I was so excited...

There are also PvP players who want everyone into all open full loot PvP. I think the bigger thing is that having another version of PvP wth some restrictions (NOT getting rid of open PvP with full loot but having an in between option) might have some non-PvP players try it out and like it. Most of the arguments that mention restrictions are in reaction to ONLY having open full loot PvP or having that be forced on everyone.

In other words, there is a lot of misunderstanding going on.

 

So we have a full PvP slider, and a non-PvP slider (conceptually), and those are great. According to Aurora, an additional slider for PvP with some restrictions should be available. I agree. Although each slider will make the game exponentially more difficult to balance, each slider also offers a closer 'next level' to try and step up to, making it easier for players to try new styles of gameplay. To relate things to skiing (you all ski right? ), if you can comfortably hit a 10 foot jump, which will be easier: a) going to a 50 foot jump, or b) going to a 25, then a 40, and then a 50 foot jump?

 

Have you not heard about that sweet magicpvpsliderbarthingy(TM) Mordecai? It is pretty much made up from the community's dreams and will never see the light of day. But its great in concept, because it allows everyone here a way out and a way into whatever they want to do, if Dallas was behind this initial small mention of a magicpvpsliderbarthingy(TM), marketing genius!

Yet another first post UO2 full loot pvp troll, and a weak on at that, if you're gonna pretend to be a PK you need to be more creative. Also this topic is something which should easily have been picked up and put to bed by the moderators.

 

There definitely should be "wild lands" in the world that is open pvp to all that enter. Not talking about just a quest area or an arena etc. Talking about serious territory that includes villages, towns and cities. People have to realize that your "PK" might another person's hero or guard no matter what their reason is behind killing someone. Perhaps they claim terrority and defend it. Perhaps you killed someone they know. Perhaps you ran your mouth off in the forums and paid the price in game. Perhaps you are a member of a guild who is on their "Kill on Sight" list....or perhaps they just felt like killing you. The thing is, if there is true risk vs reward in killing someone, the greatest story and conflict can occur in the world we play in....to seek vengeance or engage in diplomacy....or both.

 

To the best of my knowledge the devs themselves don't know this yet. From previous interviews I believe they have all kinds of preferences there, from people that openly say that they are carebears to people that really enjoy non-consensual PvP, from people that want death to be less than a slap in the wrist to people that defend permadeath, so I would expect the internal discussions on those topics to be quite interesting

There are two aspects to that concern:

- Will crafters, RP players, etc, have progression parity between PvP and PvE? Those that are on the fence, or close to it, will likely choose the game mode that offers them the greatest advantage. This is an aspect that can (and should) be tackled by the devs.

- Are there enough crafters, RP players, etc, that like PvP in order for that play style to be viable? This one can't really be influenced by the devs; if there aren't enough of those players, those play styles might fail regardless of the devs' efforts to make them viable.

I sincerely have't the foggiest clue as for how many crafters and RPers like a PvP environment.

 

Players can just go back to the overland map, enable the single player online mode where they are completely guaranteed to never see another player, and go back to playing.

How do you reconcile this with your suggestion?

 

He might be a troll, but then again he might just be another UO fan who discovered LB's SotA and had his own vision of what that entailed. Perhaps if he exhibited clear trollish behavior you could label him more fairly, but calling him a troll for joining the huge group of people who have sought full-loot open PvP seems extreme to me. As long as PvP can be discussed with civility, the moderators aren't needed.

Yes I have heard of the slider; I mentioned it twice in the post preceeding yours. What evidence do you have to support the claim that there will be no slider? I understand that if a better system comes to light, they will use that instead, but either way the core intention of the slider will be upheld: to give all players the freedom to play the game they want in a manner which doesn't break the game for others.

 

Didn't they say there is no open PVP? What do you need a slider for if there isn't any of that.

 

Arkhan, please don't troll..

 

...It's not trolling. It's me asking what the point of it is? We're discussing features for a feature that isn't even there.

 

I believe that the one extreme of the slider (or equivalent system) will allow full looting and open PvP similar to Felucia. What leads you to think that Open PvP won't be there?

 

Depends on how you define open PvP.

One of the ideas is for everyone that chooses to be available for PvP to be put together in the same instances. So, if you "flag" yourself for PvP, you only see other players also "flagged", and so can attack anyone you can see. This seems close enough to open PvP for quite a few people in those forums that say they enjoy open PvP.

If you are thinking about open PvP as something where everyone is forced to take part, then no, it won't exist in SotA; this was revealed early during the KS drive, if not before. Of course, with this specific definition of open PvP, the slider would be impossible because it s very existence would remove the "forced" part.

 

Shroud of the Avatar is more than a UO clone (thank the virtues), and forced PVP was never a good thing. I supported the project because of fond memories of the single-player games, not UO, I would not have backed if they had promised to make this a UO clone, but they didn't and if you feel betrayed, then thats your problem.

 

I said that you were trolling because you did provide a comment that isn't a fact and seemed sarcastic (and ironically it goes against the last portion of your sentence) - sorry if I missinterpreted your post. However, I agree with you 100% that these discussions, to an extent, are a little bit pointless (in the sense that discussions take place assuming "facts" that are not facts).

Reality is, many people on these boards seem to have A LOT of time in their hands and they decide to discuss features of the game they are passionate about - I totally respect that and accept this is their right. In fact, many of these discussions do, to a degree, impact how developers see things and may (and I say "may") make them rethink their current thinking. That's the positive aspect of these discussion. The negative aspect, well, I believe we can see what happens when people disagree over topics and totally de-rail the purpose of the discussion.

I just wanted to say, if you want to keep discussing, please do it in a civilize way, non-trollable (not even a word..) way, and be tolerable of others' opinions. I am certain the game will feature a world where most people (not saying everyone because that’s extremely difficult to achieve) will get what they want. If there is not much for one to add to the conversation, just sit back and read the boards and that way discussions tend to be more productive. If one has something productive to mention or collaborate with the community, please do it – that’s what these boards are all about. Else, a lot of junk gets created (not generalizing, just stating that this tends to occur when we get a lot of nonsense discussions that aren't even close to what is truly going on at the real “kitchen”) that doesn't help anybody, especially those who are looking for real input - the development team.

Have a great day everyone and do your best to keep posts constructive.

 

I could have sworn one of the devs or someone on this forum said it's not going to have UO Felucca 2.0 mechanics...


I think we can do without the boyscout-esque posts about "trolling", Espada.

 

And why should the slider stop before felucca?

If you dont like felucca gameplay then play some other version of SOTA.

 

My point is, I don't think there is this Felucca version of SOTA that you speak of.

I also never said I don't like Felucca style gameplay.

 

I never heard some final decisions on this.

And i see no reason why developers shouldnt please all the players that have been searching for a UO2 game for more then 10 years if it is doable. Especially with the slider option.

And i'm pretty sure it would be good for the pledges.

 

I believe the actual quote is that SotA won't be UO 2.0. But I don't think the devs ever said that the game won't have similar mechanics to old UO, just that those mechanics won't be forced on everyone.

If your issue is the lack of full loot, AFAIK full loot is still on the table. It's just not guaranteed yet, and if it's included I would expect to find it as an option, not something forced on all players. The cool thing is that, should the option exist, the instancing system should be able to put together all players that choose that option, creating for those players the illusion of a game with universal player looting.

 

So why should full loot be an option you can turn off and on if you moved the slider to SOYA:s version of felucca? Some players in felucca i can loot, others not?

If that is so this is a good example of how PvE players influence developers to make SOTA felucca more and more lame.

If you play open PvP there there should be full loot.