It builds character

Have you?

Problem is, compromise can't be reached. That's a sad topic, with all that non-consensual pvp stuff, ignore list stuff and all.
That schoolboy who ganked you while you were on low hp and then implied that he had an intercourse with your mother? Oh well guess what, you can't have revenge cause he put you on his ignore list.

That guy who tricked your guild's guildmaster into letting him into the vault and then stole items worth of 3 years of history (and those cool gamemaster-made daggers too!)? Oh well, you can't hunt him down cause now the whole guild is on his ignore list. Even the kids, the women and the guildmaster's dog.

You want a good game? You'll have to enjoy it on your own in single player mode, because you're on the ignore list of those, who dislike you, and those who could pose a threat to you are on your ignore list.
And your friends are on the ignore list because, hell yeah, we have ignore lists.
Who needs immersion into a magical fantasy world when we can ignore someone just cause we can't stand playing anything other than a single player dragon farmer simulator?

You wanted to escape Trammel? Well, screw you, because now everyone's got their very own little trammel in their pocket.

So, SotA might become a good coop game, just like Baldur's, Neverwinter and so on.
Will it be a decent mmo-game tho? Time will show.

 

I'm not the one saying that being ignored is the worst thing ever in real life.

In case you missed the giant strobing characters on the dev posts, SOTA will never be an MMO. Ever.

As for your problem with ignore listing, I suspect that it will work itself out. Probably right after everyone finishes ignoring YOU.

 

Going off-topic for the thread, but:

My guess is that it's hard to find a game like that because most players tend to abandon games that allow negative player interaction, leaving games that allow players the full spectrum of good and bad interactions with too few players to properly sustain themselves. And, AFAIK, this is not new; the same process was already happening with the text-based MUDs.

Mind you, a specific piece of interaction might be negative on a character level but positive on a player level. Consensual PvP, specially if properly roleplayed, is a classic example; the characters are disagreeing and fighting among themselves while their players have actually agreed to have some fun playing that disagreement out.

As for SotA, depending on what you want exactly, the ship might have already sailed, thanks to selective multiplayer; FPO mode seems awfully similar to preemptively adding everyone not on your friend list to a default ignore list, and SPO seems the same except that it also ignores friends.

 

Is it online? It is. Does it have a lot of players? Yes. It's an mmo.

Why are you so bitter? If you got problems in real life that make you behave this way, maybe you should calm down before posting on this forum?..

Now, to Strider's post..

Maybe. Or maybe not. We don't know for sure. People actually love violence. Millions upon milions of people played Lineage 2, it used to have a little bit of looting, a lot of risk during item enchanting (you could lose stuff that took a ton of time to farm) and open PvP.
And btw, Garriott was in the dev team.
Now you read some posts from trammel guys on this forum and you could say "ah, it's probably the majority!". Maybe. Or maybe not. We don't know for sure.

Of course. I enjoyed everything that happened to me on UO. Because first of all it was a magical adventure.

Non-consensual PvP, especially if properly roleplayed, is even more of a classic example.

I believe I can survive that.

 

Nope. For many, myself included, non-consensual PvP is always a negative player interaction, one that makes the whole experience with the game worse, and this despite the fact I actually like consensual PvP.

The relative scarcity of games that have non-consensual PvP as something mandatory, together with the popularity of PvE servers in games that allow players to choose if they want to deal with non-consensual PvP or not, seems to point to this actually being a common point of view, and particularly so in the US and Japan.

 

There's also a relative scarcity of smart and capable people in real life. So being dumb is better, right?
Poor logic, dude. Just because something is not the bigger and more popular thing at a given time does not mean it's worse.

Hell, back in the day they used to burn and hang people who said the earth was not flat. Nowadays anyone can buy a book and read about planets and stuff.

 

Neither does it means the least popular alternative is better. Specially because worse and better are often subjective terms.

But it does mean that a company has a better chance at getting a revenue and staying in business by catering to the larger group. Which I often find unfortunate when it comes to gaming, truth be told, because the average player seems to want easy games; I'm often forced to use cheats to actually make games more difficult in order to get the kind of challenge I prefer.

 

You are mixing morality and economics. This game is being built to serve a community, with the implicit intent of making enough money to fund itself and maybe pay it's developers. Possibly even attract more players than it currently has?

Even IF the non-consensual PvP crowd WERE inherantly superior (which I'll just go ahead and say, no, they aren't, the best examples I've ever seen are EQUIVALENT to the high end non PvP gamers I know, and the worst are, well, griefing trolls), a moralistic crusade to impose their values on everyone else is doomed. That means it won't work, in case you got confused.

Meanwhile, recognizing what the vast majority of people in the major market areas want is NOT consenting to mass stupidity and incompetance. It's called knowing your audience, and it's one of the things those rare "intelligent and competent people" do.

 

(Totally off topic, but every time I read this thread title, all I can think of is Malak's little green crazy dude leaning over a cliff face saying, "It rubs the lotion in its skin or else it gets the hose again..."

Yes, I have a strange head. >.> )

 

I would like it to go back to jump Street.. If you are a weapon user no anatomy needed,,,, mage no meditation needed.. Thats not to say the skills have no place just no pre-requisite for what some people are referring to main skills.. Meditation was a bad example its a great skill, ill swap that for evaluating intelligence.. Let's keep it pure and simple
I also believe that would work in favor of ballance complications.

 

I LOVE this thinking. When powers become assumed prerequisites, there is no point in letting us "choose" them. Who would choose to be substandard if that's all the effect it has? When there are multiple competing methods that are all equally valid, then we get innovation, variety, fun.

 

How much customization do you want SOTA characters to have?

* None. Everyone gets the skills, you put points to the skills you plan to use, you get good at them.


The answer "None" is customization in it's purest form, everyone starts as a blank slate and has the potential to go and grow in whatever direction they naturally fall into.
You don't decide at character generation and pick the job Paladin or Necromancer or Detective or Shoe Maker, then you are locked into that 'til you quit the game.
You just start doing things and what you evolve into is what you become.
If the system is detailed it will avoid making "cookie cutter" builds and classes, if it is done at a very basic level, then at least you can be the kind of cookie you want to be.

 

So, just to clarify, because my intention in this has been misunderstood at least once before (oh for the chance to edit the poll), You want no gear effects, no powers/skills/abilities/scrolls/whatnot that doesn't directly come from the skills you level, you want no stats, no talent trees, just the skills. If you pick seven, or ten, or twelve, whatever the game allows, and I pick the same, our characters will therefore be IDENTICAL. Am I getting that right?

 

Kind of, I'll answer some of the things you are asking, or at least go into detail.
Items and gear in a magical or technological world can enhance a character and separate him/her from others of their kind as well as the behavior of the player.
But for a base character lets say you and I are standing in a toolshed equiped with two of everything, and we hear zombies approaching, you get a chainsaw and I pick up a machete and road flair.
We have both made ourselves fighters/warriors, even if we chose identical weapons it wouldn't matter, we'd just both have chainsaws, and we'd get better as we gained experience.

Look at the game Terraria, everyone is the same and starts the same, but as you gain time in the game you evolve and will become different by how you equip yourself and how you deal with situations...That's good enough for me.

So yes and no, on paper our characters may seem, or be the same, but they will not be identical because we are not identical.

 

I cant understand what r u discussing.
(maybe because I am drunk)
They should make customization like in UO at char creation.But with more options. Size of body parts (including the avatar, if you know what I mean), also you should be able to chose if u wanna be a cripple.
Good for pirates who wanna roleplay one-legged and one eyed.

You could also roleplay a total cripple. No legs, no arms, no eyes. Just lie there and beg for coins.
(and name urself iOS or Linux)

 

I love the idea, but there have already been threads crying about/against beggars and asking for gold...there will be an out-cry from the Negative Nancys, and they will once again try to stifle any freedom or individuality anyone around them displays.

 

If we cant switch out our skills (even if it costs a lot, I am fine with that) then tying us to 1 character per account is asinine. Anyone who is playing a warrior type and wants to play around with the thief skills has to rebuy the game or risk gimping their character.

I am all for a fair compromise. I know specialisation is important, especially in combat. I still think though that there should be at least a way to safely explore new options without investing anything major.

I think maybe a rare potion or trinket that you need to find by battling hard enemies and exploring would do it

 

@PlausibleSarge To my understanding, we will be able to change out our active skills and deck builds as quickly as we change out our gear. I do not know about respeccing our passives and skills, that hasn't really been solidly presented. Probably for the blindingly good reason that Portalarium hasn't finalized the system yet.

 

It someone wants to be sheltered by SotA then they should stay in the cities and out of the country and it's the same way in real fife. The wild country should stay wild!

 

So, you think that in real life people who go out into the wild are fair game?