Looting

Exactly the point. This game is billed as the spiritual successor. That is exactly why PvP is so hotly debated in these threads.

 

It's also supposed to be commercially viable, which is why open PvP won't happen.
I've got no problem with PvP as long as I can opt out of it, and I'd wager that there are more of me, than there are people who want to be able to freely victimize whomever they feel like whenever they feel like.

 

Open PvP is already part of the proposed game design.

From the PvP/Death Megapost:

 

Depending on your definition of Open. Let me change the work I use to "Unregulated" or "Uncontroled," or "Unlimited," which would truely be Open, as the paragraphs you site are Controled, Limited, and Regulated.

I have no problem with what is proposed in the piece you quoted. As I could walk through the middle of a battle between two guild and be unaffected.

 

It already is. A game doesn't need WoW numbers to be successful.

You obviously haven't read, or paid any attention to, the PvP mega-post.

 

Well, I'll go with the definition as provided by the game developers. That way, people know what I'm talking about.

 

If that were the measure, there would be only One 'successful' game. And This game cannot be commercially successful as yet because it's not even published yet.

See above.

 

If you are worried about "Unregulated" or "Uncontroled," or "Unlimited" PvP, you are in the wrong place, because PvP on SotA will be none of the above.

 

Wonderful. Then let us disavow those that believe it will of that notion, shall we?

 

I do so regularly. People request many things, but that is all they are, requests, and requests do not reflect positively or negatively on the current design of Shroud of the Avatar. The developers have asked us for suggestions, but only after suggestions have been accepted and adopted in the current design should they be considered part of the game, so don't confuse the suggestions with the design.

 

The design is also not fixed... And just as you stood up for those who had been wronged with determination and passion, I will continue to campaign against those that would have the ability to abuse others built into the game until such time as the design is final and their wishes become unattainable.

 

If participation is by mutual consent, I do not agree that it is abuse.

 

Neither do I... Do you not believe that there are voices here that wish the ability to victimize anyone at any time?
I believe I've made it abundantly clear that I have no issue with anything done between consenting participants.

 

It's not abuse it's just winning. It will be a choice.

 

I got the impression yesterday that you were of the opinion that if a player had invested a lot, particularly in their gear, even if PvP was by consent, it would be fundamentally wrong to engage them at all. I guess I didn't understand your intent.

 

I totally agree but I don't think the part of UO that we want is being 'spiritually succeeded'.

It seems his place is full of the wow crowd.

 

Any activity that is mutually agreed upon by all participants is OK by me.
I've no wish to interfere in any consentual activity agreed to by willing participants.
I also wish to be able to withhold consent from any activities in which I do not wish to participate.

Is that clear?

 

I think you are in agreement with the vast majority of SotA contributors.

 

I hope so, though there are those voices... the OP of this thread... the OP of another thread supporting the freedom to steal from whomever he wishes (Proclaiming how fun it was and how long it kept him playing the game, with no hint of consideration of how many he may have driven from it) who do not agree.

Those people I will campaign against until such time as their wishes are buried permanently.

 

Shouldn't be a hard concept to sell, since the devs are committed to PvP only by consent.