Changes to Selective Player Mode Needs to Change Now to Save the Game

I've noticed in other threads people have been arguing that they were promised a selective game experience and they keep harping on this promise. In my opinion using this argument needs to stop now, and the developers need to make changes soon that will satisfy both parties. This game will NEVER be successful in the long term without changes.

I think there's only a few good options to save the game. When I say saving the game, I mean its economy, its perceived population, regions and future PVP systems.

The first option is they have an update and everyone at that point has to choose whether they are a single player or multi-player character. This way single player characters continue to get what they were promised, a single player experience. These characters would be separate from multi-player characters.

The second option is if people want to switch between multi-player and single player the system will make them wait 3 days or some long period of time before they can do that. People will not be able to switch back and forth all day long which causes all kinds of exploits and negative impacts.

The third option is that many zones such as cities, world maps and PVP zones force players into that particular mode. Any other zones that aren't flagged as multi-player or multi-player PVP will give the players the option IN GAME to pick their modes before entering, without having the player log out of the game.

I personally like option 3, but some players on this forum are using the fact that they were promised a single player experience as an excuse to void option 3. If the developers feel that their integrity is too important to allow option 3, I would suggest option 1 or 2.

Switching modes and logging out during game play is an absolute travesty of a game mechanic. If we keep allowing people to switch modes like this, entire systems this game was suppose to be built around will be subverted.

 

No, actually what really NEEDs to happen is people should go play the game AS IT'S DESIGNED, and stop trying to dictate to others how they must play the game.

 

This has been debated for 3 years and I see no problem with the current implementation.

The fact is that if there is some PvP objective, whether a castle, control point, etc. which can be owned by some enemy then it is owned by that enemy in all modes of the game. So you can't really escape it by switching game modes.

As long as there isn't some really bad implementation where clicking some flag or switching game modes lets you walk into some enemy base uncontested and walk out with the crown jewels, all problems are solvable.

 

I'm not suggesting dictating how others play the game. I'm suggesting that people are offered a choice, for the long term benefit of the game. If you want to play a single player game, you'll still have that option.

I can assure you that one of these options or something similar is coming. The developers are very aware of the problems. They have poured their hearts and souls into this game and with enough development time, they will fix this clunky mechanic.

 

Ideally I would like to see towns to be the place where people are always gonna be in as multiplayer mode. Then on adventure zone, they can either go solo, friend, or public with the ability to choose without having to relogin (similar to Guild War).

However, there are still optimization, lag, and performance issues need to be tackle. More contents still need to be added before they spend their time revamp this workflow.

If it's communication that people are yearning, then forum, discord, and IRC are available for players to get in touch with one another. While it is less immersive, but it is much more efficient than seeing 100 people lagging your scene right now.

Although, despite seeing constant doomsaying for months, this game still survives. As long as people keep providing useful constructive feedback, I think the game will do just fine as long as they keep working on it. If you look at the trend of fund raising via crowd funding, it's still going up and down as usual depending on what they offer during the month.

 

Those are rather extreme, and not going to happen.
There is another thread that discusses this.

The best option I came up with is simply a cool down timer on gathering after switching modes.
Thats the only real bad exploit, the resource respawning by mode switching, and the only one that would effect economy.

 

I appreciate the idea of a cool down timer, which isn't a bad idea in itself. In a way I'm suggesting a cool down timer in option 2 but for the entire character mode.

To suggest resources is the only real bad exploit from this system is false though. If you consider the clunky mechanic for switching modes, the lack of perceived population in the game and the effects of social interaction and exploitable income, you'll quickly see there's many more issues.

This doesn't even start to fix the issue of segregating PVP players. With barriers between regions they had a great system started if those barriers were PVP only. Allowing guilds and players to create regional economies. With solo modes being able to bypass these, and switch back to multi-player on a whim entire world building concepts are thrown in the garbage bin.

 

Saturday Evening I checked SoTa's population on Steam, it was 200. I saw a dev post on here recently saying the concurrent population was higher than that. I loaded in to the game and travelled from Highvale to Soltown and I saw two players on the way. I saw two more in the crafting area who literally ignores my /say

On the same day I logged in to Neverwinter Nights and saw 700 players online. I loaded on to my favorite server and the world was full of life and interaction.

I agree with the OP. But this game isn't being made for us, it's being made for the $1k and up backers.

 

You cannot change the premise and concept of a game halfway through development after backers have paid for the original vision.

SotA is a Selective Multiplayer RPG with an offline mode and we have the option to switch whenever we want. This should not change!

 

So, true little story :

Yesterday, I was in the Necropolis Barrens fighting skeletons, and an absolute rank newbie wanders up, decked out in their starting gear, wielding what I must presume is the sword you receive in the tutorial.

He asks to group up and fight, however being as I was in a party already, I decline.

However, rather than take the hint, he proceeds to follow us around, and takes pot-shots at our opponents.

Seeing as how one cannot share kills in this manner, we simply bowed out, and my party dropped to Friends Online Mode.

We went on our merry way adventuring the rest of the night, without having to worry about other players getting in the way.

-----

The option to do this makes *me* extremely happy, and I would *not* want it any other way.

 

Wow. Another thread for the same recent topic. Still a foolish suggestion.

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/f...ce-multiplayer-scenes-to-save-the-game.58248/

 

One of the reasons I like SPO in towns is to avoid other avatars superimposed on my own at public crafting stations and to not have to see 7 other avatars chatting up the barmaid simultaneously to get her quest.

 

I also find it amusing that both thread titles contain the phrase "Save the Game".

I'm quite enjoying the game as is, not really sure why people think it needs "saving"... Even if the core audience shrinks back to the ardent few, the game can still trundle along on our strong backs for quite a while.

 

I purposely took that phrase from the other thread. Instead of people making logical arguments, they were using the promises made at kick starter to shut down the conversation. I created this thread because people were arguing that they were promised a single player game and a multi player game.

Since the game desperately needs to fix the issues discussed above, I created this thread to outline options where the developers could continue to provide a single player experience, but not at the cost of ruining the multi player experience.

 

Precisely! The ability to play single player online and offline was a major selling point for me. Changing this will not "save the game", it will only drive people away. Besides, the game is doing well and doesn't need "saving". It only needs to become finished.

 

Gatsu is a bit of a joker, so using that same thread title probably won't get you the response you are expecting.

The devs promised a single player *offline* game, in the vein of traditional Ultima.

There is one of those, which users can play completely separate of the online environment. Save/Mod/Annihilate to your heart's content in that mode.

 

They promised four modes. Including single player online, friends only online, and multiplayer online, and the ability to switch between them. And offline mode which would be a character that could not be brought online.

 

It went above 1000 concurrent on the weekend. At the same time, there were 630 on Steam. Not everyone is on Steam. And not everyone is in Multiplayer (OPO), as is there choice to do so in SPO, FPO or offline.

The game world is not only huge, but splintered due to its scene architecture. There are likely over 550 separate scenes in this game. Just the various NPC, PRT, and POT towns alone account for nearly 450 scenes. Then maybe another 100 wilderness scenes, underground dungeons, sewers, etc. And some of those scenes might even have multiple instances depending on player limit per scene. So even with 1000 players online concurrently, you're not going to see a whole lot of players except in the most populous towns, like Owl's Head. The concurrent online population needs to be magnitudes larger, like 100x larger before it feels alive everywhere. Otherwise, stick to the popular towns or where some major community/dev event is happening...and hope that you're not in a second/third/etc instance with just a few other players.

Agreed. Those options are great and should stay. Rather than restrict/remove and force socialization, the devs should build content that entices players into it.

 

The game didn't even Start and people want to save it.
I applaude the dedication but can we launch the game first and see if it really needs to be rescued?

 

I started playing SOTA about two weeks ago, and I really don't see the problem - maybe I haven't been around long enough yet to know what trouble it's causing. But I think the play modes are one of the most awesome parts of this game. What's the big controversy? If it's economic, there's a long ways to go to worry about tweaking that side of things. Plenty of other things to keep working on at the moment, I think.

People always find exploits. Yes, they're bad. But the different play modes are super cool and an option I've never had anywhere else.