current mode.

"So which is the more logical design choice, the one that better encompasses the larger number of players, even if it doesn?t satisfy any one group?s demands 100%?"

With my proposed system, both PvE and PvP players get 100% of both groups preferences. Is that not a better design?

 

I tried to find information on this stuff a while back on the forum and could not. I then wen't into chat, and got insulted by a moderator in chat alongside with Owain and Insane. So as much as I disagree with Owain on everything he says, I can see his point where moderators need to be a bit more careful about getting too personal. That being said after reading this thread, I don't think @Codex was doing that at all, nor did he do anything which would require you to report his activity Owain.

In any case, after I got chased out of chat by Owain, Insane, and the mod, I posted a thread about my concerns. Which got taken over of course by who? Owain, Insane, and mod. Not really feeling the love in this place guys.

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/wp-login.php?action=rp&amp;key=WQk3ksCpGV7bMw96n87g&amp;login=Khumash-Gor

 

That isn't quite what I asked, but all right.

As it is, and as has been noted by others here and elsewhere, it would seem that the present distinctions between FPO and OPO seem to be somewhat incompatible with an open PvP concept, purely on the basis of the fact that both want to offer a similar overall gameplay experience with the distinction being that in FPO you control who you see in the world while in OPO it's up to the server to guess who you see and don't based on your play style.

To be fair, I can conceive of a way in which OPO could be architected in such a way as to allow for those who want open PvP to only ever be paired with like-minded others, while players who want the dynamism without the risk of ganking would be paired with similarly like-minded players. That's a rather more complex piece of logic to build, though, especially for a small team, and I can only imagine that it would be horribly buggy at the outset, to the enjoyment of nobody.

Portalarium seems to be aiming for the more broadly social aspects of online play, rather than the merely combative aspects. Open PvP in OPO doesn't play into that plan, although it seems they will still furnish you with plenty of opportunities to take on risk for yourself.

 

I screwed that up, could someone delete that link from my thread, I cannot edit any longer. This is what I meant to post:

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/?topic=seeking-info-on-player-killing

 

Just trying to explain how my suggestion would work. Your questions indicated that you misunderstood what I was suggesting, so answering your question as asked wouldn't have clarified much.