I don't get all the concerns about Open PvP

Loosing over half your skill stats once your murdering character killed should be enough to make murder a thing most would think twice to endeavor in. Yet if the PK PvP want and desire is for a more real life concept in~game... then Time in reality has an answer;

In these days of real life jails are surely not as harsh as they were 100 years ago, much less 400-1000 years ago. A bit of harsh food if you were lucky in those days would be a blessing and I'm sure that after the "Rack" or a stay in an "Iron Maiden" a while would surely mess up your bowling game or any weapons wielding or spell casting. A Thief in those days would loose a hand or an arm, as well as a Long Bowmen would loose his finger/s or a suspected wizard or witch burned, drowned, head placed in vise etcetera.
Yet these are things that happened if "caught", while most of our online murderers meet their end in most cases as dead. And dead is just that and what the word implies, "Dead" and non-returning.

Most murderers of old UO posted and spoke of their play style as being or making the game more real, yet with no "real" consequence for them in the mirror of it all.

"I fought the law and the law won"... and that's a reality... "live by the sward, die by the sward".. ditto..

Reality... what a concept!
~Time Lord~

 

@titusprime : great tone there for this delicate section of the forum even more so since you're an open pvp enthusiast (if I'm not mistaken). I'll come here and read this post again and again when I lose faith in this forum

 

Let us wonder of what a battle may be made within our new world's parameters and suppose together what one may be;

"The Knights of the Swollen Backsides" vs. "The Knights of the Swollen Egos"
(A short Guild War story by Time Lord LoL)

Parameters: We can only field something like 50 people total to ever be seen by each other or play together. (we must wait and see whatever will be possible)

KSB has been heap of the top in many guild war conquest battles and has had many casualties.
KSE has been gearing up to make their challenge as heap of the top... (heap of the top= HOT)
KSB has endured stats and skill loss across all their major members and cowers from the challenge.
KSE calls KSB wimps on the forum and continues in posting their challenge.
KSB having cowered before KSB finds some new recruits willing to take to the field with all it's successful war veterans that had not died in their previous conquests.
KSB accepts war with the KSE which results in some open hunting raids on some of the wondering guild mates of both sides.
Both KSB and KSE think these are cheap shots and decide to meet and settle the challenge once and for all.
Both KSB and KSE have a set of injured or otherwise reserve Knights ready to replace those who fall.
KSE meets the KSB on the field of battle and thus ensues the first battle.
After beating each others brains, stats and skills down to the bone, one or both guilds decide that they surrender, or the they come to truce with the later victor or the new winner having won the day.
Or, both guilds ambush each other throughout all eternity, thus creating their own style of PK without such heavy losses as a true murderer may be held accountable in even heavier stat/skill loss for.

The open combat PK (if there is ever such a thing in our game, LB has mentioned in a vid I saw that possible shipments of stuff cross country may have a hint thrown out in game that a caravan will be being sent somewhere). I'm truly unsure what they have in mind and possibly none of us do until the final product comes out. If there is ever a "final product" as patches will always be in the works. But if and when a PK is killed, I would like for that death to mean something in consequence or what's the point in saying it's really dangerous to be one. Because leading a dangerous life is the only thing that makes any PK admirable.
ie) "The hole in the wall gang was the hole in the wall gang because it was a short lived life to continue until caught or dead"... send the murderers back to "GO" as I'm sure they had hid their short lived spoils in or to another surviving non-murdering gang member. Risk equaling reward as well as punishment of total death or severe stat and skill loss.

The nerf player will want to play a game that dose not "always have" ambushers waiting outside town. I'm sure everyone is well aware that we do have to sell this game to the masses in order to have a continuing future. This means that.. lets say Big John wants to buy this game for Little Johnny. If Little Johnny gets so angry it makes his grades slip in his school work or begins to lash out at Mom and Dad, "Then the game will never prosper in that market", (The Largest Market).!

So for product marketability, I'm almost certain that we will not be seeing totally open PvP no matter how "we feel". Yet if Grand Lord Big Stick of the KSB asks him if he wants to join his cause and learn some PvP under his wing, then I think that this will be the most healthy way for Little Johnny to learn in a less frustrating way.

We cannot PvP Bravado ourselves out of a having a more marketable game because Trammel saved UO's marketability and the PvP privet shards never had many numbers to ever match what EA/UO retained.

The moral to all this, if there is one, is that "The Knights of the Swollen Ego, will have to appeal to the masses and not just the few". Thus fulfilling what Lord British has prophesized, "you can play with those you enjoy playing with"

"I just don't want a fantasy flag football PvP here when I want one something more PvP real"

~TL~ (off his soap box)

 

UO PvP private shards at their prime time had loads of players. Some of the bigger ones had +100.000 followers on their forums, one even had +150.000. Put them all together in their prime time and they were not far behind the original game. Felucca PvP players left after AoS and joined these freeshards. That is one of the main reasons why the original game lost subscribers after AoS.

And isnt it interesting that the games that sell the most on steam last weeks is open PvP full loot games with risk vs reward and consequences like Rust and DayZ. They have both been the top sellers for weeks. Ok they arent fantasy MMO PvP games but what i wanted to point out is that loads of players like consequences and risk vs reward in their game, gamers with that kind of mentality are far, far more in numbers then some claim. There is a huge market for open PvP with full loot and Rust and DayZ are two good examples of just that. And i am 100% sure SotA would have had many times the pledgers if it would have been announced as the next UO felucca game with open PvP, full loot, risk vs reward and consequence gameplay. My guild alone would have provided +50 pledgers to such a game, as it is now i am the only one.

 

Wolves will always want more sheep...

With this new system of choosing the style of player you wish to play around, we will be able to be more free to choose which we want in social interactions. So, if there is a large PvP PK population, we will be able to choose playing with more wolves if we choose to do so. I can't see forcing everyone to what any mass wants, when all the masses are getting what they want.

There has also never been a free privet shard listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Free was free "with voluntary donations", so there was never any free shard that made the money that EA did or dose, or what Polarium will.

No one is saying that we can't play with likeminded players in Polarium that I know of. We can beat each others brains in the new SotA if "we want to"

Freedom of choice is good$$$
~TL~

 

You cannot compare any MMO with DayZ.

If DayZ required you to train up your aiming, your sprinting and such, it wouldnt be popular at all, i can guarantee it.
It's like saying that you can compare CounterStrike with WoW, which you can't.

The problem with open PvP with full loot in an MMO is that the losers almost always spend ALOT more time and lose alot more than the other person can win.

Example:

DayZ , i can jump in, get an weapon in the first 2 minutes and go around on a rampage. Die, rince and repeat . Ok sometimes it takes an hour, but you get my point. There is not much to lose as you EASILY get new stuff again.

Sota ( and other MMOs ) usually require loads of times in training characters, finding special rare items, spending time mining to be able to craft... and someone runs around and kills you, for absolutely no reason, probably wont even take your stuff...

You cant compare it.

 

@Ara

It's not really that interesting....

Rust and Day Z are both genre heavy games, which might explain the purchases, not the fact that they have Open PVP and full loot. PvP/Loot are just aspects of the games that the developers felt were vital to telling the story in the game and increasing immersion. These are not really vital to telling the story of SotA as far as I can tell, but they sure do reflect the nature of a Post-Apocalyptic-Zombie-Infested-Wasteland type of game. Finally these two games are the current 'flavor of the month' and will drop off quickly as they are replaced by new games.

We have discussed this topic in full on other boards. You will get to have PvP with the people who want to PvP with you. It appears that this is the system they are working on and the results will show whether the majority likes Open PvP or dislike it.

I'm betting that the majority will not be inclined towards it but we shall see.

 

When it comes to replacing items old UO and Rust and DayZ are very much comparable, gear was easily replaced in old felucca UO.

My point was that players that enjoy risk vs reward and consequences are way more in numbers then some claim and i believe SotA as a new felucca UO game would have had more pledgers then they have now. Alot more.

 

You are just guessing, nothing else. Please dont try to make it sound like facts.

How can you tell that it would have alot more pledgers, When close to zero information about the pvp system has been announced? What makes people decide not to pledge, based on information they dont have?!

Ofcourse we havnt reached the full amount of pledgers, FAR from it.. More will come the more information is released, and the more we can test.

 

My point was that even though they both have risk vs reward and consequences as full loot and a open PvP enviroment millions play them. So obviously there is a huge market for those type of games.

Some on these forums claim we that we that enjoy such a gamestyle are vanishing few in numbers but they are clearly wrong in their assumptions. Open PvP with a risk vs reward gamestyle as old felucca had would have been way more successful.

 

@Timelord: No, I do not agree with your pseudo-science marketing claim that open PvP will be a failure. This is total nonsense, the opposite is true. In a marketing sense the game can compete head to head with games such as Elder Scrolls Online, World of Warcraft, etc. However, a game which captures a niche audience and provides a subscription model that is not pay by month the game can thrive in that market. It totally distinguishes itself from its competitors and has a much higher chance than if it clones the rule sets present in those other games.

"There has also never been a free privet shard listed on the New York Stock Exchange."

This is true for every server, please give me a case where any server public or private that was listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Some private servers have made plenty of money in donations, one such server is IPY.

Darkfall, Mortal, and the many other Ultima Online clones have failed to prosper because there is no consequence for murderers. I can agree with you that murderers should suffer from harsh consequences, but no so harsh as to eliminate the thought of ever becoming one. This may force players to create a stable base to operate from prior to becoming an outcast. The fact is there cannot be a "murderer" without victims. Thus, there should be quests to force players to leave their comfort zone. This may upset a few players who are strictly PvE, but if they can survive without those resources/rare items present in the PK zone then the victor deserves the spoils.

@Ned888: I agree with your opinion on Day Z's "genre heaviness." It is not a flavor of the month game however, the mod was immensely successful with Arma. This resulted in a fully funded stand alone game pushed by the creators of the Arma series. Day Z has also spawned spin-offs, it is far from a flavor of the month game. It is an interesting new genre which integrates the FPS genre with looting, vehicles, tents, helicopters, zombies, etc. It has passed the stage of flavor of the month a long time ago, I suggest you look into it more.

@Arradin: Not true, Ultima Online's test center had a similar style of gameplay. It wasn't an FPS per se, but it most certainly was an interesting combination of different elements which make a game fun and addicting. These elements are not bound by genre, that statement is absurd.
"The problem with open PvP with full loot in an MMO is that the losers almost always spend ALOT more time and lose alot more than the other person can win."
This statement is simply wrong. A murderer has the risk of skill loss, this means that a murderer must spend several hours before they can resurrect. This is the way it worked in Ultima Online and it was quite effective.

@titusprime:
"I assume this was a reply to me. I am sorry that the link did not route back to results of my search except that one email. It had originally shown thousands of threads with replies to them of about the same as the one listed received. I was making a point not providing proof; which is impossible since this about an opinion. I thought that by showing that for every one person who said pvp was fine, 10 to 14 hated the way things were; not just one or two cry babies."

I was responding to your claim on the link that stated it was proof. Players get angry when they die, this is a fact. Those same players also often usually get over it after their tirade. I have witnessed this several times during the early days of Ultima Online. This does not mean that developers need to enforce restrictions on the way the game is played. Players may quit, but a lot of those same players will also return when they realize there is nothing out there that can replace that feeling of adrenaline and excitement provided with that experience. This is clearly illustrated by the prevalence of free servers with a combined population of thousands of players. It may not be a few million subscribers like World of Warcraft, but it does not have to be.

I want meaningful open PvP combat. I do not want a game where developer imposed restrictions prevent players from interaction. This should be handled by the community, but becoming a murderer should indeed have consequences. This is what made the murderer a fun role to play in Ultima Online. You were an outcast living off the fat of the land. Anyone who trespassed on your domain could be sought out and destroyed. People who wandered into your private home without express permission were guilty of trespassing, who could also be killed. More to the point, murderers had a rough life after the implementation of stat loss. This was for the better forcing players to really consider the consequences before becoming a murderer.

 

I dont think anyone can predict how many players each "camp" has, simply because the players of either "side" are spread over many games, not just one.

 

Yes it is my personal view and i never claimed anything else. Rust and DayZ are not guessing anything though, they are both very successful and have a gamestyle as the one i described, risk vs reward and open PvP with full loot.

 

Im sorry, are we talking about the same test center? The one where the rampage of PKers was even worse due to the instant skills and gear? Interresting gameplay? Not so much for most, atleast it was for a very short time.
Your comments are extremely biased, as you on purpose chose the best case scenarios out of one point of view, and to claim that Murderers in UO involved ENOUGH RISK for the 'rewards' they were getting, is insane.
Even with the Penalty of statloss, the ability to have several characters unbound made it easy to just jump on another IF they ever died from running around griefing newbies, RPers and Miners, looking for the easy cash.

I have already suggested several things to punish PKers more , the most important ones are Statloss and shared karma ( So if one character is a murdered, they all are, harhar ) , just to make it a less easy decision to be a 'professional' PK in Sota.

" Hey look at me - Im a kewl PK - But only when i feel like it "
or
" Oh look, a poor PK he must have a really difficult time wherever he go "

 

Wow is even more popular, and it DOESNT have full pvp , and doesnt have any kind of loot system at all, But somehow i doubt you think that we can compare SOTA and WoW, even if its 10 times more accurate comparison than Sota and Dayz......

 

By accommodating people, we won't see anyway and wouldn't be here, if SotA were any other way?

hmm.. advertising is a weird subject in Player Wars and free fire zones...
It makes my head hurt thinking of all those innocent boring people playing farming games and don't see the true value of head bashing by the domineering "majority"?
So I guess you're right and we should kick out all those players that pledged wanting to grow crops so we could have a bigger wee

But then it would be an entirely different game that's been done already and would nullify all that's been invested in the new "play with whoever you want to system"...
I guess anyone that ever played the Sims would be out in the great PvP~wee'
The reasoning in this advertising curve still makes my head hurt
~TL~

 

From what I've seen, since 2004, in general, for persistent multiplayer online games that feature third person perspective, are fantasy themed, and developed for the north american audience...

-punitive mechanics don't attract more customers.
-some customers will leave, immediately & forever, if they feel victimized, without their consent, in any way.
-niche titles have a very short lifespan.

Given that, I would think it would be more constructive to encourage customer participation in direct player conflict with LESS harsh, but equally effective consequences, for behavior that is considered "bad". Entirely possible, technically.

Similarly, if it's not "bad", why would you punish the player for playing the game the way it's intended? If it's not intended that the player engage in that play style, why is it in the game?

It's a real shame Portalarium has waited so long to provide clarity on direct player conflict. Pathfinder Online, as a counter-example, has been very up front that it is both a tight niche title, and that direct player conflict has been part of the public design from the start. Their target audience for launch? 4000 customers.

 

@ arradin:
No. Ultima Online did not feature magical compasses and flashing icons which appeared above quest givers heads. Ultima Online also was not an amusement park style, gear centric game. Thus, there is little comparison between the two. Several features are entirely different, whereas some of the features between TEST CENTER and Day Z have elements in common. Whereas, this was not the case with normal servers (Catskills, Pacific, Baja, etc.).

@Timelord:
Growing crops, mining, fishing, and even cooking were all features of Ultima Online. These features worked well and were integrated in an open PvP environment. The expected population of Ultima Online was 10,000, this goal was far surpassed during the beta. This is why people are so curious as to why players have a problem with an open PvP system, hence the title of this thread.

A significant reason people lost so much gear was because Ultima Online was a new game. Players expected that they could hoard resources in their backpack and did not have to make periodic stops at a bank or house to stash their resources. This expectation has changed, the presence of a myriad of MMORPG's has required players to become more comfortable in an online environment. Although WoW, Everquest, Age of Conan, EVE online, Darkfall, and Ultima Online were quite unique and all different from each other there were similarities in common. Thus, the player is now aware of the dynamics of an online world inhabited by both players and NPC's.

The distinguishing feature between games which resemble Ultima Online more than the others mentioned (Darkfall, Mortal Online, etc.) is that in those games there was no consequence for murderers. This is unrealistic and was not present in Ultima Online around the time skill loss was implemented. Players loved the world of Britannia, which is evident by the several players who continue to play the game to this day. Ultima Online is more successful than the original Everquest, which has lost an enormous number of subscribers and Everquest 2 is dwindling as well. The number of subscribers in World of Warcraft is decreasing as well, the number of subscribers is nowhere near their peak of 10,000,000.

Perhaps we should redefine our definition of success (number of players during peak era) to sustained population. Better yet, perhaps the measure of success should be how often an MMO is imitated. Ultima Online introduced the world to MMO's. Sony quickly realized the potential of profit from a subscriber based game similar and consequently Everquest was released. World of Warcraft is based on Everquest which derived many ideas from Ultima Online...

 

-I don't think there's been a well designed punitive mechanics system in a game yet that ties in with story. Or Justice system. I haven't seen a game yet where the victim has a way of being recompensed for his losses.
If that existed, perhaps those who died once wouldn't quit the game right away.. It might not attract people, but perhaps it could retain them.

- People who would quit the game right away if ever victimized without consent don't need to play in full/open pvp mode. They could play in selective PvP mode. (I really hope there is a toggle in OWO for full/open PvP-Loot world and a seperate one for purely consensual PvP.) I just hope that in this Open PvP-Loot world, a new system and set of punitive mechanics is created that actually controls the PK population, protects innocents and avoids creating a free for all. I think hex system will be great in helping establish safe zones if you want avoid the risk of open PvP.
Figuring out how switching back and forth between all the modes I'm sure is certainly one of the reasons why they are reluctant to speak about it.

 

I am an avid PvP supporter and PK supporter, yet I would like to see names rise to fame and then eventually fall in search of the greatest PvPers and PKers of all time. "That would be awesome to see who is and who is not". I like my games Top PvPers and Pkers to have a top and not just some "res/play it again sam" consequences. When an army has been beaten back to the stone age, I want those battles to be remembered for their bravery and I want the great PK that ravaged the land to be never heard of again for a long long time. but remembered as the truly bold outlaw heroes they were..."were"...

"Because bravery only has true fame as great as it's risk and risk as great as it's end"

I am also in favor of free fire zones. But these have to work inside whatever new social game mechanics that SotA has as yet fully revealed to us.

But I also want it safe enough for a child to not hurt their grades in school because he was angry at some online upsetting event, because that's who needs a Trammel. And I surely would not want to exclude them from having a place in our game.
~TL~