Looting

I am all for someone being able to do screwed up crap to my Avatar as long as I can exact revenge for it.

sent from the future using my Coleco Adam

 

nevermind the whole "claimed it"... No other title has even just done it! Cause guess what... they are all the same... consensual PvP.

Commercially viable? Its at $3.5 Million in sales and hasnt made a product yet... I dont think it NOT having consensual PvP is going to affect its viability. Those kinds of arguments people side with are arrogant and ignorant. Not that you are... just that the argument is.

How can you qoute that and call that open PvP? Its essential a switch based system. Only its not calling itself that. I really dont understand the point to it. Just make a switch with a timer at that point. Open PvP means everyone is involved in making the story line. I'm still at a complete loss how the open online mode is not Open PvP... I dont get people that want to be in a open online mode but not role play with others freely.

Drives me even crazier is that they can do Open PvP with their current system. Towns are safe, People can meet in town, friend, go to friends only mode. The whole idea that "I'm going to play in a MMO style mode and can; basically, walk any place past any person and completely ignore everyone... which by the way, everyone is what a MMO style mode is about... so I can play on the internet."

I've always found it knuckleheaded. Not that people that like it are, I cant say that because it against forum rules... but I've just found the idea knuckleheaded.

 

If the KGB flags for open PvP, and we can go anywhere in the world and engage other players also flagged for PvP, that is pretty open to me. I am not interested in attacking people unwilling to be attacked, and who do not deserve to be attacked. I'm waiting to hear what Portalarium has in mind for a criminal system, because thieves and murderers are my intended targets, not lumberjacks and miners.

As far as role playing goes, I figure the miners and lumberjacks are role playing just fine, and they really aren't interested in having me 'role play' with them, involuntarily.

 

Edit: by the way, if you are flagged for Open PvP, towns are not safe. Guards might object, and I don't know how tough they are, but you can still be attacked in town.

 

According to the post guards attack you. I presume that is a full AI. in other words... guards not winning call on more guards, call on more guards and you are dead. Otherwise... its not a good system. any the team only makes good systems.

 

Maybe, maybe not. What is the spawn rate for the guards? How fast do they run. Do they have to have line of sight to respond? How easy are they to kill?

Depending upon the answers to those questions, Open PvP may be very possible in town.

 

I hope this game doesn't turn into another wow

 

Actually, EverQuest 2. It's not merely a spiritual successor, but a true successor. And it's roughly the same age as WoW; you won't find many MMOs as old as that that are still open, successors of other games or not.

It made $3.5M while promising from early on that PvP would be by consent only, so not having consensual PvP would definitely affect it's viability. It would, at the very least, be seen as a quite glaring sign that the devs are untrustworthy about their promises.

Because I want to play with others in constructive ways, not in destructive ones.

I'm a big fan of playing with others, as long as all involved players agree beforehand on what can be done. Thus, I'm not going to ever engage in PvP without the guarantee that every single player involved, to the last one, actually consented with it.

Non-consensual anything, though? I'm not going to take part. PvP is the most glaring aspect of the game where this can happen, of course, but I simply won't accept being forced into a specific play pattern by other players. If avoiding that isn't possible, or if I must sacrifice too much of the gameplay in order to achieve it, I will leave the game as a whole.

 

+1

 

Well, just to remind you; we are talking about a Spiritual successor(not a "true successor"). that includes all of the Ultima Series. Doing what everyone else is doing (including your "true successor") is defiantly not being a "Spiritual Successor".

Actually I should remind you, the quote was NOT that PvP would be by consent. RG actually "promised" Restrictive PvP. Open PvP with Safe Zones.

See this video at 35minutes and 12 seconds he talks about this. "I think so long as people know there is this Cat and Mouse game; it's perfectly fine."
The only thing he promised was that new comers would be safe at 43minutes and 20 seconds. "We will protect beginners."

So if anything, according to you; they are breaking their kickstarter "promise".

Then play in friends only mode. If it's that you want to play with strangers... then meet them in a town(which have already been declared safe) and take them into friends only mode. Your logic is not sound as it restricts freedom.

 

In that case it was a loaded question meant to not have any useful answer, since you are basically discarding any and every effort at providing a successor by the same company; and besides the MMO genre has a far longer shelf time for games than most other genres, which means that the time between a game being released and it being old enough to warrant a spiritual successor is far longer than in other genres.

I saw this video back when it was first posted; at the time I was looking for every scrap of information regarding SotA, given that I really loved the idea of the game, but would never become involved if it meant exposing myself to unwanted PvP.

RG never specified if what he describes in the video would be the only way to play the game, and if you assumed that the game world being open PvP would be the only way to play, it would directly conflicts with all the information that had already been released at the time about selective multiplayer, the hints about PvP being opt in that were in the KS page and the stretch goals, and all the hangouts where devs had explicitly said that PvP would be by consent only.

Also, see the following dev quote, from the forums:

So, everything put together, it was very clear from the start that PvP would be by consent only, as long as the player did proper research about what was being proposed for the game.

BTW, back then RG apparently talked — not only in that interview, but in forum posts and other places — from the point of view of a player perma-flagged for PvP, while Chris talked from the point of view of a player not flagged for PvP. If you want what RG described, just do the Oracle quest to be perma-flagged and you are set.

No, what I want doesn't restrict freedom. Instead, it grants me the freedom to meet with other like minded players without having to go through the clunky process you describe, all without limiting your freedom to engage in PvP as much as you want (as long as you permaflag yourself by talking to the Oracle).

 

So people have to go on a quest because you can't be arsed to make a few clicks in the UI. Nice.

sent from the future using my Coleco Adam

 

Nope. Because RG wants the concept of opting into or out of PvP to be integrated into the game lore and the way the player makes the choice immersive, so instead of a gamey switch in the UI we get a quest and some kind of entity that has an interest in this kind of conflict.

I personally couldn't care less about whether or not opting into or out of PvP uses a UI switch or a quest.

Edit: this is not an April 1st joke, BTW. RG really said something to this effect a long time ago.

 

RG has said he wants some things that haven't come to pass and possibly won't so I've learned not to put too much stock into those statements. He even wants the game to support bitcoin and wanted the game to support the Oculus Rift. You're the one who said that the friend set up is too clunky and ruins things for you. This is an example of the lack of compromise that some folks who don't want PvP to affect them in anyway are displaying.

The reason these flags even exist is because of the clamor of folks that claim to want to "feel safe." Supposedly the idea is that other players should never be able to affect your experience in a negative way but I doubt they are going to make a real effort to reduce griefing:

People pulling mobs out from under you.
People training creatures into one of your existing fights in hopes that the mob gets hit by an area effect spell and you also gain agro from another attacker.
People running into and out of your fights in a busy zone just to lag you.

The offending player hasn't attacked you at all yet they can still cause you death and a mob might get an item of yours. These are just things I've seen people make me want to PK them for in PvE games. Oh, and good luck reporting that behavior.

 

I can very simply make that statement untrue: myself and a lot of people I have spoken to would NOT have pledged if PvP was non-consensual!
So there, your false argument completely debunked: it would indeed have made a big difference...

Let's be real: if being stolen from was so much fun, why do we even have laws to prevent that IRL? Let's take it one step further for the sake of argument: Maybe game-vendors should be forced to report to the authorities those who non-consensually PK-grief and steal, so their RL behavior can be monitored more closely? Surely if they feel it is ok and fun to do in-game, they may be of the same opinion IRL?...
Let me remind you that the victims are JUST AS REAL in both cases! If you steal from a player who didn't agree to PvP, it is the same as going to their house and perform burglary... The sense of violation is the same, and *will* drive people away from the game!

PS: it's not 3.5M in sales, the majority of that amount are donations... From people who wish to be able to play a game from a team they can trust! And since the KS charter says no non-consensual PvP, they have to honor that! The original backers have been screwed over enough already!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

 

I agree with everything you said, Bodhbh... (How DO you pronounce that?) ...save this bit.
I'm an original backer and don't feel that I've been 'screwed' at all.

 

It wasnt loaded. SotA said specifically Spiritual Successor. You're the one having trouble prossesing that.

Exactly... so why are you lying and saying they 'promised' it would be consentual. The only thing they actually promised was that at a minimum; "safe paths" around the world.

Well I just showed you video of the game creator, conceptual father of the game and primary share holder saying something different. Sorry but; checkmate.

What?!?! Are you listening to yourself? "it grants the freedom to meet with other like minded players". NO it doesnt. It doesnt grant me the freedom to be exposed to players that want an Open RPG world that includes Open PvP. I'm exposed to NON-likeminded players who are affecting me in a negative way by taking resources from me with out the additional risk of Open PvP that I would have. This is more distructive to game immersion than Open PvP with "safe zones" described in that video as a minimum.

Even if they switch to a Open PvP system with safe zones as described by LB as a possible direction; it doesnt change the fact that they still have your money and they are already considered a success.

I wouldn't have pledged had I not heard LB say he loves those Open PvP stories and wants to keep them but with some safe zones (see video links I posted in earlier post) and justic mechanics. I was under the impression they would have a primailly open PvP world with a "safe" way for people that just want to play for the story line to travel. So welcome to reality bub... they can change this to anythign they want and WHY you and others donated is irrelivent.

Let's be real(and use an example from your book): if getting murdered was so much fun, why do we even have laws to prevent that IRL? Wh ydo we let these NPCs and monsters Murder people. They shouold deal no damage via your argument.

You play the game with a story line you expect that the monsters will attack you. You play the game online with other players, you expect them to attack you. Just like that you stay safe in towns to be safe from the monsters, you do the same against players.

Your argument is full of holes and completely debunk'able.

 

It's pronounced "Bov", with the last 'v' being almost silent. [I know I'll be going to open myself up to ridicule now, but it sounds a lot like "Bo Derek":"bo[v] der'g"]

I'm glad you feel that way, I *do* feel that the original backers have gotten the shorter end of the straw on a number of occasions... But that won't diminish my enjoyment of the game... The OP's suggestion *would* cause me to not play, and such a huge departure from the stated goal during KS would probably even open them up to litigation, since it would demonstrably not be what people pledged for, and thus a refund request might be enforcable, which something *I* know would not want to happen for the game/community!...

I would've gladly pledged up to Edelmann, and then the founder gifting thing came, and I seriously considered *not* pledging any further at all. In the end I decided to jump on the gifting-bandwagon, and make the best of it, since the floodgates had been opened and could not be closed again! In the end I spent more than I would have, because I went all the way to knight *and* am trying to get my son (11, almost 12) a decent pledge as well. (Something I would not do in an FFA environment either!)

 

Negative... If it becomes demonstrable that what they built is NOT what you pledged for, they have legal issues under US Law. Additionally they wish to do R2-R5. Screwing their backers in such a way as you describe would wipe ANY chance of that ever being successful!

That part of the argument I considered, but since that would only apply if a death meant end of avatar/account, and you will never ever be able to play this game again, I disregarded it.
I am pretty sure even *you* would not enjoy the consequences then! Esp. since it would be likely that even if you win, your own avatar would still very likely be caught and executed, costing you your account as well... Aside from the fact that this would bring a very quick end to the game, this would be the realistic consequence.

Theft - both In Game and IRL - OTOH does leave hurt people IRL, and forcing that risk on people who wish to escape from RL by playing SotA would discourage a lot of people from playing.

Why is it SO extremely hard for FFA proponents to realize they are a minority, even among the PvP crowd, which - according to the SotA team (including RG!!!!)** - is a minority of the total base. So you're a minority of a minority... IOW: The majority of people do NOT want this.


Why is it such a big problem to you that you cannot attack everybody you want? You can't attack all NPCs either... What's the difference?
And why do you think it is strange that a lot of people, incl. PvP proponents, consider this grieving, and nothing else?

** RG and SL have knowledge of the actual numbers involved with UO, so please do not deny that they know what they're talking about here...

 

NOTE: The post I was responding to has since been deleted!...

Using links to do personal attacks is still a personal attack and against the forum rules. Furthermore fine print will never prevail over law, not even in the US! They can only do so much in fine print, and as soon as fine print goes contrary to law, it becomes invalid! I guess it is not me who is lacking...

So you are allowed to force your dictatorial play style on me, but not the other way round? Interesting!

I could say the opposite, that you aren't the TRUE role players, just grievers wannabee's, upset that you won't get to grieve the way you want to! (I am not saying so, just using this for demonstration purposes.) It's the personal-attack, [near-]grieving behavior here on the forums by a number of PvP/FFA proponents that makes people dislike PvP as a whole. Which IMHO is unjustified, it's just a small group ruining it for others!

I don't care what happens between PvP-ers (as long as it is consensual), and dislike the current loot suggestion too, but forcing PvP on everyone is worse, and not a solution for the suggested system!

(PS: Respect needs to be earned)