Please stop selling us stuff and give us info about pvp so we know what we are buying.

This isn't the first thread that has been posted in PvP, and just because you start a new thread doesn't mean all past mistakes are forgiven. As for griefing the thread, I am mourning the sad state of affairs. If I could I would heal the breech and bring these two camps together. Unfortunately, that power is beyond me. Only the individuals within each group can choose to cooperate.

The vitriol with which my comment has been met is demonstration that the venom is still well in evidence.

As for wording it carefully, I just wrote off the top of my head. I hope that it didn't offend, my sincere intent was to AGREE with you, Acrylic.

It's funny, but I am WATCHING Phantom Menace as I type this, but it isn't a phantom that there have been dozens of hatemongers active on the PvP boards, loudly calling the the right to force everyone into their choice of gameplay, deriding those who did not agree.

If anyone has actually tracked my posts with any attention, they would know that I am NOT a hatemonger or a user of invective, and that I support PvP. Just not all-the-time-forced-PvP. I hope you'll see that.

 

Ok, PvP helps in one massive way. It controls the amount of roleplaying. If I had any idea how much of this much crap they would offer would have been aimed at role-playing I'd probably not have became a Founder. I understand that its a sizable community, but it is by no means the largest one. Personally I find it more than a bit depressing to deal with. I don't play Sims, I wanted a fantasy sandbox game. PvP, even tho I rarely jump into it makes a game. I love the gamble and risk of knowing its a huge possibility of a massive loss. When theres nothing to lose, theres nothing invested. Lot to lose, you get some diehard epic moments.

 

You know, when they announced the game on kickstarter they were very clear that it would be a story based game. I'm not sure how you could have missed it.

 

Actually, not true. Final Fantasy XIV (after it relaunched as A Realm Reborn) was considered a success, one of the very few MMOs that seems able to keep being a subscription game, and only now is adding some kind of PvP, which BTW is arena-only and completely isolated from the rest of the game. Final Fantasy XI launched successfully without any kind of PvP, and even now only has as PvP a kind of artillery competition and a capture the flag game.

If, besides games that launched successfully without PvP, you look at games that completely prevent PvP in the main game world and, on top of that, don't have any PvP rewards that both draw PvE players and can't be obtained in PvE, there are many other MMOs that do that. Guild Wars 1, Guild Wars 2, Neverwinter Nights Online, Champions Online, Dungeons and Dragons Online, Lord of the Rings Online, and possibly others. (I actually believe DDO launched without PvP of any kind, BTW.)

In other words, it's not uncommon to come across a long running MMO where PvP is either completely isolated or an afterthought. And there are at least two still running MMOs, and likely other ones, that successfully launched without PvP of any kind.

 

You're quoting me out of context - although I agree that substituting the word "Every" ( which is obviously an overly broad generalization ) with "majority" would have provided a truer and more accurate representation of my initial argument.

 

Your own quote was also out of contest

Though I do agree that the reasoning of the post you quoted was also wrong. PvP can be a centerpiece of MMOs — and, for quite a few, it actually is, or at least was meant to be. EVE is the prime example of a game where PvP is the center piece, and WoW is an example of a game where PvP was meant to be a center piece but the player preference forced the devs to change their way of thinking.

 

If it is not fun, they'll add more fun to the mix till the cake is sweet with fun. But not too much fun because that can lead to addictive behavior. Just fun enough that you'll play 23/7 without feeling you need to.

 

ff14 might appear to be a success, i assure you most of the is due to the brand name. having played the game its nothing more than an average theme park, heck, TERA blows that game away with sharpness, graphics and combat especially but TERA is not considered a success nor does it have the same player base.

 

That doesn't mean FFXIV isn't a success. It's not like many people would be playing the game if they weren't enjoying it, as demonstrated by the first version of FFXIV. SE dropped the monthly fee on that game and it was still empty.

 

Its kindof funny that he preaches about how horrible most mmos are in regards to hand holding about questing and pve aspects yet when it comes to pvp he totally does a 180 and holds their consensual hands to make sure nothing possibly negative or inconvenient could happen to pvers when they dont want it yet quests with icons and markers are evil and must be destroyed

Why cant i get a consensual agreement with the quest giver to hold my hand and show me where to go because obviously i need and want to be sheltered from my own stupidity and need easy mode questing be ause for some reason im forced to pve without giving my consent to do so when id rather do nothing but pvp but its odd im not being forced to do anything i dont want unless im a pvper. I didnt consent to being forced into pve.

 

I think those who wish to play PVP will be seeing PVP players thanks to the "match making", we'll see how it goes but chances are you'll be experiencing an open PVP world when you play, since you want to PVP. I don't understand why you complain still about this. You won't have to even think about the PVE players. They have to eliminate the predatory behaviour that so many PVP (PK's) tend to have with non-consensual PVP. I would play SoTA with or without non-consensual PVP, but I totally see why they avoid it.

 

Being forced to PVE in a story based rpg, seems odd huh?

 

If you don't want to ever be forced into any PvE, why are you even following a game that intends to recreate the PvE experience of the single player Ultima games, and has clearly stated so since it was first presented? Why are you following a game where one of it's main selling points is a story co-developed by Richard Garriott and Tracy Hickman?

There are games that don't force players into PvE, but those games are usually built like that from the ground up, like Planetside 2. SotA, to the best of my knowledge, never aimed at that.

 

Because he mentiond ultima online. They could have made them side by side but one side complained too much. And the constant statement to the effect of "everthing is subject to change we listen to everythigng you say"

 

Actually, given the rest of what was promised, I doubt a game where PvE is completely optional could be made. Heck, the main reason the game is divided into five (individually purchased) episodes is because the story is to be delivered in five parts. PvE, and the accompanying story, is so ingrained into the core of the game that it even has an offline mode.

 

Yes, but he's also been fairly frank about what he views as the "issues" with UO, and its unrestricted approach to PvP has consistently been on that list. He's called it out a few times, in fact, in numerous interviews. Yes, he's also called out the highly restricted PvP of games like WoW and SWTOR, but his position on the matter has always been that he wants to find a via media, a middle way, between these two extremes. (And they are extremes.)

If you came to SotA looking for a new take on "pre-Tram" UO, you either weren't paying attention to what was being said, or you were fooling yourself. That isn't to say that the developers aren't looking at a PvP system that will allow those who want to experience Open PvP to experience it to the fullest extent possible, with and against those other players who have similarly opted in to that gameplay mode. The "friends graph" and "player matching" features in SotA will likely work to ensure that PvP-minded players are able to be online with each other; everyone who wants to run around attacking others and risking attack from others will be able to do just that...while at the same time being able to explore the full world (rather than being zoned off somewhere) and complete the game's story.

The only thing that won't be possible is PK-type griefing of PvEers who have not opted in to the PvP gameplay mode. (And if that's the make-or-break issue for you, I do wish you'd just come out and say as much.)

 

All i came looking fir was a good game. There is no such thing as open pvp with consenuality being a part of it. The idea of consenting removes elements of surprise and randomness and choice. One could easily have open pvp and via the friend graph prevent ppl from pvping who dont want to instead of using a heavy handed dragnet to scoop up every aspect of pvp and put it away to the side where it can be treated like a novelty

All i hear is i dont want to be attacked. Do you guys realize you are playing a violent video game? Esenntially you are engaged by a npc against your will its no different than a player just dumberxwhich is debatable. So i want to avoidbeing attacked by npcs can i get npcs to obtain permission before they attack me? Why not? So now u see the comical level of consensual pvp. The very act of consent makes it more akin to bloated dueling than pvp

 

All I hear is Open PvP. Do you realize this is a game for more than one gamer demographic?

 

I came looking for a good game too. That's why I'm glad this won't be a 1999 UO clone, because that game was terrible.

That's right, by giving players the choice of whether or not to PvP... the game is actually removing choice. You heard it here first, folks! Whereas getting ganked by ten guys the second you step out of town with no recourse is just a choice extravaganza.

Let me be honest here: people who disdain consent the way you do creep me out. The whole reason people don't want open PvP is because they don't want people like you deciding how they'll spend their time in game. You talk about choice, but what really seems to anger you is that you won't be allowed to take away other players' choice.

If you honestly think that letting a player decide whether or not they want to risk PvP before they leave town turns it into "bloated dueling," then this is not the game for you. About the only design element that has never changed since long before the Kickstarter is that nobody will be forced into PvP. You see, the people making this game actually do care about giving the players a choice, rather than simply paying it lip service.

But to answer your question: yes, you can avoid being attacked by npcs. Just never leave town! Hey, that "choice" was apparently fine to impose on people not wanting to be ganked in UO. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

Some of that story will be PvP too.