No way to avoid pvp in full online mode?

And then the post after him is a threat to go play another game. Nice!

 

How is "go play other games" not a valid response? I know it's not necessarily kind, but surely there has to be space in the world of gaming for an RPG where you can't always avoid PvP, and that people uninterested in that possibility should just not play it?

I wouldn't go to the forums for the next Zelda game and try to turn it into a PvP-slaughterfest, I just go play another game.

My point is that we need to have both, and people need find and play their ideal game, not try to turn every game into their ideal game.

That's the kind of "mass appeal" creep that caused the death of so many MMOs, including UO.

 

Chris Spears just posted a very relevant comment <a href="https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/?topic=growing-concerns-about-single-player&amp;paged=3#post-17110">here</a>

<blockquote cite="//www.shroudoftheavatar.com/?topic=growing-concerns-about-single-player&amp;paged=3#post-17110">
The open world is NOT PVP. That rumor is being spread by some trolls in the forums. We?ve been VERY clear that PVP will be consensual and not required. The rewards of PVP will primarily be things that are only valuable to PVP?ers. You will be safe from PK?ers and so will the goods of your house unless you choose to join in.</blockquote>

 

This is not UO 2 and we are not trying to turn it into a WoW game like many of you think. Some seem to be wanting to change it into UO 2 though, don't you think.

It definately is not the right answer to tell people to go play something else when they backed what they thought was a consensual pvp game, since they were told from the start that they would not have to if they did not want too.

 

There you go, I'm happy with what Chris said.

 

I don't know what the secret to success is, but I'm pretty sure that the secret to failure is trying to please everyone.

I hope the devs realize that.

 

I think is also true that secret to failure is pleaseing the loudest few.

 

@rune_74, I think in that case you may want to speak more softly ;D

 

Lori right at the end of that conversation chris made a statement that LB and Tracy were thinking about weaving PVP into the main story in some areas, ie mandatory. This compleatly contradicted everything he had said previously

 

They talked about integrating it with the story to where it makes sense and fits in well with the story, but it was never described as mandatory, just incentivized.

 

This is speculation based on the conversation, so don't take this as a fact, but I understood it as this:


Rumors from a citizen is there are a bunch of thugs robbing pedestrians at night time. The citizen offers you a quest to escort him as he has a deadline (at night). If you get him there on time the reward will be greater. If you wait until the daytime the reward will be smaller.

The assumption is you won't always be in danger traveling that road at night, but because of the nature of the quest it will be an option with a greater reward for that quest. People who choose to PK may see the individuals on that road who are either PK ready or have taken the quest.

 

If I misinterpreted YAY, I can go back to loving the game and being all excited. All this talk of Permadeath, full loot and effectively mandatory PVP was putting me off but if that's simply not true then YAY!!!

 

@hollowtronix. Darn. No 'like' button for your post!

 

Lanatir...how old are you? Honestly, the game is no where close to alpha/beta and you are already threatening to leave the game.

"If this is how it is and i probably cant withdraw my pledge since it is already given i will need to find someone to transfer my game to."

*slaps head"

Why don't you wait and see how the game will turn out.

Grow up!

 

I could not agree more, people here who get upset because they might not get their way are an embarrassment. It reminds me of a 5 year old who doesn't get the toy they want at McDonald's.

 

@UA - You enjoy throwing money away supporting games which don't give you what you want? While I do agree it is too early to consider the game features set in stone, people who have pledged significant sums of money have every right to have their voices heard.

 

@Sirinan:
No, I read the Kickstarter first before I invest a pledge into a project. After reading that I usually decide if it's worth my investment. Then, I make sure I can financially afford it and do so without expecting a refund. I am an adult.

 

@UA - Again, the features are not set in stone. The project description is fairly vague, as you would expect with changeable features. However, as we've already seen, there is a fair bit of debate about those features and which direction should be taken, and many people (on both sides) have very strong views about certain ones I'm sure we're both aware of.

It's not an overreaction to say that the wrong choices now could well spoil the game for one group or the other. I sincerely hope that RG and team can find a way to keep all backers satisfied.

 

@Sirinan:

I agree with you on that completely, both sides should absolutely be heard. However, empty threats are childish.

 

As I said, people have strong views on this, on both sides. Heated arguments make for heated words, and things said which people might wish to retract on further consideration.