I'm going to say that SP should not be a focus in this game (rant)

I'm going to say that Single Player focus should not be the focus in this game.

I make this concern because of past 'mistakes' by certain games which in my view wasted FAR too much time and effort on content that was played very minimally, yet accounted for a obvious majority of development time and money to create.

Yes this kind of game play can provide a very good experience, many, many people will love this! I do not want to hate on people who value that, but lets face it. It's 2013 and a game should be online constantly and player generated content is looking pretty good in order to increase overall project goals and therefore more tools to players.

I believe it's in the online rpg/MMO genre best interest to move ahead, away from the 'quest-hub' game progressions. To me, UO presents a great example (if not the best) to showcase a living world for players to engage with. To me this represents a poor 'model' of a online game, there is little to zero room for player to engage themselves on various levels.

Most games I know compensate and then rely heavily on adding on battlegrounds to satisfy the role for PvP (and other interactions) that way.
But they also rely on Class-heavy games..

PvP needs a backdrop. There is a need to have a role for rich story telling, but do we really need to go the quest-hub route? I certainly hope not, and if can have ANY say whatsover that will not happen.

non-linear means non-linear. NO QUEST HUBS ALA EVERY MMO OUT THERE!!!

There is still a need for rich story and background, and characters which are both memorable and play central roles with the game world.

Players need a story to engage, epic struggle always a good theme.

Rich and the poor, good and evil etc etc. This is the job of the 'story' and atmospherics.

If every players main 'goal' is to compete the single player storyline, I think that that will undermine the 'sandbox' focus that the game is also trying to bring forward and take to the next level.

I think if there is a single player story line, which is the 'content' focus, it will do nothing to move the game forward as a online RPG.

What I think should be the focus is just player vs player interactions.

/cheers

 

Sorry but I have to strongly disagree with you, not all of us care about PVP and based on the volume of games around single player is still king, even FPS must have a strong single player campaign to survive because most of us could give 2 hoots about PVP. This is a successor to ultima, not just UO, most (if not all) of us loved the numbered ultima games, some went on to UO but not all and I for one am getting sick of people who seem to think its not a good game if they can't wreck someone else's game. I for one am only really interested in the SP options or at most friend mode so I can play with those I know in real life.

 

I also wanted to state in there how typical battlegrounds are fairly boring. It's a grind fest, plain and simple.

I do NOT want a grind-fest, nor farming nubs, endlessly. There is still lots of room I think for moving forward with new ideas which LB has thought of.

Maybe as far as PvP will go is if you are that bad, like a criminal, then you deserve to be attacked freely!!

RG suggest some thoughts of a bounty-like system which actual sounds fun though... but it still depends but he said it would be something you would have control of being in or not.

I'm interested in all sorts of content at this point, but none particularly in spades more than the other.

 

I agree with you. I think they're going to spend a lot of time focusing on trying to craft a sprawling storyline that, aside from the very devoted among early adopters here, will largely go unnoticed as a lot of online gamers focus more on the online aspects. I appreciate a story, sure, but I would rather create my OWN stories a la Ultima Online.

I just hope they focus on a ton of content in the world that goes beyond the scripted storyline stuff. If there is a storyline with a beginning and end, I think a lot of people will migrate away after they're done unless there is a focus on more MMO-like content. So yes, I agree, I hope they focus on creating an immersive, interactive world that's main goal is persistence and depth AFTER all of the scripted storyline is done.

 

From what I understand, there was, originally, no plans to make the game single-player. However, there was a huge number of people that didn't want to play online. Since adding the single-player mode won't take much effort from a coding standpoint, they decided to add it in. The single-player game isn't the focus. The game was multiplayer from the start.

Remember, though, that deep story doesn't work as well in an MMO as it does in single-player. It's hard to be "the hero" when there are 1k other "the hero" people running around doing the exact same thing as you.

As for people migrating away after they are done with the story, that is fine. They've paid for the game, just like they would for a single-player game. They would likely not have come to an mmo style game in the first place.

Besides that, there are 4 expansions planned, so there is supposed to be content for 5 years. They have stated that, after that, they may move everyone to a different game altogether(you would keep your character, apparently) or they may just keep the game open, depending on how popular the game is.

Honestly, this is so far in the future that I wouldn't be worried about it for now.

 

In response to a question I asked yesterday in the dev chat, where I asked, "In a game based on the Virtues, I don't want to see PvP merely for the sake of PvP. I fought the PK/Anti-PK wars for 5 years on UO:Siege Perilous as an Anti-PK, and in SotA, I want to fight to defend the virtues. Tell me that you and Tracy Hickman will incorporate PvP as a direct part of the storyline, and that there will be a clearly defined Good/Evil definition for PvP."

Lord British went on at length that this was exactly the kind of emergent play he wants to see in SotA, and that the story will be crafted exactly to encourage exactly that for those players that wish to participate in that activity. Players will be allowed to be evil, and where there is evil, there are heroes.

Given this, I no longer advocate a separate Siege Perilous mode. Instead, I look forward to the PvP environment SotA will provide, and to a resumption of the PK/Anti-PK wars on Shroud of the Avatar.

"To the everlasting glory of the infantry..." --The Ballad of Rodger Young

 

It is a bit to late to ask that the focus be taken away from single player.
With pvp becoming a big focus point, I want to have the ability as promised, to play at least one character who will not be min/maxed for pvp type battles, and, I want to be able to play that character in SPO, with the very least amount or zero pvp encounters.

I dont want to have to delete this character once Ive completed the story-line, since there are more series planned. So if I do deceide to play in the Open mode, it will be done with a new character, one who will be build with pvp only in mind, which may mean buying another account.

 

SotA can still be played for those seeking a single player/small group RPG game. That is what SP online/offline and FPO are for. A PvE game style is possible even in OPO, since PvP is purely voluntary, as we have heard.

The architecture of this game supports all game play styles, none of which come at the expense of any other game style. As such, the purpose of the original rant is unfounded, and worries by those seeking a single player experience is equallly unfounded.

 

Xandra7 then push for that to be changed because the 1 character is not set in stone, when i said "1 character GRRRR" i chat Chris came back with "don't be hating if people want more characters that can be changed"

 

Wish you were right Owain, but I do not beleive so. Sure, folks will be warned everytime they enter a pvp area, however, I will not be exploring those areas with a push-over character, which my storyline character will be.

If I feel Im missing out, I'll create my pvp character .... folks can attack me, I will never attack first, but when they do I'll be on equal footing and not a "sheep".

Sir Asguard, that is good news! At least they are still open to having more characters per account.

 

@Xandra, if there are PvP areas, there should be no reason for a PvE player to go there, and depending on how PvP is implemented, even if you go there, you may not be subject to attack unless you have accepted a PvP enabled quest, so I think you are worrying unnecessarily.

 

Not sure how you can say there would be no reason for a PVE player to enter a pvp area, when they made it very clear that there would be reasons for a PVE player to open themselfs up to PVP.

Im fine with that, it just means (for me) making two characters with complete different skill distribution.

 

@Xandra7
Why different skills? If they need that' they've built the class system completely wrong.

As I mentioned above, different players need different motivations. But odds are, they'll give you some reason to try it but not make it a blocking issue.

 

@Xandra7, they made it clear that the opportunity for you to participate in PvP with be available, but you are by no means required to take part. it is entirely optional. Two characters are not required.

 

@PrimeRib, @Owain:
The thing about two characters, I believe, is because @Xandra7 wants to play at least once with a character that is not focused on combat, which likely wouldn't be appropriate for PvP-enabled aspects of the game.

 

Battlegrounds as a PvP mechanic is one of the worst things that have happened to MMOs, it makes PvP unpersonal and bland. Neither side knows eachother and takes 0 risk, it's just a repetetive circle jerk / wackamole. If you want something like battleground action make it mock battles arranged at an ingame arena or outside the capitol.

This is why pvp needs to happen randomly and in zones around the world, with risk involved for both parties.

 

The best PvP involves some kind of strategic campaign. The RvR of Warhammer / DaoC, WvWvW in GW2, castles sieges in other games. This is very, very hard to get the right scale and balance.

Battlegrounds take the strategic aspect out so that it's just a tactical fight. I greatly dislike how WoW and a few other games allow gear to be a difference maker in these situations. GW2 structured PvP and LoL are better examples of getting this right.

I'm not thrilled with smaller arena fights. Because once you take tactics out it's just a build and button mashing contest. I realize there are very skilled twitch players, but to me this is just one aspect of PvP and the one I find the least interesting.

I'm indifferent on open world ganking. It doesn't really add richness to the game for me and if it discourages people from playing, I want them to be able to opt out.

 

I don't care for arenas, and I don't do duels. PvP is not a spectator sport for me, it is combat operations.

 

@Warrin:

Different players have different preferences.

For me actual risk makes the game boring (because real risk makes me refuse to take any risk that is not completely necessary, removing from the game the challenging content that is the most fun for me, and having to plan ahead all the time even the little things makes the game absolutely boring) and frustrating (whenever my planning fails and I lose things).

What I prefer is little to no actual risk, so I can try actually challenging things, attempt to defeat foes I'm not supposed to win against, beat odds that are actually stacked against me and where I'm more likely to die than to succeed (as opposed to the boring, bland fake challenge common in games with harsh death penalties, which pretend that the character is in great risk but must make sure the player wins almost every time in order to keep frustration down).

As for battlegrounds, I love them. No real risk (so I can go all out and have fun doing it, and I don't become frustrated if I lose), plus everyone having effectively previously agreed to fight (allowing me to effectively attack first without being concerned if the player actually wants to fight or not), creates an environment where I can have a blast while playing PvP.

On the other hand, open world PvP without an effective opt out mechanism means I never attack because I can't be actually sure the other player wants to fight, I'm often attacked when I'm absolutely in no mood to fight, and overall makes for a very bad experience for me.

This doesn't mean that my preferred play style should be forced on everyone; players have different opinions and preferences. I'm completely OK with the game offering game modes that I don't find fun but please other players, as long as the game doesn't attempt to force me to play those game modes I dislike.

 

I would say that the effort spent on the 'non-sandbox' things LIKE the story, should not account for more effort than any other one feature.

Maybe somewheres in the *rough* estimate of <30-40% of total content.