A simple solution to the Open World Full Loot PvP conundrum. In 2 sentences.

Instance a 'Hardcore' OPO module with incentives for ordinary characters for participating, I.E, certain rare items only drop in that perticular instance of 'Hardcore' shared OPO, or something of that nature. The problem with the Fel/Tram split was simply there was no incentive for ordinary players to weigh the reward over the risk of venturing into dangerous areas.



I think that'll draw enough casuals into my disarm-thiefy weapon-stealing grasps the exciting and captivating experience of a FFA-PVP-FL rule-set.

 

Just so you know, since you are new (and welcome by the way...) this is a very complex topic within the unique design of SoTA. It has been talked about on many, many, (did I say many!) threads and there are a lot of divergent game play styles weighing in on the issue. As we've learned in the discussion, the division of hardcore PvPers vs. 'sheep' (as you unfortunately call them) is an unreal and unhelpful one. There is a wide spectrum of people who do and do not want to engage the game any number of ways - solo/multi, PvP/PvE, PK/antiPK, RP/non-RP.

Generally, although we don't have totally final confirmation, PvP will always be among those who opt into it. Instances will likely include only those who match on that desire. As for "luring" people into PvP, well, we've been down that road in the forum 1,000 times as to why people think they need to lure people into PvP. We all have different ways we want to engage SoTA from single player all the way to hardcore PvP and trying to convince other people that they should try our play style has proven to be a dead-end in the discussion.

 

Vyrinor didn't emphasize this enough, but one quick way to get your thread 'moderated' is to call members of the community 'sheep'.

The quickest way is to use the term '********', so be forewarned.

That having been said, welcome to the community, and welcome to another advocate for Open PvP. Just don't try to drag people unwillingly over the PvP threshhold, because you will influence no one with that approach, and I speak as a very strong Open PvP advocate.

 

What Owain said, more or less. Especially the bits about using what could be called slang terminology to describe those opposed to PvP in a negative context.

The reverse applies as well, by the way. PvE proponents don't get a pass in this respect.

 

They have discussed offering incentives and/or temptations to lure people into the world of danger. Everyone who is not afraid of pixels is excited about it (not true, there are fans of Open PvP that are against this for some reason).



They talked about it simply as hypothetical examples of how it may be done.

 

So we're supposed to trust you that no one will respond to enticement into danger, because you just know all I guess, and then you proceed to tell us that you are in no way one of these people? So, how exactly do you expect to be able to speak for people when you are a different style of player altogether? We have discussed this previously, so not going to get into this with you again but I feel the need to repeat once again that Open PvP with no meaning to it is the most boring crap imaginable, AND has nothing to drive open world conflict. Seriously. So stop talking in generalizations like you know what every player wants or what they would or would not do under the circumstances, its not productive and its beyong ridiculous to just repeat the same thing across all threads on the subject.


Open PvP with meaningful drivers for world conflict, or Open PvP that offers nothing past just being Open PvP. It should be pretty freakin obvious which one would appeal to a wider range of people.

 

Don't try to convince me. You need to try to convince Richard Garriott, and I don't see you moving him an inch with that argument.

I think I will be well satisfied with the game upon release, but I think you will be doomed to bitter disapointment, because you are asking for things that the dev's will refuse to deliver.

 

It pains me to say this but... *grimaces* Owain is right.

 

Interesting that they have specifically talked about PvP incentives to "encourage" players of all types to walk into danger, and that RG specifically said that he is not a fan of completely consentual PvP (hint: he already agrees with much of my argument). Your not an open world PvP fan as you claim, you are plain and simply an organized consentual PvP Arena style fan, albeit one in denial but thats w/e.


I don't need to convince either of you.

 

Can you provide a link or citation please?

 

I am in the process of finding it. RG mentions it and talks about it in Shroud of the Avatar Rountable Pilot, done by Markee Dragon, but I am 100% sure that RG said it in another video too. It's going to take time to locate, in the meantime check out the Markee Dragon video, cuz he says the same thing I just want to find it in a Portalarium video as well.


Ill pull up the time stamp on the Markee video if you give me a few minutes. I'm not going to try to locate the other video today.

 

That's ok, thanks for the info on which video you believe it's in. I'll listen to it today.

 

In Markee's video it starts at 33:42 when RG says "You can make a living just killing people" talking about SotA, and then he goes on to talk about everything that I have been talking about. Listen to all of it, its a good analysis of what is good and bad about completely open PvP


at 36:40 he discusses convincing non-PvPers that it would be worth while and fun to go out into danger, exactly what I've been talking about. He says "give them encouragement, and show them why it would be FUN, for them to accept that higher level of danger." He then discusses further with the guy named Fear about finding incentives to lure people out into open PvP, not FORCE them but encourage and incentivise.

at 38:35 he says "encouraging people to step outside of their comfort zone" talking again about PvP.

At 43:40 he again talks about this, in plain English and very specifically about PvP. This gem at 45:30, "We are going to tell you why it might be interesting to go out into the woods, and we'll tell you Fear is over there BTW so be careful"

At 47:00 he talks about it EVEN MORE.

48:30, RG talking about story line motivators to encourage PvP since it is not a linear story.




Do you really NEED me to give you more proof of how dead wrong you are Owain? Thats all the main points of this particular video, check back for the Dev Chat that I will find where he parrots the exact same things with more detailed hypothetical examples. My guess is if you don't believe me at this point, then you will never believe me no matter which way I quote RG.

 

If Garriott is encouraging players to participate in PvP, what about that strikes you as being non-consentual?

If you want to see non-consentual PvP in SotA, then first you have to convince a majority of SotA players that non-consentual PvP is a good idea. If you can do that, then MAYBE you can convince Richard Garriott that non-consentual PvP is supported strongly enough to include it in the game. I don't think that's going to happen. Ever.

I think yours is an exercise in futility, but your time is your own to spend.

 

What is it with people who believe that ONLY PvP can have danger as part of the mix? There CAN be and HAS been Danger in a completely 100% PvE environment as well....since the beginning of CRPG's what you ACTUALLY mean is "My specific brand and style of danger that I want to enforce on others".

(this next bit is Hypothetical in nature so please don't go all "esplody" on me)
Sadly I have to consider that if NON-Consensual PvP were to become the perferred and only mode of playing this game, Id have to skip it all together like I did UO and so many other MMO's. (End Hypothetical)
In this game I see the chance to get back to the Ultima Games without the forced PvP dynamic....


At this point from what I have heard I am hopeful enough to have invested a fair amount of cash in the form of my Pledge.

 

Here's another Garriott quote on the subject of PvP (source):

You know, UO was completely open PvP. The great joy was that…it was completely open PvP! You could go attack anybody you wanted. The great tragedy was that…it was completely open PvP, which meant that — generally speaking — people preyed on the newbies, which actually worked against the success of the game in many ways. But, you know, it was lost of fun if you were the guy perpetrating it.​

​

So, in a lot of ways, few people have dared to do that again, and I think with good reason. On the other hand, the way people have tended to get around it is to make PvP fully consensual, or they put it in a…it only happens in certain raid conditions, or only happens on certain maps that you opt into. And the problem with that is, if you try to make it completely opt-in, only a handful of people opt in, and frankly it’s not very much fun to only PvP the people who have also only signed up to PvP. And it also leaves something a little lacking. So neither of those extremes really seem quite right yet.​

​

And so our plan is to create a game where, nominally, you as a potential prey are safe from PvP; you’re not someone anybody can just walk up to and gank. However, there are story segments of the game, times and places in the game where you’ll be encouraged to do activities which will open you to be the target of PvP. And so…imagine, for example…I’ll give a hypothetical scenario. A hypothetical scenario would be that you’re really trying to earn a bunch of money in this game, and one of the ways it will be very profitable to make money in the game is to run a piece of what I would broadly describe as contraband across the country. Well, it might pay really well, but you also are explained to, well in advance, that by the way, this is contraband, and as soon as you pick up the contraband and start running across the world with it, you’ll be flagged as someone who is operating outside the law, is running this contraband, and in fact it will invoke other players — known to you or otherwise — they will be told “by the way, this player’s running contraband from the east coast to the west coast; look out…there’s a bounty if you manage to catch him.” And so now we’ve put you into the ‘fox and rabbit’ scenario, that now feels like fun PvP (I would hope), because you’re engaging in it in the proper spirit, which is that it’s now a ‘cops and robbers’ portion of the game, with real people instead of just NPCs.​

 

Calm it down a notch, there.

 

Nice quote thank you Ultima Codex. Thats atleast one of the quotes where he says he doesn't believe in a completely consentual, or "opt-in", PvP system. I have a strong feeling there are more and I'll try to find them in the coming days.

Which part? In the paragraph you quoted I stated only fact. Look at their post history to see what I mean.

 

@Ultima Codex, Yep Richard does like PvP no doubt about it...and since he was the designer its his rules, however I completely skipped and never played UO just because it was completely open PVP To each their own. Fortunately he changed or appears to have changed the PvP only environment thing for this game and thus I am back I have every Ultima game published some purchased in multiple formats EXCEPT UO, so once again he has found a way to open my wallet

As for Gimmie'....since he seems to lose his mind when I try to converse with him, I think Ill just move on.

 

As I read that quote, Garriott said that, yeah, UO was great because there was non-consenstual PvP (for the attacker), but unfortunately UO was a tragic mistake because there was nonconsentual PvP (for the victim). As such, for Sota, there will be no nonconsentual PvP. Instead, SotA will try to provide incentives to encourage players to consent to PvP.

I still think that your's is an exercise in futility, but hey, everyone needs a hobby, right?