Disappointed so far

Don't worry, you won't get PKed while petting stags and speaking in elizabethan english. SotA will never be open PvP early UO style - I don't want that either!

Breach of contract, give me a break .. I honestly think every game developer want their game to be a huge success.. and not only for financial reasons. Why is it so bad if SotA appeals to more types of players than the type you are? Can't we all be satisfied with SotA? (except ppl hoping for free-for-all PvP)

You ppl need to stop linking to other games, hoping to draw ppl away from SotA so your voice is the only one to be heard. You're not the 'true' backer voice - you're just one voice in a cacophonic choir of voices with different opinions and hopes for SotA.

 

Yes, and there are real world consequnences as well that cannot be duplicated in game. Especially since the server you're on knows exactly what you did, so punishment should be instantaneous as well.

 

If they saw it in 2000 and split the world, why do the Dev team have their mind set against creating another shard for the PvP players to have the world they want, and let the PvE have the one they want.
before everyone starts quoting RG and he want one persistent world don't forget the favourite Dev adage everything is subject to change.

1 They were quick to axe the overland 3d map to save time & money
2 allow multi plot ownership to make money
3 change the stance that rewards in kickstarter were unique to kickstarter backers to make money.

If PvP rules in the game are holding back people from pledging then add a PvP shard to make money.

 

Strange I thought shroud was going for more then just another MMO. I am here for the rich history that RG has with his single player games. I'm sure I will try some of the PVP zones at some point! even interested I volcanoes and meteor strikes but I don't decide a game is good based on PVP contet alone. Matter of fact most games I like don't have any at all.

I think shards is a great example of there not being a huge crowd out there for that style.

 

Hey, no problem with that. If you do you get a random chance that guards will catch you and put you to jail or maybe even more competitive you get a flag for being criminal - if anyone else then kills you afterwards your character goes to 5 realtime years in jail and all its property gets sold for compensation to the victims. No problem with that being "realistic"... should be fun I guess.
Just attacking someone will get you only 1 realtime year in prison maybe, but hey, you may buy another account. Also a real human mod will judge your actions to prevent using loopholes and glitches. I would be perfectly fine with that. Problem is as facts are - there are no realistic consequences easily feasible and let us be honest the all-in-PvP guys would not want that either.
So let us switch to a sane system that keeps the fun for everyone and that is what actually the developers proposed and have in mind. I am sure there is much fine tuning to be done anyway to get it to work that way that needs the support from us all.

 

Hang on, killed means 25- life or death. For the sake of convienace lets just go with death since it's easier. So if you kill a player your account is deleted. If the "we want realisim" crowed agree to realstic penalties then I will support "realistic" PVP

 

That's only if you get caught and are convicted.

 

Well as we're playing on a server you're caught the second you kill the person. There's no 2-ways about it. There's always one unbiased witness that runs on pure cool logic. It controls the NPCs, all NPCs.

 

Right, a realistic chance for that is around 95% here in my country - no problems with that either, just roll a dice each time.

 

Well that's just not realistic then. Someone must be able to finger you (wait, what?) and if that's the case you can just kill all the witnesses.

That's not fair, what if you are a really good sneaky murderer you need to take skill into account here.

 

Let's say that suddenly RG realized that his dreams could come true with the production of two separate multiplayer games, pvp shroud and non-pvp shroud. Each one supported by its own store and etc. How would that work out?

I don't share some opinions that two shards are an unthinkable option. However, I doubt it would work because there is a third multiplayer option that is not talked about much. That is the group of pvp people who absolutely want to be mixed with non-pvp people for what ever reason. This is the shard that cannot be created because it is exactly where we are today. RG has addressed this by introducing the instancing selection process. However, in my opinion the third group cannot be satisfied unless instances will result in the mix of pvp and non-consensual pvp. Without separate shards we are frankly at a point where the only option is having faith that RG can find a solution. I confess that I find that faith hard to come by, but have contributed to the experiment anyway.

 

Seems that winning and getting your way are the only way to have "fun" for you guys.

You have analyzed every reason why this game should only feature happy thought and magical unicorn riding faeries helping you out so nothing and no one harm you in any way.

But you know what, the minority that represents me wont like it so much.

Developers, I invite you on a math project. Take into account the number of posts in the forums, sum them an, compare the ones that relate to pvp vs the ones that relate to all other aspects of the game and see the results yourself, I already did it.

Take into account this thread and how many people have read it and in what time. Its simple math. Add sum and be realistic about it.

Someone browsing the forum wont click on a thread that does not appeal to them in some way or the other. A lot of people have entered this one in order to play the Attorney of SotA role, yet many many more have entered and left no print at all.

You are making a big mistake Portalarium, perhaps the RPGers will play avidly for a year or two, but after they tire themselves then what? WoW is successful, sure, make a clone.

 

What ultimately matters? The number of posts on a forum, or the number of paying customers?

The math has already been determined repeatedly. And as others have mentioned, Shards is dying on the vine right now trying to sell full loot and non-consent PvP. There doesn't seem to be much of a market for it.

Your personal attacks against others are unwarranted and don't contribute anything positive.

There is no reason why we can't disagree respectfully.

 

So I noticed some stuff in here last night that seemed in need of cleaning up.

And now there's still yet more of it.

Thread locked. Cleaning commencing. Will unlock thereafter.

 

I'll address suggesting other games in a moment. First, an observation. It will shock you in its profundity:

There is no one true backer voice.​

There are tens of thousands of backers, and some lesser number than that who actively participate in these forums...each of whom speaks with their own voice. Granted, there are distinct groups that have emerged within this population who seem to agree on key points, but I'll note that these allegiances are somewhat flexible; someone who agrees with someone else about (say) PvP will then disagree with that same person about (say) player-to-player trade, or housing, or [insert feature here].

So what you say is true - no one person is the true backer voice. But equally, the same is true for you...and for me. Be thou mindful of this.

Trying to be all things to all people typically doesn't end well, especially when you're doing it on a tight budget. And in game development terms, $4 million is exceedingly tight. Portalarium simply aren't going to be able, at this point in time, to provide "a huge host of people" with every single different thing "what they are looking for".

Portalarium have set themselves a direction for the game, and while this is subject to some change and variation based on backer feedback, Shroud of the Avatar is at the point where making sweeping, massive changes to system designs isn't exactly feasible. Even something like swapping out the art style on the overland map has set the team back by some number of weeks; what would fundamentally re-structuring the nature of player interactions in the game's multiplayer component cost, in terms of development time?

It has been pointed out, anecdotally, that some people who were curious to back SotA have refrained from doing so because they disagreed with its PvP direction. (Hey...voting with your pocketbook is cool; I do it too. We all do.)

It's great that these people are out there, looking to put their money behind a game that features a PvP style that they desire to engage in. And if SotA is not that game (and it sounds like it isn't), about the best service I can offer is to suggest backing another game, one that is more suited to the preference set behind the dollars on offer. Yes, Shards currently looks a little dated...but equally, it's likely that its graphical look will improve over time if its Kickstarter campaign succeeds. (For reference: look at SotA's Kickstarter demo footage, and look at the game now. Worlds of difference.) And anyway, what's more important: the graphics, or the gameplay on offer? If there's genuine demand for an open world, full-loot, no-holds-barred fantasy PvP game...Shards seems to be the best option going for that. And if it doesn't look quite as good as Skyrim or Watch Dogs...wait, is that even relevant?

Also: thread unlocked. Party on, Avatars; be Virtuous to each other.

 

I am old UO player ..stopped when EA added ninjas lol
Loved Tabula Rasa game ..until game was closed ..
Player browser game ..Lord of Ultima until was closed ..end many many other games ..except WoW end same looks like games.

I backed this game because I would like to see what these team is going to make.One thing is sure : they can make way better games that I ever will be able ...no matter what kind of game end for what kind of gamer.

Gamer will play good game ..was it browser game of solo of multy play .So simply I like SoTa for what it is going to be ..I like overland map as it is doing what need to do ..I do not need to look how i am ridding horse for 1h to get from point A to point B ..

For my need to get adrenaline rush from free loot ,open world PvP I play Darkfall Unholy Wars ..game .http://www.darkfallonline.com/
For some old memories there is UO Forever free player server ..

There are so many games for every soul . Let these Devs to build game with vision they have end do all hard work .Constructive input is great but we cannot ask something impossible just because we want to have our dream game in one game.

Just my 2 cents ..good luck .

 

May be I didn t read your text well. You seem to claim that crowdfunding represents 100% of the game funding, while during kickstarter campain, RG repeatedly claimed that crowdfunding was an option, like publisher funding, to finish the project funding.

Where is the truth between both versions?

 

It doesn't represent 100%. Rest assured, there are other funds being used in the development of this game. Investor money, some of Garriott's money and perhaps other sources. Who knows what the actual total dollar amount in circulation is, but I can guarantee its not just the crowd sourced amount.

 

So consequently the budget levied is way over 4 million Fedcoins?

 

Ok, I've actually seen that vid but didn't give any weight to one sentence said in response to someone asking about it. He still does not say that SotA is a "spiritual successor to UO." But even in that one sentence, I still have to ask, which part of UO. The first 2 out of 17 years, or the 15 out of 17 years that followed and that has kept UO alive to this day? There's a big difference between wanting a robust pvp system for those who choose to play that way, and wanting to force every player to be subject to it whether they like it or not, which is what a small handful keep badgering the devs for.

My other question you didn't answer. Thank you for digging out that vid, but I'd also like to know the answer to this............"Be honest now, if people were constantly posting and demanding that the game be changed to have absolutely no pvp anywhere in the game, what would be your reaction? Methinks it would be a pretty good approximation, in reverse, of how the calls for pre-tram UO affect the non-pvpers. "

Truly, how would you feel about posts of that type? And have you ever seen any posts of that type on this forum? I've not seen any but, granted, that doesn't mean there've never been any. All the posts I've ever seen about pvp by non-pvpers say they merely want the ability to opt out and let the pvpers do their thing as long as it doesn't affect them.

Edit: To someone else earlier, and others who say this, about the "fun" & "thrill" of being attacked and dry looted unexpectedly that they feel is lost with consensual pvp, I have to disagree. If you are flagged for pvp, you can still have that "fun" all you like. Any time and everywhere you go in fact. You can get unexpectedly killed to your heart's content. You just can't do it to anyone who has opted out of that playstyle. You can do it to each other all you like til the cows come home.