PvPers, would you play full-time on a full loot, open world PvP dedicated server?

Also full loot and pvp did not bring UO together.

It divided it

See Trammel.

The dev team understands this better than anyone what really was going on with Ultima. Asking for a totally new server is like asking for trammel and felucia again.

 

No this is completely backwards. What divided the community was the introduction of a safe zone, which was called Trammel. The game was more successful and popular when it was full pvp and full loot everywhere except towns. The thrill and risk vs reward of full loot pvp is what brought UO together in the first place.

 

I am not primarily a PVP'er so i wont vote... but i would just like to say that i would enjoy playing on an open world, full loot server as a crafter/merchant. Nothing strengthens an economy more effectively than mass murder and daylight robbery (yes i am serious).

 

I like both pve and pvp, just do not like mixing the two together, where I would never have an option to not be bothered by hostile strangers.

 

Amazing input Themo Lock, thank you.

 

This is 100% false.

Ultima Online had its peak of subscribers during UO:R , with a declining number of subs up until it was released.

What "brought uo together" depends on who you ask, when you ask them. UO was the first of its kind, and the fact that you could do ANYTHING you wanted with or without consequences, a small part of it was PvP and even smaller part of that - Full loot.

Don't ever forget that it's the same people who made UO that are making this.

Oh, and UO is still alive thanks to those changes ( trammel ) , and UO is followed by WoW which offers ZERO ( NONE! ) loot and no risk...
Any and all games focused on pvp mostly has FAILED.

Look at facts instead of making up your own

EDIT: to avoid trolling, here are sources on my facts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_Online

Trammel was released in the year 2000 with UO:R , and Subscibers started declining 2003 with the introduction of Samurai Empire and all that came with that.

 

What kind of facts do you have that UO where more successful pre Trammel? Because the peak of subscriptions was after Trammel.

 

Yes

 

If only that were true.

There are so many counter arguments to this....

1. Why did EA make Trammel do you think? So they could destroy their own game? Or do you think they needed to save what was left of their world after EQ was released?
2. Why doesn't another publisher make tons of money creating a full loot paradise?
3. How's Darkfall doing?
4. How do you retain players that lose everything?
5. Why does the Bartle Test have so many people that identify with a playing style that is the polar opposite of "Killer"?
6. Why do you think Richard Garriott, Starr Long, and the rest of the development team for SOTA didn't design this game with full loot and have no intention of full loot if it will make the game "as successful" as Ultima Online?
7. When the game launches, would you suggest that players make a choice to be a "sheep" or a "wolf" during character creation? What happens to the ecology of the game if no one wants to be the sheep?
8. There are pre-trammel UO clones available for play right now. Why doesn't everyone just play that?

Hey man, I love PVP and I cut my teeth on full loot before UO ever came out. But let's call a spade a spade here. UO wasn't sustainable, and we have years of proof to support that. Saying that UO was somehow perfect before trammel is like trying to rewrite history by saying Firefly was the best show ever made on television.

 

At least you are honest about your rationale. I'm sure your city is expensive, but i'd hate to think Devs would make such an important decision based on the fact you want your player run town to thrive. Why can't people make individual decisions anymore without trying to swing the vote? I simply want to know what percentage of "PvPers" (i'm using the term very loosely based on what im seeing) would spend the majority of their time on a dedicated hard-core server. If the issue is truly decided, why are you guys so fearful and insist on clouding the question? I know there is insecurity involved w/a new game, and what type of environment you may have to play in. Your fears have been addressed -- there will be a server for you. Let the PvP community have their discussion.

 

I said it wasn't my primary reason. My primary reason was the first post I made in this thread....in short, it would be bad for the game.

But I'm all for giving incentives to PVP within the existing game. Afterall, being involved in open pvp is more risk and less reward. Here's a thread I started today on the subject:

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/f...ions-for-incentivising-pvp.17973/#post-278373

 

Personally not a pvper but actually like the risks of being killed and losing my stuff. It is part of the thrill I look for in a game. Sadly it does not seem like this game will provide us that thrill.

I would not like to see the game population divided in the way suggested though. It is almost like asking for a tramel for the opposite reasons.

 

Another not-so-rare PvEer who enjoys the thrill of PvP. I would absolutely prefer we all be located on the same server. But nobody knows how many players will be on each server. Also, Trammel was a division within a server.

Thanks Sebastion.

 

You can flag PvP and enjoy the thrill of being killed anywhere - anytime ( Almost ) and lose gear/items. Just not ALL of your items. We don't know how that will work yet, but im quite sure that it will be benificial for pvpers

 

This is true and I may even choose to play this way in the long run. I am not worried about losing what I have on and am carrying because there will be safe storage. But I guess that is a whole different thing.

I am mostly just not agreeing with the separate server idea. I would rather see one game for everyone.

 

I completely agree, and that is what i see being done here.

One server where we all play together the way we want, not forcing ANY playstyle on anyone.

PvEers can pve, crafters can craft, pvpers can pvp. and one can switch between either anytime.

 

split the community is a bad bad bad idea ...

 

For full loot the work around is that you can give your loot to the person who bests you, just open a trade window and unload after resurrection, unless they keep res killing you, then it might be hard to do.

 

I voted yes, because I enjoy a more difficult game, I am a siege perlious! However, I have to ask the OP, this is our chance to what? segregate ourselves even further? most of My friends are not into pvp, and a good number of those that are don't want to deal with it 24/7. I like playing games like this with friends and would hate to have to deal with playing 2 servers

 

yes.

yes i would.